.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
dexterm
-
Posts
4,128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by dexterm
-
-
18 minutes ago, Morch said:
Well, you'd call anything not fully aligned with your hateful views "fence sitting". I do not subscribe to your one sided views, your biased interpretation, your unrealistic "solutions" and your fantastic accounts. At the same time, and in the same way, I do not uphold all of the strong pro-Israel opinions aired on this pages. There is no compulsion to pick a side or to believe that either is 100% in the right.
I am suggesting that the Palestinians could have made better decisions, could have taken more successful paths to achieve their goals, and that they should not be treated as unaccountable for anything and everything whatsoever.
The rest of your drivel is just the run of the mill tirade.
The UK's treatment of Palestinians in the Balfour Declaration and Israel's oppression of Palestinians to this day are both plain wrong.
No apologies for my point of view. I am not going to dress it up by some faux obfuscation (your forte) well perhaps both sides were partly to blame.
All this talk of inaccuracies from the usual hasbara brigade but I seem to be the only one quoting links to support my facts so far.
-
16 minutes ago, sanemax said:
Stop these inaccuracies , you are re writing history .
No links I notice to point out my supposed inaccuracies.
I suggest you view the Jewish Virtual library.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/population-of-israel-palestine-1553-present
-
11 minutes ago, sanemax said:
That isnt quite correct .
There were already Jews living on the land and other Jews came from neighboring Countries as well , Yemen, Egypt, Iran etc . It was only later that European Jews began to arrive
Roughly at the time of the Balfour Declaration
" In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews."
13 minutes ago, sanemax said:That isnt quite correct .
There were already Jews living on the land and other Jews came from neighboring Countries as well , Yemen, Egypt, Iran etc . It was only later that European Jews began to arrive
I was actually being conservative with my 91% Palestinian majority. Roughly at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917
" In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
It was a European invasion of colonizers. Most Jews from outside Europe came decades later after the establishment of the Zionist state.
-
16 minutes ago, Morch said:
Without taking away from Israel's supposed sins (and no need, we all know how this topic will evolve) - some might possibly say that circumstances were not as straightforward or conductive to things being sorted in an amicable way. Some might possibly say this wasn't and isn't a one-way street.
The usual fence sitting intended to muddy the waters suggesting both sides were somehow to blame...now where have I heard that recently?
When thousands of unvited European colonists invade one's land with the intention of establishing their own religious state by dispossessing and disempowering the resident indigenous population, aided and abetted by the UK with all the guns and power, it is hardly unexpected that the native Palestinian population should not greet the interlopers amicably.
-
3 minutes ago, Morch said:
Same old regurgitated hate filled bile. Same old faux indignation ignoring reality in an assumed search for absolute "justice".
Same old attack the messenger without addressing the issues raised.
Nothing faux about my indignation at UK's betrayal and the suffering it has caused. The reality is that The Balfour Declaration was unjust in 1917 and the apartheid conditions imposed by Israel on Palestines today are still unjust.
-
The British Govenment should be hanging its head in shame, and apologising for the misery caused and the countless lives lost through the meddling of their predecessors.
What right had a European power to give away land it did not own to foreign European Jews while ignoring the rights and wishes of the resident indigenous 91% Palestinian population.
Then supporting massive European Jewish migration, helping Jews with the infrastructure to establish a racist Zionist state, training Jewish militias while decimating Palestinian leadership and undermining all their attempts to resist this blatant colonialist project.
Palestinians quite rightly rejected the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and Partition in 1947 for the same reasons..why should they agree to a foreign power giving away a majority of their land to a minority of foreign colonists.
-
Perhaps his bone spurs will keep him away from the front line ..again.
-
On 8/1/2017 at 8:49 AM, bandito said:
Pray tell, how did the Palestinian terrorist get wounded?
Like he tried to murder an Israeli?
So he got what was coming.
Azaria should never have been prosecuted.
He was a soldier and that's what soldiers learn to do.
Defend the Motherland with any means.
So he did what was expected of him.
Azaria, mazzel tov!
The Palestinian murdered in cold blood while unarmed and incapacitated 10 minutes after the original incident, was shot by a member of an illegally occupying army. The Palestinian Abd Elfatah Ashareef was legally entitled to resist occupation by foreign invaders.
Azaria's actions were a war crime and contrary to the IDF's and every civilized country's own rules of engagement. He was tried fairly by his military peers and every one of his excuses and rationalizations was investigated and dismissed. The psychopath Azaria simply wanted to kill someone.
If Azaria is allowed to ignore the Geneva Convention, then the Israeli army simply descends into state terrorism, no better than any other state terrorists that have existed in history.
If Pres Rivlin now pardons him, it will send the wrong message to the IDF and Palestinians.
At the end of the day, all he got was a relative slap on the wrist compared with the hundreds of Palestinian children as young as 12 held in Israel jails, lucky that they weren't shot dead by the IDF for throwing stones.
-
18 hours ago, dig said:
I would like to open an Israeli news agency in Qatar and speak freely... you think they'll let me?
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect..Have you tried? Up until 2009 Israel had trade offices in Qatar.
Bahrein even banned AJ because it was biased towards Israel not against it.
'"We believe (Al Jazeera) is suspect and represents the Zionist side in the region. We will not deal with this channel because we object to its coverage of current affairs. It is a channel penetrated by Zionists," he was quoted as saying.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1980191.stmIranian Press TV, has also criticized Al Jazeera for being pro-American and Israeli.
I have often seen many Israeli reps quite freely discussing issues on AJ.
You seem to imply that Qatar is a repressive regime that would censor Israel's point of view by refusing them an office, and yet you now support Israel doing the same thing to Al Jazeera. Can't have it both ways.
Sadly, I think the only people who might not want reporters to speak freely in Israel is Netanyahu's government.
-
Wonderful news. It wll certainly ease tensions and hopefully save lives.
Israel is perhaps finally learning that softly softly is ultimately more efficacious as far as security matters are concerned than the knee jerk bull in a china shop approach.
-
1 hour ago, Jingthing said:
I'm OK with that, free press and all that, but it can't be denied that AJ has a strong pro-Palestinian / anti-Israel bias.
Maybe its because the truth is that Israel is behaving badly and if Al Jazeera don't cover some of these incidents, who will?
Perhaps this is the coverage that Netanyahu objects to...
"Last week, amid clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Al Jazeera last week published a video in which an Israeli officer is be seen kicking a Palestinian kneeling on what looks like a prayer mat. The network's reporter claimed that Israeli officers attacked the non-violent Palestinian protesters near the Temple Mount."
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.803677 -
So much for freedom of speech in supposedly the only democracy in the Middle East.
>>"The al-Jazeera network continues to stir violence around the Temple Mount," Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page in Hebrew.
Does Netanyahu give concrete examples of this, or is it just another of his attempts to stifle any criticism of Israel?
A regime that fears criticism is doomed to failure.
Without an office AJ cannot speak directly to a range of Israeli officials, making it certain that only one side of the story can be told. I have often seen Israeli reps speaking in Al Jazeera debates. All seems counter productive.
-
3 hours ago, Morch said:
It would seem that for some, common sense, is something that's expected only of Israel. Palestinian contributing their fair share to aggravating and prolonging the crisis is acceptable, though, and goes without comment. One side's religious nutters and domestic politics are an issue, the other side's aren't even mentioned.
The link above tells nothing of how and why an acceptable solution was apparently found, it's just a re-hash of similar articles from the same source - which is by the way, Haaretz, and not the venue linked.
The crisis was, apparently, resolved due to a parallel related crisis arising between Israel and Jordan. The solutions to both are pretty much a trade off. Israel would remove the metal detectors, and install an advanced system of cctv's instead, while Jordan will drop its demand to disregard diplomatic immunity in the case referred to on this topic:
Other than Netanyahu and his government making bad choices, again, this crisis demonstrated several other standing issues pertaining to ME diplomacy and relations between the various parties: (a) US involvement is still a factor, (b) There is a convergence of interests between Israel and non-religious elements on the Arab side, which can be a basis for cooperation, (c) The Palestinians getting sidelined by Arab countries when it fits.
>>It would seem that for some, common sense, is something that's expected only of Israel. Palestinian contributing their fair share to aggravating and prolonging the crisis is acceptable, though, and goes without comment.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestinians, not the other way around!
Israel is the only side with a standing army and the power to impose any restriction they like unilaterally without consultation.If Netanyahu makes a dumb, provocative collective punishment move, it's not the responsibility of Palestinians to appease him, collaborate with him to help him out of a tight spot. Their job is to call it as they see it...yet another Israeli checkpoint, more swaggering Israeli attempts to impose creeping sovereignty on occupied East Jersualem and the al Aqsa mosque..the one place where Palestinian worshippers had some degree of autonomy.
-
Looks like common sense has at last prevailed, and Netanyahu's cabinet have taken the advice of their security services to remove the offensive metal detectors, which they should have done before the deaths of 7 people.
Shin Bet warns, Cabinet ignores
"Israel’s Security Cabinet met on Thursday to decide whether or not to remove the metal detectors from the entrance to the holy compound. Shin Bet advised they should be removed. But Bibi was more worried about what his hard-right rivals would say than by what Palestinians would do."
http://jfjfp.com/Maybe another case of too little too late..history of politics.
-
6 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:
"Violence is not an inevitable part of resistance to an occupation."
So true, and that is why the non-violent BDS movement is such a threat to the radical Zionists. The more their supporters try to pass laws in other countries to outlaw it, the stronger it becomes.
The occupation of Palestinian land by Israel is the root cause of this conflict. Ending that occupation would be the first step in resolving it.
Certainly - by international consensus - Israel has a right to exist; but there is no "right" to ethnic cleansing, no "right" to settler-colonial displacement, no "right" to discriminatory legislation, and no "right to a majoritarian, ethnocratic state that continues to deny the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.
Israel must change, and it will change. Moderate Israelis and increasing numbers of Jews worldwide are realizing that more and more.
Hear hear. Very eloquently put.
Palestinians are entitled by law to resist illegal occupation by any means they can.
Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle
It's time for Israel to accept that as an occupied people, Palestinians have a right to resist - in every way possible.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/07/palestinians-legal-armed-struggle-170719114812058.htmlIsrael and their apologists want it both ways...they condemn armed resistance then pass laws to suppress non violent passive resistance.
The racist supremacist ideology of Zionism is ultimately doomed to failure, because the indigenous Palestinians outnumber their occupiers, and a minority cannot continue to lord it over a majority forever.
-
29 minutes ago, Morch said:
The Waqf's ongoing administration of the site is with Israeli consent and by agreement. Without ignoring faulty decision making by Israeli governments and politicians, turning a blind eye to the Waqf's part in creating this mess is just another tired one-sided view.
Somehow one side's religious fanatics are worse than the others. Said the self-proclaimed atheist.
No need to be rude with snide flaming comments about my beliefs.
True ... the custodianship was agreed to by the illegally occupying power Israel.What the Muslim world is worried about now is Israel reneging on that agreement, which would not be unusual in the context of Israel's temporary 50 year occupation.
Excellent article on the OP subject from Jews for Justice for Palestinians newsletter..
"But there’s a reason why the army and Israel’s security services urged the cabinet to reconsider, which is summed up in the Israeli cliché that it’s better to be smart than right. What difference does it make if the metal detectors theoretically make sense in a sterile environment, if they are bound to wreak more havoc and to cause more death and destruction in their presence than their absence in the hellhole that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?"
The whole article well worth reading. Says it more eloquently than I could.
-
Interesting analysis from Israel's Haartez on Israel's previous and present perceived/real? attempts to alter sovereignty on Harm al Sharif, which is after all a mosque legally administered by Waqf, not the illegally occupying power Israel.
They are playing with the fire of a religious war, another intifada, with many Israelis and Palestinians as casualties just to appease a few ultra religious Jewish fanatics...and it may all in the end prove counter productive.
Knee jerk Israeli reaction with the usual overwhelming force, rather than thinking things through and consultation with the legal custodians to calm the situation.
Israeli Decision Makers Once Again Ignored the Warnings of Bloodshed
"Israeli citizens are entitled to ask, how many times will this scenario repeat itself? How many times until Israel understands that despite the 50 years of occupation and unending clichés from politicians, it is not the sovereign on the Temple Mount?"
-
Just as Israel's Shin Bet predicted..
If only Netanyahu had listened to Shin Bet, who advised him to dismantle the metal detectors, imposed without consulting the legal custodians Waqf, and seen by Palestinians as yet more creeping annexation and control over the third holiest site in Islam, and the illegally occupied West Bank. Yet another Israeli checkpoint along with the hundreds of others to dominate Palestinian lives.
But Netanyahu's saving face comes at a cost of not saving 6 lives, and maybe more to follow. Try being a statesman Netanyahu and not a stooge for the right wing fanatics in your cabinet.
-
Looks like wiser heads may prevail.
Israeli Army, Shin Bet Urging Netanyahu to Relent on Temple Mount Metal Detectors
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.802263When there's a conflagration, don't pour fuel on the fire.
-
On 7/18/2017 at 8:48 AM, CutiePi said:
And this is the culture many want to welcome via migrants and refugees to the West?
This is the culture, and corrupt monarchy that your governments support by $billions of arms sales used in a minor way to arrest the OP woman, and but also to murder thousands of civilians in Yemen.
If you dont tell your govt reps you dont like the sort of people they are propping up with your taxpayer funds, you are just as culpable.
Do something to prevent the cause, not complain about the effects.
-
5 hours ago, Morch said:
Same old deflections.
Israeli police forces are there, because Israel controls the area. Duh. Even if you wish to claim Israel's presence illegal, it does not make a valid argument for Palestinian ownership of same. It was not designated as a Palestinian territory as well. So if sticking to the legal angle (outdated as it is), pretty much all sides involved are in the wrong.
No, the deflection is presenting metal detectors as a religious affront rather than a relevant security measure. Muslims do not object to such measures on religious grounds elsewhere. If the Waqf would have been more diligent preventing usage of the compound as staging ground for incitement and violence, perhaps the need wouldn't arise.
Are you quite done bringing up irrelevant references? I was pointing out that that the compound grounds are often used as staging area for violence (for example, routine attacks on Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall, or indeed, the latest shooting attack), and that Muslim religious leaders often issue inciting messages from the compound or in relation to it. Your response? Sharon's actions back in 2000 (and no, your view of the relation between this and the 2nd Intifada is an opinion, not an agreed upon fact).
Some Israeli leaders may have engaged in incitement themselves. Never said otherwise. This by itself does not mean that Muslim and Palestinian leaders haven't done so. Such logic applies only in your black and white all or nothing world.
Pointing out the hypocritical nature of the claims raised vs. other position held is neither flaming nor stalking. And it bears directly on the topic at hand, with similar instances can be discerned all across the board. Stop playing the victim card.
>>Israeli police forces are there, because Israel controls the area. Duh.
..Israeli police forces are there, because Israel controls the area ILLEGALLY, .... Duh. If they werent there there wouldnt be a problem.
>>presenting metal detectors as a religious affront rather than a relevant security measure.
...a relevant security measure only to protect Jewish extremists whose intent is to desecrate the 3rd holiest site in Islam, by praying and performing Jewish rituals there. Imagine the furore if Muslims tried to do the same thing at the Wailing Wall.>>Such logic applies only in your black and white all or nothing world.
..my logic is ..Israel who have all the guns and power and are the illegal occupiers not the occupied. Israel is writing the script.They could choose to make the situation different. The only power Palestinians have is to roll over and accept whatever fate Israel dishes out to them or resist. -
54 minutes ago, Morch said:
More of the same from the usual suspects.
The above ignores that relying on legal pretext, the Palestinians do not hold much of a claim to the site either. If the point is unclear, consult the only relevant reference, which would be the partition plan. One side's transgressions do not automatically imply the other side's righteousness, as you'd have readers believe.
Metal detectors are placed in other sites of religious importance in other parts of the world, where occupation is not an issue. No one makes a fuss about them, and they are considered a reasonable security measure.
As for cooperation and easing of tensions - may want to check the number of times compound grounds were used for violence, or the often issued calls by religious leaders at the site inciting worshipers for violence.
One of the very first things which happened following the recent attack (which conveniently, is totally ignored as context) was that Netanyahu and Abbas talked and assurances were given that no changes in the status quo are planned. That was, in part, an indirect response by Netanyahu for some of Israel's right wing elements who sought to use the attack as pretext for changes.
The conditional lifting of restrictions previously put in place (by Netanyahu) on Israeli politicians visiting the site took place before the attack in the compound, and before the current clashes. Presenting it as somehow directly tied to current events is the expected dishonesty. Further, treating Hazan's statements seriously is about as clueless at it gets when it comes to Israeli politics. For those not familiar - that the guy who insisted on taking a selfie with Trump as the latter landed in Israel.
The care displayed in the post above for religious sentiment is quite amusing, considering poster's often repeated self description as an ardent atheist. Somehow, this care is almost always applied to Muslims. Seems that Muslim's religious sentiment is to be taken as legitimate with regard to violence. Go figure.
The last bit is, once more, a disingenuous presentation. The headline of the story linked makes it sound as if it directly relates to the current situation, when in fact it was published on May. The article fails to make it clear that the Waqf does in fact administer the site, and that it either turns a blind eye or condones the grounds being used for uncoordinated construction activity, incitement and
violence.
As usual, not a word on the role of Muslim religious leaders, Islamic organizations and Palestinian elements with regard to tensions.
What are Israeli police doing there in the first place, beating up worshippers? Their presence is illegal.
Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal.
"On 27–28 June 1967, East Jerusalem was integrated into Jerusalem by extension of its municipal borders and was placed under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel.In a unanimous General Assembly resolution, the UN declared the measures trying to change the status of the city invalid.
In a reply to the resolution, Israel denied these measures constituted annexation, and contended that it merely wanted to deliver services to its inhabitants and protect the Holy Places"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem#After_2000
..sneaky annexation by stealth. Israel now has 200,000 illegal colonists living there, pushing out Palestinians who are routinely refused building/repair permits.
>>Metal detectors are placed in other sites of religious importance in other parts of the world, where occupation is not an issue. No one makes a fuss about them, and they are considered a reasonable security measure.
..Off topic deflection. we arent talking about other religious sites. It would have created less tension if they had asked the custodians first. But as with most things in Israel's illegal occupation, things tend to become a fait accomplit.>>As for cooperation and easing of tensions - may want to check the number of times compound grounds were used for violence, or the often issued calls by religious leaders at the site inciting worshipers for violence.
...I did. You may want to check the date the situation changed at Haram al Sharif. ...when Likud candidate Ariel Sharon, not particularly religious, decided to take a stroll there along with 100s of bodyguards ..not that he was expecting any trouble of course.. thus deliberately provoking the 2nd intifada..a stunt that made him the PM and thrust the right wing into power. There has been little peace there since. And Israeli leaders have the chutzpah to accuse Palestinians of incitement.Your personal flame/stalking regarding my atheism has nothing to do with the matter.
-
Of course the heavily armed Israeli police thugs who caused the injuries are illegally occupying the site. Without the illegal occupation there would not be a need for any metal detectors, installed without the permission of the official guardians of the mosque WAQF. Consultation and consensus may have eased tensions.
Muslim clerics and Palestinian politicians fear this is just another attempt to impose Israeli sovereignty over Haram Al Sharif, the 3rd holiest site in Islam. And of course Israel has a track record of creeping annexation, so their fears are well grounded.
There is a report that the Israeli government is to allow Israeli MPs, who are not allowed to go to the site to stir up trouble, to visit the site on a trial basis. Some Israeli politicians have even proposed demolishing the mosque to build an Jewish Temple. Do they want to provoke a religious war?
And there has been an increasing number of extremist Jews who violate the agreement not to hold prayers or conduct Jewish ceremonies in the mosque's grounds. They have the Wailing Wall...why do they want more?
How would Jewish worshippers react if Muslims rolled out their mats to pray at their Wailing Wall?
Israel should be de-escalating the tension. The custodians have offered a solution.
Israel Just Got a Rare Offer to Defuse Temple Mount Tensions. It Will Most Likely Reject It
Jerusalem Islamic authority's offer to renew coordination could benefit all sides, but experts say Israel, which currently has the upper hand, is unlikely to take it. -
1 hour ago, Jingthing said:
It's really quite powerful and important that the leader of France has come out so strongly speaking the truth about the link between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism.
Appreciated somewhat more predictably by the USA senate minority leader Schumer --
I don't think Merkel has ever come out so strongly on this issue, has she?
No she hasn't mainly because there is no such link.
Which speaks volumes about why Macron is doing so now.
A century on, UK's Jewish homeland declaration stirs celebration and mourning in Middle East
in World News
Posted
Again you are deliberately muddying the timeline.
At the time of the Balfour Declaration 1917 and for the next 22 years, the British were extremely supportive of Jewish migration to Palestine. They even appointed a Zionist Governor Herbert Samuel and trained Jewish militias.
It was only in 1939 after the Palestinian revolt that UK began to realize the full extent of their colonialist trouble making, perhaps that and the desire for Arab oil with WW2 brewing, when they attempted to curb Jewish migration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939
>> Jewish groups at the time , the Hagana and the Irgun were fighting AGAINST the British, not with them
...Yes, I wonder if Theresa May has invited the relatives of British soldiers Martin and Paice to celebrate the Balfour Declaration.