Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[Moonbox]

You have fallen in the trap like all others! Canadian politicians have to ask to Canadian Jews: why is there anything else than Israel that captivate you!?

Benny quit with the silly rhetoric and speak plainly. I don't know what you're talking about.

[jdobbin]

Yet those were the links you provided in support of the statement. But even in that story that has been discussed in a completely different context, there's no confirmation to your statement that the schedule has been defined. Barak makes a reference to "of weeks or months, as opposed to years" (not "weeks ahead" in another of your creative representations), and that is hardly a schedule, only an indication of such plan being considered in the near future.

I referenced the link and said in the weeks ahead. It was accurate and it was backed with the reference to the link. You saw that link and even responded to what I said about it but obviously didn't read it.

The Jerusalem Post called it a time frame. The dictionary defines time frame as deadline within a short time. Brak confirmed it with a direct quote.

Quite reasonable I said there is a schedule based on what my understanding of time frame is.

All this information was available to you. I kept telling you it was there. You might disagree with what it says but it isn't a creative interpretation.

You have to learn to report the references without misinterpretation, and till such time you'll be called on every single creative interpretation that does not correspond to the actual facts.

You had the link there. You didn't read it. I call baloney on your puffed up anger about it all.

No, Dobbin, I said and continue to say that there's no evidence provided by you that the schedule in fact exists and you can speculate to your hearts' desire why you haven't posted it, but I'll only accept its existence after you confirm it with factual evidence, that still has not been provided.

You are so full of crap. You had the information and now that you have been caught with your pants down around your ankle, you are insisting it doesn't say what it means.

Not really, that was a link within another reference discussed in a totally different context. Even then it does not state what you are saying, namely that the schedule for execution of this plan has been defined, so it must be another of deceits and misrepresentations you like to employ to hide by now quite obvious emptiness and bankrupcy of your position as a mediator of peace in any meaningful sense of the word.

Which I mentioned at that time. I said it was at the end of the article and wow, there it was. You missed it and now your empty anger is being tossed around.

Blame yourself for missing it. I had pointed it out at the time and now you are crying.

Relocations with massive additions you meant to say. The overall settlements are 70% up, more than double in some areas, and counting every single day, while you're busy looking (or pretending?) for those peanuts in you know what.

Actual progress.

No you'll never get tired repeating those obvious little untruths, will you? Could it be because there isn't anything of substance you can say, that would support you obvioulsly bankrupt position?

You are plainly wrong. Tell me when Hamas has come to the table.

[benny]

Benny quit with the silly rhetoric and speak plainly. I don't know what you're talking about.

As a latecomer, you have missed things!

[jbg]

I will be hear for long time make you happy.

Grammar? Is that English?

[benny]

Grammar? Is that English?

It may be Quebec-bashing.

Edited August 6, 2009 by benny

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The bashing that is needed is reserved for all those who seek to arrange that this nation become involved in domestic disputes at the international level. Picking sides in civil wars is not where we need to go. The middle east is ALL ABOUT civil wars.

[benny]

The bashing that is needed is reserved for all those who seek to arrange that this nation become involved in domestic disputes at the international level. Picking sides in civil wars is not where we need to go. The middle east is ALL ABOUT civil wars.

Fratricide wars I would say rather.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You ca say what you will. The reality of warfare has not and will not change. What can change is the politics that brings us to that point of armed engagements.

[myata]

It's pretty silly to expect Israel to say, "We'll stop building our settlements if you stop rocketing and bombing our people." It's not like the Israelis are ants. The settlements don't get built up in a week or two. The attacks on Israel happen constantly. Even while the Israelis are promising to dismantle the settlements over the next little while you have the Fatah calling for violence agaisnt Israel.

If agression is perpetrated by both side, in the form of militant attacks, or illegal annexation of occupied land, should we be supporting one particular side and as such encourage the agression? How much of a peace mediator would that make us as opposed to plain and simple, a member of a gang bent on achieving its goals by whatever means?

What I'm trying to say is that there is that the whole negotiation process is a joke. Nobody can mediate this mess, credibly or none-credibly because there's no legitimate second party to negotiate with.

That could be so, but maybe someone could actually try mediation in good faith before claiming that?

Israel can negotiate all it wants with Hamas and Hezbollah or Fatah but they're not a legitimate authority and any treaty the Israelis sign won't be recognized by the next nut job faction to emerge. Who knows what they'd be called.

Again, it may or may not be so, but would that really justify the agression continuosly perpetrated by Israel which we ourselves have declared illegal? If the act is illegal, something should be done about it, or it'll be seen as apology and encouragement of agression incompatible with mediation for peace. If we want to associate with one side in this conflict, we should admit it clearly without peaceful decorations, and be prepared to get involved in yet another conflict half world away which has nothing to do with us here.

The main problem here is the fundamentalist culture as a whole. Until, as I said, they evolve beyond their small-minded medieval politics NOTHING will change here. How do you negotiate with an entire culture that wants you dead and that's spread out over the entire Middle East and more?

OK if you're into cultural apocaliptical clashes of civilizations, I understand that considerations of survival would displace any serious thoughts of peace. At a more relax times, one could start thinking of building some sort of understnding and even trust with even that "culture", because they won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and hopefully you wouldn't be either. As a hint, perhaps an exploration of recent past may shed some light as to what created the conflict, e.g. perhaps one took something that didn't really belong to them, and would hate to admit it.

[jdobbin]

That could be so, but maybe someone could actually try mediation in good faith before claiming that?

That has been tried. Hamas won't come to the table.

They don't violate peace agreements. They never agreed to them in the first place.

[Oleg Bach]

Wanting the Jewish vote is usually a phenomena based in prejudice...it's a stero-typical attitude, that actually believes that the Joooos control everything - what they should garner as far as lustiing for a vote - it to get the vote of the banking community - who in this nation are not the Jews --- a few votes and thumbs up by the bankers is what engages and creates governments - not a bunch of old rabinicals hanging our at the temple at Forest Hill....You want power - go to the source - the banks..the rest is plain silly.

[myata]

The Jerusalem Post called it a time frame. The dictionary defines time frame as deadline within a short time. Brak confirmed it with a direct quote.

Your statement was about schedule, Dobbin remember? (you yourself stated it not two posts back, another coup of short memory?), and Barak didn't say anything about schedule nor about anything that fits definition of it, feel free to check the dictionary. You'll learn to report things correctly, or you'll be called on every single instance of your creative confusions.

Quite reasonable I said there is a schedule based on what my understanding of time frame is.

No, it's not reasonable because they are two different things (check the dictionary) and you should report things correctly as they appear in your referenced material, without adding imaginary stuff from yourself, or run the risk of being called on your bluff.

All this information was available to you. I kept telling you it was there. You might disagree with what it says but it isn't a creative interpretation.

And everybody can see the information for what it is now. One one side, we have a massive ongoing as we speak development of 2,500 famility units plust a few hundred here and there in East Jerusalem. On the other, we've got some talk about possibility of removing outposts, without a defined schedule and with unconfirmed independently impact. That's the way you want it, right? Act on one side, talk on the other, and they cancel each other, in your creative world?

You are so full of crap. You had the information and now that you have been caught with your pants down around your ankle, you are insisting it doesn't say what it means.

Yet it's you, Dobbin, you who stated something that does not exist in your information. You can pull and stretch all you like and the fact would still remain that none of the references you provided stated anything about the schedule, and some explicitly stated that it has not been reported. Guess who's been caught "with their pants down" here, and would use every twist and stretch but to admit the obvious?

Actual progress.

Of course. Massive increase of illegal settlements is progress and war is peace and truth is lie.

You are plainly wrong. Tell me when Hamas has come to the table.

What table Dobbin? The one that lets your friendly side go on with their creeping agression, while you get yourself busy blaring about imaginary successes having no relation to reality?

Edited August 6, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

You want power - go to the source - the banks..the rest is plain silly.

The bank don't vote. They can't contribute money either.

Individuals vote. Individuals contribute money.

[benny]

You ca say what you will. The reality of warfare has not and will not change. What can change is the politics that brings us to that point of armed engagements.

Only specific choices of word can end wars.

[jdobbin]

Your statement was about schedule, Dobbin remember? (you yourself stated it not two posts back, another coup of short memory?), and Barak didn't say anything about schedule nor about anything that fits definition of it, feel free to check the dictionary. You'll learn to report things correctly, or you'll be called on every single instance of your creative confusions.

Timeframe means deadline within a short time. That means a schedule to me and the source (Barak) said weeks and months.

You will be called on this every time you think timeframe isn't some sort of schedule.

No, it's not reasonable because they are two different things (check the dictionary) and you should report things correctly as they appear in your referenced material, without adding imaginary stuff from yourself, or run the risk of being called on your bluff.

I have checked the dictionary and within weeks and months certainly seems to be a defined schedule.

I know you don't like it but it isn't imaginary. It does have a source. It is within a timeframe. It is synonymous with deadline. And combined with a Barak saying weeks and months indicates some schedule if not the exact day.

And everybody can see the information for what it is now. One one side, we have a massive ongoing as we speak development of 2,500 famility units plust a few hundred here and there in East Jerusalem. On the other, we've got some talk about possibility of removing outposts, without a defined schedule and with unconfirmed independently impact. That's the way you want it, right? Act on one side, talk on the other, and they cancel each other, in your creative world?

I know you don't like the sources but there is nothing I can do about it. Feel free to get angry about it but you seem to have very little support for your bloviating here.

Yet it's you, Dobbin, you who stated something that does not exist in your information. You can pull and stretch all you like and the fact would still remain that none of the references you provided stated anything about the schedule, and some explicitly stated that it has not been defined. Guess who's been caught "with their pants down" here, and would use every twist and stretch but to admit the obvious?

I was right. You were wrong. Like you are always wrong. Like you will continue to be wrong.

Of course. Massive increase of illegal settlements is progress and war is peace and truth is lie.

Gaza and Sinai are no lies.

What table Dobbin? The one that lets your friendly side go on with their creeping agression, while you get yourself busy blaring about imaginary successes having to relation to the reality?

Gaza was not imaginary. Now if you can convince your side Hamas to come to the table maybe further progress can be made in the West Bank.

This all seems your attempt to break off from Israel. It is hard to see it as anything else since it is unlikely to produce change whereas, we have seen 8000 people moved out of Gaza with talks. Hamas used this opportunity to launch military attacks.

Further progress can be made in the West Bank and it is where the focus is now.

Your solution seems immediate sanctions and further. It won't work.

[benny]

I know you don't like the sources but there is nothing I can do about it.

It is not about sources since there are so many of them concerning Israel evicting Palestinian families from East Jerusalem.

[jbg]

That has been tried. Hamas won't come to the table.

They don't violate peace agreements. They never agreed to them in the first place.

Whereas Fatah agreed and then either violates or fails to enforce them.

[myata]

Timeframe means deadline within a short time. That means a schedule to me and the source (Barak) said weeks and months.

I know that in your creative world words may have many meanings even contradictory ones, but none of your sourcs has reported a schedule, that is a fact, as is a fact that you misrepresented your reference.

I have checked the dictionary and within weeks and months certainly seems to be a defined schedule.

Many things seemed to you here. First you saw "settlements" where every single one of your own references referred to "outposts", then you confused quoting certain individual with independent confirmation of their statements, and now you simply insist on using different words than those your references provided, and yet all this creativity cannot change one bit of the fact, that while hundreds of illegal settlements are being built as we speak, all you're trying to pulll through is talk with unconfirmed schedule (feel free to peruse that dictionary) and unknown impact.

Of course, the two wouldn't come close in any real world, but you have a very special view of reality where talk, thoughts and ideas (yours, mostly) do seem to come alive - in the literal sense.

I know you don't like it but it isn't imaginary. It does have a source. It is within a timeframe. It is synonymous with deadline. And combined with a Barak saying weeks and months indicates some schedule if not the exact day.

It only indicates what it stated. That the ministry was considering such plan in the timeframe of weeks or months. The exact meaning of that timeframe won't be known until the schedule has been defined (note that e.g. 100 years = 1200 months would still formally fit Barak's wording, creative not unlike yours). Of which schedule there's still no evidence (but at least two of your own sources stated that it has not been reported), so it is indeed a fruit of your imagination and creative interpretations.

I know you don't like the sources but there is nothing I can do about it. Feel free to get angry about it but you seem to have very little support for your bloviating here.

No Dobbin let me tell you that I simply adore "sources", but when you twist every single aspect of the source you're reporting, I simply cannot stand by. And please be certain that it'll happen every single time until you'll learn to present your source for what it actually states.

I was right. You were wrong. Like you are always wrong. Like you will continue to be wrong.

by definition in your creative world, you forgot to add. That's why you like it so much, no doubt. Too bad for the real world that it does not live up to your pretty ideas for it.

Gaza and Sinai are no lies.

No of course not. We have alraeady established that Gaza project was relocation of settlers into other areas with massive addition of new ones. Peace with Egypt was a laudable achievement but it's in no way relevant to the fact that massive expansion of illegal settlements continues unabated and your pseudo peace process is not doing anything (and by all indications, isn't going to do anything real and practical) about it.

This all seems your attempt to break off from Israel. It is hard to see it as anything else since it is unlikely to produce change whereas,

I'm not getting that. You proclaimed that settlements are obstacle to peace, they are growing at a massive rate, and you aren't as much as moving a finger about it. One of the two Dobbin, your word, or your act must be wrong, that should be obvious by now.

we have seen 8000 people moved out of Gaza with talks.

Hamas used this opportunity to launch military attacks.

Finally you seemed to be getting it right. Indeed settlers were simply moved to other areas with massive addition of new ones, and I can see how it could have contributed to escalation of hostilities. But in your interpretation it probably should be seen as a gracious and friendly act, deserving nothing but flowers and gratitudes.

Further progress can be made in the West Bank and it is where the focus is now.

I'll be very interested to see it in reality, please call when there's a confirmed freeze followed by reduction in illegal settlements in all occupied territories. Till now this simple measure of real success has escaped your "peace" process.

Your solution seems immediate sanctions and further. It won't work.

Well you had no issues with applying that approach to one party, so what exactly would be wrong with applying it in a just and impartial fashion? Did you forget to explain that?

[Moonbox]

If agression is perpetrated by both side, in the form of militant attacks, or illegal annexation of occupied land, should we be supporting one particular side and as such encourage the agression? How much of a peace mediator would that make us as opposed to plain and simple, a member of a gang bent on achieving its goals by whatever means?

It's a moot point, because one side has made it very clear they're not interested in the peace process altogether. The Israelis also don't have anyone solid to negotiate WITH. There's no central authority for the anti-Israeli violence. The best and closest thing you might have would be Iran.

As for who I think we should be supporting, I feel it's completely justfiable to be more sympathetic to the Israeli side of things. One side is (largely) content to live inside its borders in peace regardless of the fact that they have the capability to annex and subjugate large swathes of territory around them and on the other side, you have brainwashed fundamentalists swearing rabidly to destroy Israel and murder its people. Tiny unauthorized settlements do not in ANY way compare with widespread murder and attacks when it comes to aggression. It doesn't even come close. What would people say if the Israelis were swearing to utterly destroy Syria and Iran?

OK if you're into cultural apocaliptical clashes of civilizations, I understand that considerations of survival would displace any serious thoughts of peace. At a more relax times, one could start thinking of building some sort of understnding and even trust with even that "culture", because they won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and hopefully you wouldn't be either. As a hint, perhaps an exploration of recent past may shed some light as to what created the conflict, e.g. perhaps one took something that didn't really belong to them, and would hate to admit it.

Please, let's get into this. Clarify which recent events you're talking about and we'll go from there. The bottom line is the Israelis live in fear, they're endlessly either under attack or under threat of attack and the ultimate goals and concessions demanded by the other side (the elimination of Israel) are not something the Israelis can negotiate with. Eventually, you have to meet aggression with aggression. One side is QUITE CLEARLY less receptive to a cesssation of hostilities than the other.

[myata]

It's a moot point, because one side has made it very clear they're not interested in the peace process altogether. The Israelis also don't have anyone solid to negotiate WITH. There's no central authority for the anti-Israeli violence. The best and closest thing you might have would be Iran.

I'm not sure that point can be made in honesty until negotiation in good faith is actually attempted. Such negotiation would necessarily involve cessation of all large scale hostilities (it would be naive to expect that absolute and full cessation of hostilities could be achieved instantly in this climate) by all parties. Certainly massive buildup of settlements in occupied lands amounts to a major hostility (in fact, a form of agression) and ceasing all expansion of settlements, just as large scale militant attacks, must be an absolute prerequisite to any meaningful negotations.

So far it has not been the case. Israel has used every occasion of dialogue to massively build up its settlements in the occupied lands. There has not been a genuine, in good faith peace dialogue yet.

As for who I think we should be supporting, I feel it's completely justfiable to be more sympathetic to the Israeli side of things. One side is (largely) content to live inside its borders..

You're either ignorant of the actual situation, or stating something that is clearly untrue. According to the data posted here, there's over half million of Israeli illegal settlers in the occupied territories, and the number is growing daily. These settlements (both authorised by Israeli government and those they call "illegal outposts") are illegal by all international standards, and continuing this practice constitutes a form of agression against the people that populate these lands. That you choose to prefer one form of agression over another probably means that you have already sided with one side in the conflict. It can be argued whether such external involvement actually helps anything, but I would certainly accept it as a legitimate position for the argument as long as it stated clearly without obfuscations by various peace adjectives.

Please, let's get into this. Clarify which recent events you're talking about and we'll go from there.

I mean that the conflict was started by the way the state of Isreal has been created, unilaterally and without agreement of people who lived in the lands before the arrival of massive foreign immigration. However addressing the history of the conflict is not in the scope of this thread.

The bottom line is the Israelis live in fear, they're endlessly either under attack or under threat of attack and the ultimate goals and concessions demanded by the other side (the elimination of Israel) are not something the Israelis can negotiate with.

Ever continuing expansion of settlements certainly puts a doubt on that black and white picture. If Israel stopped (or was never involved in the first place) its creeping annexation of occupied lands, its moral position would have been much stronger.

Eventually, you have to meet aggression with aggression.

And that is already an "us vs them" position. You're trying to justify one evil with another and that rarely leads to anything good.

One side is QUITE CLEARLY less receptive to a cesssation of hostilities than the other.

Sorry, you can't state it in honesty, until massive expropriation of occupied lands continues unabated. This is another form of agression which our friendly side has been involved in from the start, and us not noticing it, or pretending it to be a lesser evil, would eventually make us complicit in its results, and certainly diminish our claims to be mediators for peace.

[benny]

Grits and Tories priorities should be to battle for Quebec separatists support in next election, forget about the Jews for a moment.

[jdobbin]

I know that in your creative world words may have many meanings even contradictory ones, but none of your sourcs has reported a schedule, that is a fact, as is a fact that you misrepresented your reference.

I know you don't recognize it but timeframe means a deadline and Barak gave his schedule for doing this which was weeks.

Many things seemed to you here. First you saw "settlements" where every single one of your own references referred to "outposts", then you confused quoting certain individual with independent confirmation of their statements, and now you simply insist on using different words than those your references provided, and yet all this creativity cannot change one bit of the fact, that while hundreds of illegal settlements are being built as we speak, all you're trying to pulll through is talk with unconfirmed schedule (feel free to peruse that dictionary) and unknown impact.

Of course, the two wouldn't come close in any real world, but you have a very special view of reality where talk, thoughts and ideas (yours, mostly) do seem to come alive - in the literal sense.

Once again, you don't like the sources but seem happy to rely on a report where you extrapolate the number to 100 settlers. Problem is that it doesn't have any basis in the 23 settlements being talked about. It is your imaginary numbers.

It only indicates what it stated. That the ministry was considering such plan in the timeframe of weeks or months. The exact meaning of that timeframe won't be known until the schedule has been defined (note that e.g. 100 years = 1200 months would still formally fit Barak's wording, creative not unlike yours). Of which schedule there's still no evidence (but at least two of your own sources stated that it has not been reported), so it is indeed a fruit of your imagination and creative interpretations.

Timeframe equals deadline in most dictionaries. Deadline equals "within a short time". Days or months equals a schedule.

No Dobbin let me tell you that I simply adore "sources", but when you twist every single aspect of the source you're reporting, I simply cannot stand by. And please be certain that it'll happen every single time until you'll learn to present your source for what it actually states.

I was going to say the same about you.

Then you get all angry about it all.

by definition in your creative world, you forgot to add. That's why you like it so much, no doubt. Too bad for the real world that it does not live up to your pretty ideas for it.

By any definition I am right.

No of course not. We have alraeady established that Gaza project was relocation of settlers into other areas with massive addition of new ones. Peace with Egypt was a laudable achievement but it's in no way relevant to the fact that massive expansion of illegal settlements continues unabated and your pseudo peace process is not doing anything (and by all indications, isn't going to do anything real and practical) about it.

Real and practical. That was the removal of settlers from Sinai and Gaza.

Now, the focus is on the West Bank. However, yo8 want to break off meetings now and go straight to sanctions.

I'm not getting that. You proclaimed that settlements are obstacle to peace, they are growing at a massive rate, and you aren't as much as moving a finger about it. One of the two Dobbin, your word, or your act must be wrong, that should be obvious by now.

Actually, Canada is involved in pushing for talks, the end of violence and removal of settlers from the West Bank. Creative interpreation is saying we are not acting on this.

Finally you seemed to be getting it right. Indeed settlers were simply moved to other areas with massive addition of new ones, and I can see how it could have contributed to escalation of hostilities. But in your interpretation it probably should be seen as a gracious and friendly act, deserving nothing but flowers and gratitudes.

It was supposed to come with a end of violence from Gaza and a turn to the West Bank on the issue of removing settlers. Instead, Hamas decided to launch attacks.

I'll be very interested to see it in reality, please call when there's a confirmed freeze followed by reduction in illegal settlements in all occupied territories. Till now this simple measure of real success has escaped your "peace" process.

Tell me Hamas says that Israel has a right to exist and the war won't continue if the get the West Bank back. You can't. Because Hamas has pledged to end Israel.

Well you had no issues with applying that approach to one party, so what exactly would be wrong with applying it in a just and impartial fashion? Did you forget to explain that?

Hamas does not come to the table and they use children as weapons. I don't think you get that.

Israel negotiates, has made good on leaving areas of land and evacuating settlers. Your focus is only on Israel. You only blame Israel and is some child-like fashion seem to believe that the violence magically ends if all settlers leave the West Bank.

[myata]

I know you don't recognize it but timeframe means a deadline and Barak gave his schedule for doing this which was weeks.

Once again, you don't like the sources but seem happy to rely on a report where you extrapolate the number to 100 settlers. Problem is that it doesn't have any basis in the 23 settlements being talked about. It is your imaginary numbers.

Timeframe equals deadline in most dictionaries. Deadline equals "within a short time". Days or months equals a schedule.

Dobbin, you're the only one using the word. None of your references mention any schedule and two explicitly state that it has not been reported. Obviously you're back to your creative self, or rather never left it. Some things never change.

I was going to say the same about you.

Obviously you can say whatever you want but you haven't been able to point to example where I misrepresented my references. Unlike yourself (see above).

By any definition I am right.

And as usual, we'll just have to take your word on it.

Real and practical. That was the removal of settlers from Sinai and Gaza.

And massive addition elsewhere, dwarfing by far as you like to express, these positive developments. But you like to "focus" on little peanuts and ignore the steaming pile of you know what that's glaring you straight in the eyes.

Now, the focus is on the West Bank. However, yo8 want to break off meetings now and go straight to sanctions.

You had no issues with applying sanctions to Hamas so why all that shyness and consideration when your friendly party is involved?

Actually, Canada is involved in pushing for talks, the end of violence and removal of settlers from the West Bank. Creative interpreation is saying we are not acting on this.

"Pushing" and acting the same way it "pushed" at Hamas for its violations? Why not? You keep forgetting to explain that paradox. And now you're saying that we're acting, so I simply can't deny you a chance to share with the board factual confirmation of this statement. So what would be the most recent real and practical act directed at removal of illegal settlers, something that's been talked about for over two decades (I hope we can avoid a discussion of lexical difference between talk and act - remember that million $$)

It was supposed to come with a end of violence from Gaza and a turn to the West Bank

on the issue of removing settlers. Instead, Hamas decided to launch attacks.

Why was it only supposed to come at a convenience of your friendly party Dobbin? Isn't it a serious obstacle to peace by your own admission? If it is (really) so, why wouldn't you insist on all parties living up to the principles of peace at all times? Something does not tie up here. And we know exactly what. Your pseudo peacy words simply won't line up with the act of ignoring and tacitly encouraging creeping agression by your friendly side.

Tell me Hamas says that Israel has a right to exist and the war won't continue if the get the West Bank back. You can't. Because Hamas has pledged to end Israel.

That is a complex issue created non in the least by the way Isreal has been created decades back. Both sides will have to make their way to the final settlement, that would probably need (genuine) involvement by the world, in assistence as well as providing guarantees of security. Perpetrating creeping agression certainly would not bring that moment any closer, and ignoring and apologising it severely compromises our credibility as a trusted agent of peace (i.e. whatever is left of it).

Hamas does not come to the table and they use children as weapons. I don't think you get that.

And Isreal keeps stealing the land. And firing missiles into buildings. And summarily destroying houses. And creating unbearable living conditions in the occupied territories.

A genuine mediator of peace would insist on all sides to live up to the principles of peace. That very obviously is not your position.

Israel negotiates, has made good on leaving areas of land and evacuating settlers.

Indeed, evacuating into other areas, and building many more settlements there while you're looking the other way and celebrating non existent "successes".

Your focus is only on Israel. You only blame Israel and is some child-like fashion seem to believe that the violence magically ends if all settlers leave the West Bank.

Of course that's obviously false and you read it so many times that either you are honestly unable to comprehend simple text, or deliberately misrepresenting, again. Two wrongs won't make one good, and a genuine mediator of peace would insist on all parties observing the principles of peace. Which is obvously not your position, because your task in this pseudo peaceful process is to mud up the waters and obscure the ground while your friendly side is going on its dirty business.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you're the only one using the word. None of your references mention any schedule and two explicitly state that it has not been reported. Obviously you're back to your creative self, or rather never left it. Some things never change.

Barak saying weeks and months is a schedule. It is a defined time. The Jerusalem Post said timeframe and gave the timeframe but no, you think in your creative way that it means nothing.

Obviously you can say whatever you want but you haven't been able to point to example where I misrepresented my references. Unlike yourself (see above).

You read things you want to read.

And as usual, we'll just have to take your word on it.

I am right. You are wrong.

And massive addition elsewhere, dwarfing by far as you like to express, these positive developments. But you like to "focus" on little peanuts and ignore the steaming pile of you know what that's glaring you straight in the eyes.

And now the focus is on the West Bank. However, you want to break off the present talks and introduce sanctions immediately.

You had no issues with applying sanctions to Hamas so why all that shyness and consideration when your friendly party is involved?

When Israel starts using children as bombs, I won't be shy about the same treatment.

"Pushing" and acting the same way it "pushed" at Hamas for its violations? Why not? You keep forgetting to explain that paradox. And now you're saying that we're acting, so I simply can't deny you a chance to share with the board factual confirmation of this statement. So what would be the most recent real and practical act directed at removal of illegal settlers, something that's been talked about for over two decades (I hope we can avoid a discussion of lexical difference between talk and act - remember that million $$)

Hamas didn't violate any agreement for peace. They aren't part of the peace. They are at war.

Why was it only supposed to come at a convenience of your friendly party Dobbin? Isn't it a serious obstacle to peace by your own admission? If it is (really) so, why wouldn't you insist on all parties living up to the principles of peace at all times? Something does not tie up here. And we know exactly what. Your pseudo peacy words simply won't line up with the act of ignoring and tacitly encouraging creeping agression by your friendly side

Hamas's terrorism using children and bombings is not the equivalent.

That is a complex issue created non in the least by the way Isreal has been created decades back. Both sides will have to make their way to the final settlement, that would probably need (genuine) involvement by the world, in assistence as well as providing guarantees of security. Perpetrating creeping agression certainly would not bring that moment any closer, and ignoring and apologising it severely compromises our credibility as a trusted agent of peace (i.e. whatever is left of it).

Your blindness to terrorism by Hamas is by far the biggest example of an impediment to peace.

Your focus is solely on Israel.

And Isreal keeps stealing the land. And firing missiles into buildings. And summarily destroying houses. And creating unbearable living conditions in the occupied territories.

A genuine mediator of peace would insist on all sides to live up to the principles of peace. That very obviously is not your position.

And yet both Israel and Palestine want our participation.

Indeed, evacuating into other areas, and building many more settlements there while you're looking the other way and celebrating non existent "successes".

Ho hum. More of the same.

Of course that's obviously false and you read it so many times that either you are honestly unable to comprehend simple text, or deliberately misrepresenting, again. Two wrongs won't make one good, and a genuine mediator of peace would insist on all parties observing the principles of peace. Which is obvously not your position, because your task in this pseudo peaceful process is to mud up the waters and obscure the ground while your friendly side is going on its dirty business.

It is true. You can't be honest with yourself about that.

Edited August 7, 2009 by jdobbin

[jbg]

Israel negotiates, has made good on leaving areas of land and evacuating settlers. Your focus is only on Israel. You only blame Israel and is some child-like fashion seem to believe that the violence magically ends if all settlers leave the West Bank.

I agree with you for once (though no doubt you're not reading this since you childishly have me on "ignore").

The violence, in the view of the he/she/it that you are responding to, will end when Israel gives up the ghost and disappears.

1. That's not likely to happen;and
   
2. The animals returning Gazans and West Bankers will waste little time in finding some ancient grievance over which to butcher each other.
   

Look what's going on in Pakistan these days. Or Afghanistan. Or Sudan.

Edited August 7, 2009 by jbg