Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[Moonbox]

What does this have to do with Jewish support in the next election now?

[benny]

What does this have to do with Jewish support in the next election now?

Read the thread!

[jdobbin]

I doubt Ignatieff would have done better than Dion to cope with the 1995 referendum.

Since he wasn't associated with the referendum or the Clarity Act, I don't know that Ignatieff would had that baggage.

Moreover, if Ignatieff had been leader, it is entirely possible that Lapierre would have stayed as MP in Outremont. Lapierre had plenty of Jewish support but he appealed widely to most federalists in the riding.

[jbg]

I think there is a tradeoff Grits and Tories have to envision in Canadian elections between obtaining Jewish support and Quebecers support.

What about the many Anglophone Jewish residents of Montreal? Do they count or to you are they non-persons?

[jbg]

Fundamentally, it is a non-issue because democracy, in the end, chooses terror over any ideologically-driven peace.

What true Western democracy has chosen terror?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What about the many Anglophone Jewish residents of Montreal? Do they count or to you are they non-persons?

There simply isn't enough in any one riding that will cause a vote swing.

[myata]

I think the issue here is that the Liberals have realised that Iggy's face by itself won't carry them into the majority and they are now trying to be all things for all people. With phylosophical background, that wouldn't be hard to achieve, at least on the level of polemics. Would the strategy add or take away votes in the overall count, remains to be seen.

Fundamentally, it is a non-issue because democracy, in the end, chooses terror over any ideologically-driven peace.

Our consumer democracies certainly jump too easily to the same things they like to condemn and mourn in other times and places (unprovoked wars, extrajudicial practices, meddling in other parts of the world). I have high doubts any kind of a just and peaceful order in the world can be established with such approaches, and collectively, we may have a long road ahead. With both leading parties in Canada now exercising the same viewes on international policy (the one based on immediate benefits and ideological associations, as opposed to declared principles), it does not appear likely that Canada would take any significant role in these developments.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think the issue here is that the Liberals have realised that Iggy's face by itself won't carry them into the majority and they are now trying to be all things for all people. With phylosophical background, that wouldn't be hard to achieve, at least on the level of polemics. Would the strategy add or take away votes in the overall count, remains to be seen.

Our consumer democracies certainly jump too easily to the same things they like to condemn and mourn in other times and places (unprovoked wars, extrajudicial practices, meddling in other parts of the world). I have high doubts any kind of a just and peaceful order in the world can be established with such approaches, and collectively, we may have a long road ahead. With both leading parties in Canada now exercising the same viewes on international policy (the one based on immediate benefits and ideological associations, as opposed to declared principles), it does not appear likely that Canada would take any significant role in these developments.

I would hope that we do not because we don't really have much for a foreign policy. Until we do, I don't think it wise at all. Minority governments have that effect on our public, a lack of true concensus all the way around.

[benny]

Our consumer democracies certainly jump too easily to the same things they like to condemn and mourn in other times and places (unprovoked wars, extrajudicial practices, meddling in other parts of the world). I have high doubts any kind of a just and peaceful order in the world can be established with such approaches, and collectively, we may have a long road ahead. With both leading parties in Canada now exercising the same viewes on international policy (the one based on immediate benefits and ideological associations, as opposed to declared principles), it does not appear likely that Canada would take any significant role in these developments.

I think that as long as Quebec is not kicked out of Canada, Canada will be forced to realize democracy means terror. Quebec is an unfinished endeavor of Robespierre's "terror is virtue" movement inside the French Revolution.

[myata]

It is obvious that you want the exact date and hour.

That is what the word used by you means in the normal lexicon, and you said that it's been defined and provided a reference, yet it did not contain any such information. So now Dobbin please retract you reference either as yet another regrettable confusion, or as a intentional attempts at a fradulent use of reference.

It is why I showed a few links to indicate that why you won't get one other than the government was determined to get it done and soon.

You certainly want to believe that, yet there's no factual confirmation that such schedule exists.

You have seen the link a few times now. Washington Post = 8000 people.

And the source only quoted Mr Wallerstein. Perhaps because it did not have an independent confirmation of the numbers and it's far more honest with respect to the referenced material than you.

Show me your numbers for the settlements in question. Not numbers that you guess at but a specific reference to the numbers now.

Nice strategy Dobbin. First you post a number for which you provided no credible confirmation, when asking me for a "specific reference"?! Gimme a break. If you want your point be accepted, it's your responsibility to provide factual material that confirms it. To help you though, I did post a report by a professional news agency, that described one outpost in significant level of detail, so it's your turn to come up with something more credible than a vested interest party for the source of your information, or withdraw it as yet another unconfirmed hearsay that you can wait to jump to take as blessed truth, without doubt due your unwavering committment to world peace.

The Washington Post does what most newspapers do: they fact check. You don't like the numbers you are hearing so you attack me.

They checked the fact that Mr.W said what he said, and reported it duly. You're trying to sell it for something they never said, blatantly and shamelessly. No doubt because in your mediation for peace you simply cannot come up with more credible allies than leader of the illegal settlement activities.

Show me your numbers of settlers.

Nice try. You're responsible to confirm information you post, not I, Dobbin.

Show me contrary numbers for the settlements. Don't guesstimate based on a report in a newspaper on one settlement that may or may not be slated for closure.

999. Sucked out of finger "information" does not become true simply becase there's no other, more credible data.

I happen to believe in the Washington Post. They independently check numbers given to them. If their were contrary numbers, they would have mentioned them.

998. They verified that Mr.W said what he said, and duly reported it, and you're trying to make it for something they never said, shamelessly.

Not at all. I gave you the link from the beginning that the exact day and hour would not be announced.

So you admit that you have no factual confirmation that the schedule exists, and your earler posting the reference as proof of it has been fradulent?

Sorry if you don't trust the Washington Post and their ability to verify numbers.

997. They verified that Mr.W said what he said, and duly reported it, and you're trying to make it for something they never said, shamelessly.

If Hamas was prepared to come to the terms of the Oslo agreement which you said was a success, it would mean big difference. Or do you disagree?

Any new party joining peace negotiation is a good development. At issue is that it has to be a genuine peace process which this one is so obviously far from, not in the least because it ignores, refuses to act, and tacitly encourages creeping annexation, which is simply another form of agression. You can't righteously condemn violations from one side, and completely ignore those from the other, without losing all credibility and simply associating yourself with one side in the conflict.

Illegal settlements isn't their main problem. Israel existing is.

Yet we're trying to answer the question why you do not act, and pretend to not notice, when Israel also violates the declared agendas of peace?

If they don't agree to Israel's existence at all and are prepared to send children out as bombs, they will be identified as a terrorist organization.

We already did that, and now, what did we do, or do you propose to do when Israels continues massive expansion of settlements despite all your half hearted, pretense rhethorics?

You seem to think that settlements is the only thing that motivates them. It isn't. If Israel was to exist, they would still be under attack because the goal is to take all Israel.

Again thinking for me, Dobbin? But here's what I tell you. I'm not thinking about Hamas, but about you, as a self proclaimed mediator of peace, why you are prepared to condemn and act against violations of peace by Hamas, but not when the other side violates them persistently and massively in their own way? Is this because you're simply an associate of one side in the conflict, and your claim to mediation simply has no ground in reality?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When Hamas gets the boot, or those poor folks quit killing Jews, I will support efforts of peace. Until that day the terrorists can live by the sword and expect to die by it.

[jdobbin]

That is what the word used by you means in the normal lexicon, and you said that it's been defined and provided a reference, yet it did not contain any such information. So now Dobbin please retract you reference either as yet another regrettable confusion, or as a intentional attempts at a fradulent use of reference.

I told you at the time that you weren't going to get the exact hour and date. It is amazing what you will get worked up over.

You certainly want to believe that, yet there's no factual confirmation that such schedule exists.

Aside from the Israeli prime minister saying it will happen.

And the source only quoted Mr Wallerstein. Perhaps because it did not have an independent confirmation of the numbers and it's far more honest with respect to the referenced material than you.

Go to the Washington Post will your problem. I haven't seen any corrections pointing to your 100 settlers only.

Nice strategy Dobbin. First you post a number for which you provided no credible confirmation, when asking me for a "specific reference"?! Gimme a break. If you want your point be accepted, it's your responsibility to provide factual material that confirms it. To help you though, I did post a report by a professional news agency, that described one outpost in significant level of detail, so it's your turn to come up with something more credible than a vested interest party for the source of your information, or withdraw it as yet another unconfirmed hearsay that you can wait to jump to take as blessed truth, without doubt due your unwavering committment to world peace.

You always ask me for a specific number. Give me a specific number for the 23 settlements.

I gave you the Washington Post link and you are not happy with it.

They checked the fact that Mr.W said what he said, and reported it duly. You're trying to sell it for something they never said, blatantly and shamelessly. No doubt because in your mediation for peace you simply cannot come up with more credible allies than leader of the illegal settlement activities.

Give me the actual number then. Come on. It can't be that hard.

Nice try. You're responsible to confirm information you post, not I, Dobbin.

I did. 8000 according to the Washington Post. I have seen no correction to that number despite your outcry.

999. Sucked out of finger "information" does not become true simply becase there's no other, more credible data.

You just extrapolated information but it certainly wasn't about the 23 settlements.

998. They verified that Mr.W said what he said, and duly reported it, and you're trying to make it for something they never said, shamelessly.

Give me the correction then.

So you admit that you have no factual confirmation that the schedule exists, and your earler posting the reference as proof of it has been fradulent?

Nope. There is a schedule.

997. They verified that Mr.W said what he said, and duly reported it, and you're trying to make it for something they never said, shamelessly.

They fact check every statement according to their journalistic oath.

For example, the checked every fact given by Deepthroat. As we found out, it wasn't an imaginary person and every fact checked out.

This is what the Washington Post does. You are basically saying that they have someone state a number and don't bother to check if the number is inaccurate or not.

Any new party joining peace negotiation is a good development. At issue is that it has to be a genuine peace process which this one is so obviously far from, not in the least because it ignores, refuses to act, and tacitly encourages creeping annexation, which is simply another form of agression. You can't righteously condemn violations from one side, and completely ignore those from the other, without losing all credibility and simply associating yourself with one side in the conflict.

Hamas has not joined any process. They have not violated any process because they are not part of it.

You seem to think that if Israel leaves all the territories immediately that Hamas will be peaceful. They won't. It isn't just about settlements for them. It is about all of Israel.

Yet we're trying to answer the question why you do not act, and pretend to not notice, when Israel also violates the declared agendas of peace?

Israel has evacuated settlements twice. The first time led to a lasting peace. The Gaza evacuation led to increased attacks from the very land they left.

We already did that, and now, what did we do, or do you propose to do when Israels continues massive expansion of settlements despite all your half hearted, pretense rhethorics?

We do what we are doing now... continuing with the process of ending violence and removing settlements.

Those talks are going on now.

You want to abandon that now and start sanctions.

Again thinking for me, Dobbin? But here's what I tell you. I'm not thinking about Hamas, but about you, as a self proclaimed mediator of peace, why you are prepared to condemn and act against violations of peace by Hamas, but not when the other side violates them persistently and massively in their own way? Is this because you're simply an associate of one side in the conflict, and your claim to mediation simply has no ground in reality?

Hamas hasn't violated the peace. They never agreed to it.

You can't even acknowledge that.

[Bonam]

When Hamas gets the boot, or those poor folks quit killing Jews, I will support efforts of peace. Until that day the terrorists can live by the sword and expect to die by it.

It's quite unfortunate that your attempts to inject reason are being drowned out by the argument over the precise mechanics of Israel's withdrawal from settlements, as if the fact that Israel needs to make every concession in advance, while the terrorists still seek to destroy it, is an understanding long since taken for granted.

[myata]

I told you at the time that you weren't going to get the exact hour and date. It is amazing what you will get worked up over.

Dobbin, you said that the schedule has been defined and provided a reference that did not contained such definition, which is deliiberately misleading. I'm not surprised that this seems to be the only arguments left in your disposal, because for all meaningful, in good faith dispute your postition is undefendable.

Aside from the Israeli prime minister saying it will happen.

He did not defined schedule, and neither did your source so is it another confustion Dobbin, or deliberate fraud and are you going to retract the statement that the schedule exists?

Go to the Washington Post will your problem. I haven't seen any corrections pointing to your 100 settlers only.

I have no problem with Washington Post, it clearly stated what it did, and it's you who are trying to sell it for something entirely different. To understand where your real, genuine postion we really need now to explore your motives for doing that, so Dobbin, why do you need deceiving, misleading and confusing arguments to support your postion. Could it not be stand otherwise, verified by facts and information from credible sources?

You always ask me for a specific number. Give me a specific number for the 23 settlements.

999. It's your responsibility to substantiate your points with credible references, not mine.

I gave you the Washington Post link and you are not happy with it.

I'm very happy with the link, but not your misleading representation of it. The source of the information is the leader of illegal settlers and your stubborn association with it tells better than any words, where your actual interests are vested in this affairs.

Give me the actual number then. Come on. It can't be that hard.

998. It's your responsibility to substantiate your points with credible references, not mine.

I did. 8000 according to the Washington Post. I have seen no correction to that number despite your outcry.

No, Dobbin, 8,000 according to Wallerstain, as reported by Washington Post. It's obvious by now to everybody, but you simply cannot admit it, as any number of obvious facts you had problems with earlier in this discussion.

You just extrapolated information but it certainly wasn't about the 23 settlements.

I clearly said that it was an estimate, but the number 8,000 along with the "dwarfing" claim came from you and you only, and so it's your responsibility to substantiate the number with credible factual references, or retract it as yet another unconfirmed hearsay.

Give me the correction then.

995

Nope. There is a schedule.

Except you cannot prove it, but who cares, right? Just believe. How's that million $$ doing there in your bank, have you tried hard enough (to believe) today?

They fact check every statement according to their journalistic oath.

994. Of course they did, and they verified that Mr.W said what he said, but you were trying to sell it for something they never said, and now cannot admit it, so keep denying obvious fact yet again Dobbin, you have 993 to go.

For example, the checked every fact given by Deepthroat. As we found out, it wasn't an imaginary person and every fact checked out.

And of course this instance have nothing to do with Deepthroat or flying saucer or Myami trio, the newspaper quoted an individual as saying something, but you are desperately trying to pull it somehow that they take any responsibility for what he said. That is ridiculous as any denial of an obvious fact, but I guess you don't have much of a choice at this time, do you?

This is what the Washington Post does. You are basically saying that they have someone state a number and don't bother to check if the number is inaccurate or not.

Of course I'm saying that if the number had been confirmed by any independent sources, the news agency would have reported it as such, yet all we have is a quote by Mr Wallerstein, and everything else, Dobbin, is your smokescreens, confusions, and misunderstandings.

Hamas has not joined any process. They have not violated any process because they are not part of it.

I know but we were talking about you, so why you aren't doing anything of real, practical value when settlements keep expanding as they are now?

You seem to think that if Israel leaves all the territories immediately that Hamas will be peaceful. They won't. It isn't just about settlements for them. It is about all of Israel.

I can't speak for them, but you, Dobbin, yourself have defined expansion of settlements as a serious obstacle to peace, and yet you can't imagine doing anything about it, so one of the two, Dobbin, your word, or your act must be false, which one?

Israel has evacuated settlements twice. The first time led to a lasting peace. The Gaza evacuation led to increased attacks from the very land they left.

If there's been no massive increase in settlements elsewhere one could speak of "evacuation" in a meaningful sense. As it happened, "relocation with massive addition" seems to be a much more fitting descirption of what happened, and only somene with a vested interest in one side could possibly see it as a positive development.

We do what we are doing now... continuing with the process of ending violence and removing settlements.

...

Those talks are going on now.

Yes I know if it was just the talks and nobody cared to check the results, you would have lived happily ever after.

You want to abandon that now and start sanctions.

No, I want the actual result, whatever is necessary to achieve it, while you seem to advocate pleasant talking regardeless of consequences. Guess which approach is more likely to lead to (proclaimed) goal.

Hamas hasn't violated the peace. They never agreed to it.

That may be so. They were, and are sanctioned. Appropriation of occupied land is also a kind of agression, yet you won't do anything about it. Why so Dobbin? Does it really have anything to do with genuine mediation for peace?

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you said that the schedule has been defined and provided a reference that did not contained such definition, which is deliiberately misleading. I'm not surprised that this seems to be the only arguments left in your disposal, because for all meaningful, in good faith dispute your postition is undefendable.

The link I provided said that it was in the weeks ahead. I don't recall ever giving you an exact day and I gave you think links to show why that wasn't going to happen.

He did not defined schedule, and neither did your source so is it another confustion Dobbin, or deliberate fraud and are you going to retract the statement that the schedule exists?

The original link said in the weeks ahead so I don't know what the bloviating is about.

I have no problem with Washington Post, it clearly stated what it did, and it's you who are trying to sell it for something entirely different. To understand where your real, genuine postion we really need now to explore your motives for doing that, so Dobbin, why do you need deceiving, misleading and confusing arguments to support your postion. Could it not be stand otherwise, verified by facts and information from credible sources?

Please. The Post said 8000 in the settlements to be evacuated. I didn't see any other numbers and if you had any other numbers for those specific settlements, you would have provided them.

999. It's your responsibility to substantiate your points with credible references, not mine.

I did. 8000. You just don't like the source.

I'm very happy with the link, but not your misleading representation of it. The source of the information is the leader of illegal settlers and your stubborn association with it tells better than any words, where your actual interests are vested in this affairs.

What was said was very specific. 8000 settlers.

998. It's your responsibility to substantiate your points with credible references, not mine.

Did.

No, Dobbin, 8,000 according to Wallerstain, as reported by Washington Post. It's obvious by now to everybody, but you simply cannot admit it, as any number of obvious facts you had problems with earlier in this discussion.

So, you just don't like the source. You think he is lying.

I clearly said that it was an estimate, but the number 8,000 along with the "dwarfing" claim came from you and you only, and so it's your responsibility to substantiate the number with credible factual references, or retract it as yet another unconfirmed hearsay.

8000 clearly dwarfs the numbers the Israelis were talking about for other units.

Except you cannot prove it, but who cares, right? Just believe. How's that million $$ doing there in your bank, have you tried hard enough (to believe) today?

Did. Showed you the link in the beginning. It never said a specific day. They had a specific timeframe.

994. Of course they did, and they verified that Mr.W said what he said, but you were trying to sell it for something they never said, and now cannot admit it, so keep denying obvious fact yet again Dobbin, you have 993 to go.

What childish behaviour.

So, let's just say you don't like the source. You don't believe the source. You are convinced it is 100 based on one news report about one outpost that may or may not have been scheduled for closure with the 23 now.

And of course this instance have nothing to do with Deepthroat or flying saucer or Myami trio, the newspaper quoted an individual as saying something, but you are desperately trying to pull it somehow that they take any responsibility for what he said. That is ridiculous as any denial of an obvious fact, but I guess you don't have much of a choice at this time, do you?

What you are saying is that you don't believe the Washington Post checks numbers given to them by sources they quote in the paper. That is what you are saying.

Of course I'm saying that if the number had been confirmed by any independent sources, the news agency would have reported it as such, yet all we have is a quote by Mr Wallerstein, and everything else, Dobbin, is your smokescreens, confusions, and misunderstandings.

Fine, don't believe the source. Don't believe Wallerstein. Don't believe the numbers. Stick with your 100.

I know but we were talking about you, so why you aren't doing anything of real, practical value when settlements keep expanding as they are now?

Gaza was real. It was practical and it showed Israel was willing to leave an area and evacuate 8000 settlers

I can't speak for them, but you, Dobbin, yourself have defined expansion of settlements as a serious obstacle to peace, and yet you can't imagine doing anything about it, so one of the two, Dobbin, your word, or your act must be false, which one?

And we have seen Israel come to the table and evacuate settlers from two areas. What has your side done?

If there's been no massive increase in settlements elsewhere one could speak of "evacuation" in a meaningful sense. As it happened, "relocation with massive addition" seems to be a much more fitting descirption of what happened, and only somene with a vested interest in one side could possibly see it as a positive development.

I know you want it all and you want it now.

Yes I know if it was just the talks and nobody cared to check the results, you would have lived happily ever after.

We are already seeing results. I expect we will be seeing more.

No, I want the actual result, whatever is necessary to achieve it, while you seem to advocate pleasant talking regardeless of consequences. Guess which approach is more likely to lead to (proclaimed) goal.

Your definition of actual results is not in accordance with everyone else who agreed as Oslo.

That may be so. They were, and are sanctioned. Appropriation of occupied land is also a kind of agression, yet you won't do anything about it. Why so Dobbin? Does it really have anything to do with genuine mediation for peace?

It is because Israel is at the table and has evacuated land and is in negotiation to evacuate more.

Maybe Hamas will learn to talk. They haven't so far.

[benny]

Not a word yet on Susan Kadis:

Party documents leaked to the Globe and Mail in 2007 revealed the Tories saw Jewish voters as the ticket to winning certain ridings where they were only 5,000 votes from a win.

They courted controversy by identifying Jewish voters' addresses and sending them Rosh Hashanah cards. Fundraising letters were sent out encouraging donations to keep up the fight against anti-Semitism and for Israel.

Those tactics and Harper's visibility in the community worked wonders in the Toronto-area Thornhill riding, where Liberal MP Susan Kadis -- a Jewish Canadian -- lost to Conservative Peter Kent last fall.

Kadis, who is looking at running again, says the party is trying to turn things around, starting with Ignatieff.

"Jewish Canadians can be very confident in Michael Ignatieff's position in the right of Israel to be secure, to exist, and a two-state solution," Kadis said.

Kadis it seems has turned the page on the difficult summer of 2006, the time of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon.

Ignatieff, then a leadership candidate, caused stunning damage to the party's traditionally strong Jewish support when he said Israel had committed war crimes when it bombed civilians in the Lebanese town of Qana.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...28?hub=Politics

[Moonbox]

Myata unless you have anything to indicate to us that Hamas is even WILLING to talk and acknowledge Israel's right to exist, give up now because it everything you're saying is moot if you can't. To continue the argument is just making yourself look less and less reasonable.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Myata unless you have anything to indicate to us that Hamas is even WILLING to talk and acknowledge Israel's right to exist, give up now because it everything you're saying is moot if you can't. To continue the argument is just making yourself look less and less reasonable.

Hamas is willing to talk. Their word is not worth crap, but they are willing to talk. Meanwhile they will of course continue to bomb and murder with reckless abandon. How many rockets fell on Israel this week?

[myata]

The link I provided said that it was in the weeks ahead. I don't recall ever giving you an exact day and I gave you think links to show why that wasn't going to happen.

You said that the schedule "was defined" and provided a reference that contained no such definition. Retract the statement now and say as all leading news sources do that no confirmed schedule is known for this project, or look like you stubbornly insist on using obviously false information to support your ungrounded statement.

I did. 8000. You just don't like the source.

996. The Post quoted leader of settlers with the number, and you're trying to make it appear as if they're taking any responsibility for the number itself. You have nowhere to go now to either deny the obvious, or admit to another (unless fully conscious and deliberatie) confusion. Yet again.

What was said was very specific. 8000 settlers.

According to the leader of settlers, as quoted by the newspaper. And you're jumping to his every word without even trying to obtain independent confirmation. Your simpathies are very clear no matter what and how much you'd like to say otherwise.

So, you just don't like the source. You think he is lying.

It should certainly be obvious to anybody with a grain of objectivity, that information from a party with direct vested interest cannot be taken as true without independent confirmation. What you're jumping to take it as such, tells very clearly where your real interests are vested.

8000 clearly dwarfs the numbers the Israelis were talking about for other units.

Of course and you could have made it hundred thousand or two or five, and it would still have the same zero credibility as the number you posted.

Did. Showed you the link in the beginning. It never said a specific day. They had a specific timeframe.

You said there was a schedule, and there was none shown. Yet another confusion or a fraud, Dobbin?

What you are saying is that you don't believe the Washington Post checks numbers given to them by sources they quote in the paper. That is what you are saying.

I said what I said very clearly but if you can't understand plain language there's very little I can do for you. Try rereading it. Again and again. Till it finally dawns on you.

Fine, don't believe the source. Don't believe Wallerstein. Don't believe the numbers.

I'm not in the business of believing, but my estimate was based on data provided by respected professional news agency first hand, unlike yours, for that the sole source is a party with a direct vested interest in having the number as high as possible. That you so much prefer to chose one (vested interest) over the independent and professional agency tells volumes about how genuine your interest in real peace is.

Gaza was real. It was practical and it showed Israel was willing to leave an area and evacuate 8000 settlers

As real as was the addition of some 30,000 more, and that is the part you don't even want to notice, not to mention do anything real and practical about.

And we have seen Israel come to the table and evacuate settlers from two areas.

"Relocating with massive addition" is the real word, Dobbin. Whatever table it was, it was not a genuine, in good faith peace process.

What has your side done?

I know you've got to do with what you have, everything goes. Even if not much as it is.

I know you want it all and you want it now.

No, only real, measurable progress. Actual, verifyable halt of expansion, and reduction in illegal settlements. Something your ostensibly "peace" related plan simply has not been able to deliver over two decades it's been in place.

We are already seeing results. I expect we will be seeing more.

I won't be surprises if you're seeing things, but I'm only interested in reality, i.e. something that can be confirmed with facts.

Your definition of actual results is not in accordance with everyone else who agreed as Oslo.

If 70% increase in illegal settlements overall is a "success" it is also a token of how much that process have to do with genuine peace agenda.

It is because Israel is at the table and has evacuated land and is in negotiation to evacuate more.

What table, Dobbin? The one that lets it continue expansion of settlements full speed? It wouldn't be a genuine peace table, and your pretending so, and ignoring their abuses of peace agendas, only speaks for where your real interest is in this matter.

Maybe Hamas will learn to talk. They haven't so far.

If they talk the same way (and with the same results) as Israel has about its settlements, I wouldn't raise any hopes for real progress in this conflict for a long time.

[benny]

How many rockets fell on Israel this week?

A football was considered a rocket by Israel:

http://www.creative-i.info/?p=8894

[jdobbin]

You said that the schedule "was defined" and provided a reference that contained no such definition. Retract the statement now and say as all leading news sources do that no confirmed schedule is known for this project, or look like you stubbornly insist on using obviously false information to support your ungrounded statement.

It has been defined. The report said in the weeks ahead.

996. The Post quoted leader of settlers with the number, and you're trying to make it appear as if they're taking any responsibility for the number itself. You have nowhere to go now to either deny the obvious, or admit to another (unless fully conscious and deliberatie) confusion. Yet again.

Then you don't trust the leader of the settlers.

According to the leader of settlers, as quoted by the newspaper. And you're jumping to his every word without even trying to obtain independent confirmation. Your simpathies are very clear no matter what and how much you'd like to say otherwise.

According to the leader of the settlers. I have heard no other number. The media has not given any other number.

It should certainly be obvious to anybody with a grain of objectivity, that information from a party with direct vested interest cannot be taken as true without independent confirmation. What you're jumping to take it as such, tells very clearly where your real interests are vested.

Then by all means don't believe it.

Of course and you could have made it hundred thousand or two or five, and it would still have the same zero credibility as the number you posted.

As I said, don't believe it. Suit yourself.

You said there was a schedule, and there was none shown. Yet another confusion or a fraud, Dobbin?

I did. The report said in the next weeks.

I said what I said very clearly but if you can't understand plain language there's very little I can do for you. Try rereading it. Again and again. Till it finally dawns on you.

You do have a hard time reading. The Washington Post checks facts and that includes numbers.

I'm not in the business of believing, but my estimate was based on data provided by respected professional news agency first hand, unlike yours, for that the sole source is a party with a direct vested interest in having the number as high as possible. That you so much prefer to chose one (vested interest) over the independent and professional agency tells volumes about how genuine your interest in real peace is.

Fine. Don't believe the numbers. Your certainly don't get give a number of settlers though so don't even pretend it does.

As real as was the addition of some 30,000 more, and that is the part you don't even want to notice, not to mention do anything real and practical about.

And now the focus is on the West Bank even if you don't want to notice.

"Relocating with massive addition" is the real word, Dobbin. Whatever table it was, it was not a genuine, in good faith peace process.

I know you are not happy about it. Sorry.

The focus is now on the West Bank even though you want to disengage now.

No, only real, measurable progress. Actual, verifyable halt of expansion, and reduction in illegal settlements. Something your ostensibly "peace" related plan simply has not been able to deliver over two decades it's been in place.

Yes verifiable. Gaza was verifiable.

If 70% increase in illegal settlements overall is a "success" it is also a token of how much that process have to do with genuine peace agenda.

Oslo said a process in place. Stop the violence, start removing settlements. You want it all done right away or you get upset.

What table, Dobbin? The one that lets it continue expansion of settlements full speed? It wouldn't be a genuine peace table, and your pretending so, and ignoring their abuses of peace agendas, only speaks for where your real interest is in this matter.

Stop acting like a child. Your unilateralism and pouting obviously has no one in Canada listening. You said you were going to look into the NDP? Good luck with that.

Canada will continue to support Israel because Israel has made peace agreements with a number of its neighbors and has evacuated two sections of land occupied after 1967. All settlers were removed from those areas.

Hamas has not made any peace agreement and no concession to its demand for all Israel.

If they talk the same way (and with the same results) as Israel has about its settlements, I wouldn't raise any hopes for real progress in this conflict for a long time.

As I said, Israel has evacuated settlers twice from occupied land.

[myata]

It has been defined. The report said in the weeks ahead.

I wasted 20 minutes of my precious time to reexamine both links. Here's what Washington Post has to say:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072100213.html

"The report in Haaretz gave no date for removing the outposts, where some of the most militant settlers in the West Bank live..."

And here's a direct quote from the Reuters article:

Tue Jul 21, 3:07 AM

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel plans to remove in a single day all 23 unauthorized settler outposts slated for evacuation in the occupied West Bank, a move that would meet a long-standing pledge to Washington, a newspaper said on Tuesday.

The report in Haaretz gave no date for removing the outposts

The word "schedule" does not appear in either document. I think this should confirm your using of these references to substantiate your claim as obviously and deliberately misleading once and for all. I will not address any further references on you part until you withdraw the statement as unsubstantiated) and apologise for deliberately misleading use of references to the board where people may have wasted time reading something that by indication is an unsubstantiated blabber.

I have heard no other number. The media has not given any other number.

OMG, just because you didn't hear anything else, this one that you want to hear must be true. Very smart! But of course just another pointless talk, everybody except you knows and understand the meaning of "independently verified".

I'm sorry I can't waste my time of meaningless blabber that follows. Very obviously you're out of all meaningful, rational arguments.

The focus is now on the West Bank even though you want to disengage now.

Your mental focus is not a substiture for a factual result.

Yes verifiable. Gaza was verifiable.

What about 70% increase in settlements overall, is it verifyable? And your absolute inaction about it, no, utmost reluctance to even admit it, would it be veifyable (very obviously, by this very discussion) also? And what would it make of your ostensibly "peaceful" mediation, verifyably in practical terms? Tacit encouragement of creeping annexation perhaps? An agreession in the form of illegal appropriation of occupied land? Some real peaceniks here!

Oslo said a process in place. Stop the violence, start removing settlements. You want it all done right away or you get upset.

And we have no problem acting against the militant violence, but the settlements... What Dobbin? Why settlements appears to be a totally different story by how you act, not what you say?

Stop acting like a child. Your unilateralism and pouting obviously has no one in Canada listening. You said you were going to look into the NDP? Good luck with that.

And now you are speaking for the whole of Canada. Could you name be "Michael" by any chance? Or is the illusion of future grandeur is spreading wide and deep in your party these days?

Canada will continue to support Israel because Israel has made peace agreements with a number of its neighbors and has evacuated two sections of land occupied after 1967. All settlers were removed from those areas.

And that would be disastrous if not fatal for Canada's image as and independent and trusted broker of peace, because as we speak Israel is busy with appropriating more of the occupied land at an accelerating pace, and Canada support would mean tacit approval of these illegal and far from peaceful policies. Your acts speak for themselves far more than your words, and everybody in the world sees what we have to say. It's only sad for this country that your party has nothing to offer that would be different from the Harpers policies here in this matter also.

Hamas has not made any peace agreement and no concession to its demand for all Israel.

And that would make ongoing illegal annexation of land by Isreal more acceptable, maybe even desirable, would it

If not, why aren't you bothering doing anything about it (unlike about Hamas militancy)?

As I said, Israel has evacuated settlers twice from occupied land.

And in this land we see persistent, massive and ongoing expansion of settlements and very clearly you aren't going to do anything about it, and if it were possible at all, wouldn't as much as have noticed it. Of course this simple fact should eliminate all doubts about how much common your plan has to do with genuine peace mediation.

[jdobbin]

I wasted 20 minutes of my precious time to reexamine both links. Here's what Washington Post has to say:

The word "schedule" does not appear in either document. I think this should confirm your using of these references to substantiate your claim as obviously and deliberately misleading once and for all. I will not address any further references on you part until you withdraw the statement as unsubstantiated) and apologise for deliberately misleading use of references to the board where people may have wasted time reading something that by indication is an unsubstantiated blabber.

Perhaps if you looked at the original posts like I said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/2...s_n_227580.html

The report comes just as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and US Middle East envoy George Mitchell are negotiating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, with a specific focus on settlements. Barak told Israel's Army Radio this week that 23 illegal outposts are set to be evacuated soon.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3742386,00.html

Defense Minister Ehud Barak told the US's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, that "Israel is committed to evacuating 23 illegal outposts within weeks or months".

I think you should apologize for bloviating again.

OMG, just because you didn't hear anything else, this one that you want to hear must be true. Very smart! But of course just another pointless talk, everybody except you knows and understand the meaning of "independently verified".

I'm sorry I can't waste my time of meaningless blabber that follows. Very obviously you're out of all meaningful, rational arguments.

You sound like an angry person. I'm sorry if you disagree with the number but until I hear a correction, I don't know that I can go based on your guess.

Your mental focus is not a substiture for a factual result.

Once again sorry if you don't think Gaza is a fact.

What about 70% increase in settlements overall, is it verifyable? And your absolute inaction about it, no, utmost reluctance to even admit it, would it be veifyable (very obviously, by this very discussion) also? And what would it make of your ostensibly "peaceful" mediation, verifyably in practical terms? Tacit encouragement of creeping annexation perhaps? An agreession in the form of illegal appropriation of occupied land? Some real peaceniks here!

Verifiable: Gaza.

And we have no problem acting against the militant violence, but the settlements... What Dobbin? Why settlements appears to be a totally different story by how you act, not what you say?

You see, you sound hysterical now.

And now you are speaking for the whole of Canada. Could you name be "Michael" by any chance? Or is the illusion of future grandeur is spreading wide and deep in your party these days?

The whining is getting to be a little much now.

And that would be disastrous if not fatal for Canada's image as and independent and trusted broker of peace, because as we speak Israel is busy with appropriating more of the occupied land at an accelerating pace, and Canada support would mean tacit approval of these illegal and far from peaceful policies. Your acts speak for themselves far more than your words, and everybody in the world sees what we have to say. It's only sad for this country that your party has nothing to offer that would be different from the Harpers policies here in this matter also.

Canada seems to be doing just fine, thank you. We were even asked to continue helping from both Palestine and Israel.

And that would make ongoing illegal annexation of land by Isreal more acceptable, maybe even desirable, would it

If not, why aren't you bothering doing anything about it (unlike about Hamas militancy)?

I think it means that Israel has signed peace agreements and evacuated land. Hamas has only committed itself to a fight.

And in this land we see persistent, massive and ongoing expansion of settlements and very clearly you aren't going to do anything about it, and if it were possible at all, wouldn't as much as have noticed it. Of course this simple fact should eliminate all doubts about how much common your plan has to do with genuine peace mediation.

And now we see the focus on the West Bank.

[jbg]

I think that as long as Quebec is not kicked out of Canada, Canada will be forced to realize democracy means terror. Quebec is an unfinished endeavor of Robespierre's "terror is virtue" movement inside the French Revolution.

Quebec was conquered by the British long before the French Revolution.

[benny]

Quebec was conquered by the British long before the French Revolution.

Revolutionaries have a different conception of (historical) time than conservatives.