dexterm

3 hours ago, ukrules said:

Can a President win 2 Nobel prizes? ????

The Nobel Peace Prize was not intended to reward a narcissistic lunatic who facilitates a nefarious deal between dictators and fascists, so that they can all continue suppressing human rights. Just might somehow demean the award.

2 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Israel and most everybody else who matter probably don’t care about a two-state agreement anymore because the “Palestinians” have no interest in it. Their only position is either direct or indirect collapse of Israel altogether. 
 

But anyway haters gonna hate.  

Palestinians want an end to the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism, and so do I. They recognised Israel's right to exist over 30 years ago. They are still waiting for Israel to reciprocate.

If only you were partly right, and the Palestinians did push for an end to apartheid with a single state solution with equal rights for all, just watch Israel then rush to the negotiating table begging for two separate states.

If Trump wins the election, his ridiculous deal of the century will lead to a single state...good. 
If Biden and Harris win they may be able to bring Israel to its senses to negotiate a two state solution based on the 2002 Peace Initiative... also good.

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm sure they'd all be allowed to stay, as lone as they agree to be killed first....

I was not being flippant. There are many fanatically religious Jews who would want to stay in a Palestinian state. Up2 them. Security arrangements could be made to begin with. But in time provided they are law abiding and simply want to practise their faith, they could become acceptable citizens.

Bear in mind that at the moment Palestinians are attacked/ killed on almost a daily basis because of their ethnicity in their own land.

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And you appear to be a desperate troll. I never denied what you claim. What I did comment about was the language and descriptions you use are less on the factual side, and rely on emotive content. As you cannot support your claims, you go on yet another bogus, baseless personal attack.

 

Same goes for making nonsense comments unrelated to either side's actual positions, or either people's views. That was what you originally posted about - and obviously missing from your "reply".  Highlighting uninformed or misleading parts of your commentary often results in such unrelated attacks such as above.

 

So by all means, do tell about sides' various positions regarding "arrangements" such you mentioned. And do provide fact based details about all them title deeds and keys. Alternatively, you could explore support on either side to the notions of confederacy or a one-state solution. 

 

Guess all that's too hard, or going places you don't wanna go, so probably another irrelevant personal attack will be forthcoming.

>>And do provide fact based details about all them title deeds and keys. 
If you don't deny that half the population of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and are not allowed to return, then why on earth question the probability that many Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed still hold the title deeds and keys to their confiscated properties, and moreover you seek proof for such?

I suggest you Google Images: "Palestinian keys"...you'll get thousands of hits.

Or hear someone who has actually spoken to a Palestinian refugee. I wonder if you have. And before you nitpick...I have.

"I spoke to Palestinians who still hold the keys to homes they fled decades ago – many are still determined to return
Most of them were convinced – or thought they knew – that they would come back after a week or two and re-open those front doors, and walk back into the houses many had owned for generations"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/palestine-keys-return-home-israel-palestinians-a8398341.html

>>Alternatively, you could explore support on either side to the notions of confederacy or a one-state solution. 

And since you asked...

"The two-state solution can be achieved through a confederation
The Israeli-Palestinian “A Land For ALL” movement, which is hoisting the flag of a confederation, proves by its coexistence how vital is such a structure for both sides."
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/the-two-state-solution-can-be-achieved-through-a-confederation-601058

"An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work
The two-state solution is dead. Most one-state solutions are unacceptable to the other side. There is, however, a viable peace plan that appeals to both."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/29/an-israeli-palestinian-confederation-can-work/

My preference is for a one state solution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

....which will inevitably happen. Since Palestinians and Israeli Jews are geographic neighbors for eternity. 

 The route they will get there will probably be via King Salman's two state Peace Initiative, in that it is also the solution that Israel's largest trading partner the EU endorses. Pressure from a new US admin would help too.
 

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There is no "disinformation", and you may want to brush up on what "non sequitur" means. Basically, you acknowledge the dictatorial nature of the KSA, but posit that support for the Palestinians trumps that. For a self proclaimed "humanist", that's a hypocritical position. And, of course, not a word about both of the Palestinian leadership being themselves examples of such.

 

As for the Arab Peace Initiative being "binding", I take it you cannot provide any concrete support for you claims, and instead rely on waffle? In your informed, learned opinion - was the initiative "binding" even after Abbas effectively severed ties with the UAE? No expiry date on this "binding" thing? And while you try to misrepresent the Arab Peace Initiative as being something Palestinians are supportive of, it remains a fact that Hamas did not.

 

Oh, so it's support for human rights, now? Would these be human rights in KSA? The UAE? Or is it that for you, Palestinian human rights take precedence to all others?

>> you may want to brush up on what "non sequitur" means. Basically, you acknowledge the dictatorial nature of the KSA, but posit that support for the Palestinians trumps that. 
..yes, what's the problem? 

You don't seem to understand "non sequitur" One may dislike a political leader but "it does not follow that" one most automatically also object to every single thing the person does. eg. I intensely dislike Trump, but support a ban on offshore exploration in Florida. Just an example to aid your understanding, not meant as a deflection.

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Harping on the "dictators" label is meaningless considering you do not have such issues with KSA or even the Palestinians themselves. As far as I'm aware, the Arab Peace Initiative was not a binding agreement that shackled the supporting to your version of the Palestinian cause for all eternity. I don't see you having any issues with the fact that the Hamas rejected the Arab Peace Initiative.

 

I don't know that the agreement between the UAE and Israel represent much of an economic reward for the UAE. Ties may increase, but how much more relative to what was already in place remains to be seen. What the UAE does get are better ties with the USA, possible strengthening of military capabilities, and gaining a better position as far as diplomatic leadership of the Arab world goes.

 

There is no imperative, even if you think so, to put Palestinian interests before national ones. There is also no imperative to ignore Abbas severing ties with the UAE a while back, but you seem to manage that too.

 

When it doubt, when you got nothing, bring out the personal attacks - I never stated that might makes right is a principle of mine. I acknowledge that on many levels, that's how things work. You want to deny either? The first denial would be a lie, the second merely living in a fantasy world.

Disinformation. I called the leaders of KSA head chopping dictators. Your deflection does not make sense.; it is a non sequitur.

>>As far as I'm aware, the Arab Peace Initiative was not a binding agreement that shackled the supporting to your version of the Palestinian cause for all eternity.

Well, make yourself aware! When people sign agreements they usually stick to them. If they don't, it's called breaking your word. Although that seems to be the vogue amongst many politicians these days.

Sure there's no imperative to support human rights. Just that people who don't tend to be immoral selfish sociopaths.

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You ignore that this no-permanent-peace situation is much easier to endure on the Israeli side, where it has less of an obvious effect on people's lives. On the Palestinian side(s) things are not necessarily quite as bearable.

 

Your "recommendation" to the Palestinians manages to both ignore and milk their plight while waiting for the outcome promised. And if it does not pan out this way? Too bad for the Palestinians, great for them wannabe "activists" pouring scorn from behind the comfort and safety of their keyboards.

 

The above also ignores Palestinians are not as invested in the sort of solutions and happy endings you go on about. As usual, not a word on Palestinian positions, wishes, politics and whatnot. As far as you are concerned, seems like these are immaterial, irrelevant.

As usual full of carping criticism of others' positive solutions, but none of your own offered and not a word about what to do with the 4.5 million Palestinians living under apartheid conditions, other than roll over and surrender to your Zionist colonialist masters because it's the easiest thing to do. And spare me the faux sympathy for Palestinian suffering.

It does not matter how many mercenary deals Israel makes with Gulf dictators, all Palestinians need do is stay where they are. Until Israel gets a peace deal with them, Israel's land grabs will remain illegitimate.  

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

An arrangement between which parties? You and Israel? You and the PA? Not aware of any "arrangements" such as you fantasize about being part of negotiations, or being acceptable to either side. That you are not familiar with facts or positions of sides involved is nothing new, but this nonsense takes it to a new level.

 

The bit about title deeds and keys is one of the catchphrases you add for color and emotive value. Fact? Not so much on both counts. Addressed on many past topics, doesn't seem to phase you one bit.

 

That you push a fringe notion of a confederation or a one-state is at a disconnect with both "sensible" or the positions/wishes of sides involved. But, of course, an outsider's uninformed view is always the best recipe for solving a multi-faceted conflict.

You appear to be a Nakba denier. No mention of the fact that Israel's ethnic cleansing of half the Palestinian population and their racist refusal to allow their right of return is the root cause of the entire conflict.

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So here you are again, whining about "unelected dictators". concerned about civil rights and freedom of speech. Funny how none of that matters when KSA stays the course - then it's well-done-ksa, never mind its way more oppressive regime. And, obviously, doesn't matter also with regard to the Palestinians too - both having "unelected" leaderships, both not big on the civil rights and freedom of speech fronts. Guess hypocrisy ain't a bad word.

 

This relatively new bit is followed by the usual collection of copy-pasted slogans and half-truths. As per usual, you fail to mention that the Arab Peace Initiative was rejected by the Hamas. You're also ignoring the fact that even with the conflict remaining unresolved Israel maintains relations with quite a few Arab and Muslim countries (see the OP for latest). The flip side of that is that not all Muslim countries have signed up for the Arab Peace Initiative, and not all the Arab countries are currently in a state to sign or approve of anything much (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen....).

 

Israel will not have permanent peace until the conflict is resolved. The same goes for the Palestinians. The difference is that the Israelis have their state, and like it or not, the situation is more bearable on their side of the fence. For the Palestinians, having no horizon is a much harsher prospect. You're welcome to ignore that as well.

 

No hypocrisy. I am no fan of the head chopping dictators in KSA either. But they have at least kept their word.

The man with a problem for every solution. When you have exhausted all other nitpicking play the Hamas wild card.

Just because the bully Israel seems to be temporarily winning does not make it right. Israel has a state but with an as yet undefined eastern boundary..they keep moving it. You place the material comforts of the average Israeli above the moral compass they have lost. 3 years of brutalization and possible death in the IDF, and forever looking over your shoulder is not a lifestyle most western teenagers and their parents would aspire to. Not exactly nirvana.

Spare me your faux sympathy for the Palestinians.

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

In what manner did they "backstab" the Palestinians? Was it a real secret relations with Israel were on for quite some time now? Does "backstabbing" apply when the other side's leader (Abbas) severs ties over issues of domestic politics? Is the UAE beholden to uphold Palestinian interests over its own, no matter what?

The dictators who run the UAE reneged on the Peace Initiative they had signed putting $$$ of which they already have plenty above principles. That's backstabbing. If your principles are might is right and the mighty $ trumps human rights, up2u. That would not at all surprise me.

2 hours ago, puipuitom said:

 

1834: Looting of the jewish quarter of Safed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed

1947 Manama riot against the Jewish community of Manama, in the British Protectorate of Bahrain, on December 5, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Manama_riots

And many after. Think of the Great-Mufti of Jerusalem, who even escaped to Nazi-Germany, set u a Muslim battalion in Bosnia, and only had one wish: clear Palestine of jews, the Nazi way.

Disinformation and off topic. Another thread another time maybe.

2 hours ago, puipuitom said:

Till now the Palestinians even refused any jew living in that area.

An arrangement could be made to allow illegal Jewish settlers to remain in Palestine if they wanted to, provided that they take out Palestinian citizenship renouncing Israel, and reciprocally that 4.5 million indigenous Palestinians, many of whom still hold title documents and keys to their homes within Israel, are also allowed the right of return back to their confiscated properties within Israel whence they were ethnically cleansed.

A more sensible solution of course would be to have a confederation of Israel and Palestine where everyone is allowed to live, work and worship wherever they like. Or better still a single democratic state.

2 hours ago, puipuitom said:

Just read History:

The jews bought huge areas of land from Arab land owners living in Damascus etc, never bothering with their arid land on the other side of the Jordan.

A large part was arid, semi desert, and in fact from the Ottoman empire. After the war, as so often, enemy capital was annexed by the winner = Britain and France. When the British left, the Jews accepted a separation, but as ususal, the Arabs, inclusive those, who lived there = Palestinians, refused all. A war started with the aim of the Arabs to push all hews into the sea. Kill, Kill, Kill.. so the local Palestinians were asked to leave, so the Arab armies had free movement to do.

Unfortunately it went different: the Jews won, and conquered area originally in the UN plan for the Palestinians. And as so often, the winner takes it all: remember the British/Yanks, British/Australians, Spanish + Portugese in Southern America: they took it all. The Sowjets: who pushed the Germans and Poles out of a big part of their territory, direction West. Even the Thais annexed the Lanna kingdom.

About 700,000 jews were forced out of Arab territory, where they sometimes already lived over 2500 years. A 400.000 Palestinians left what is now Israel, and fled to refugee camps. When the locals there discovered the UNWRA was supporting the refugees, a 300.000 locals also joined in, getting UNWRA aid. This since 1949, latest a US$ 1,3 BIllion/yr. The Jews... got nothing.

 

Who is grasping what ?

Disinformation straight out of Zionist "perfect narrative" playbook. Many inaccuracies. Off topic anyway. Another thread another time maybe.

34 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Many Palestinians are former Jews who converted to Islam due to being unable to keep to the Jewish faiths requirements , like, sending your eldest Child to university  

That is entirely possible. And many Jews over the millenia may be converts from other faiths as Ivanka.

A double irony. Same god, same people fighting over the same land all because of religion. Sad.

30 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

You never get tired of posting your biased  political tracts, and you  never mention the millions of  Arab Jewish refugees.

 

Nothing anyone can say or do will  ever change your views. You will keep posting the same tired political slogans until your demise.  Please move to Gaza. they need you. You can give them the leadership they need. Only with your political wisdom can they reach the goal of their sovereign nation. Only you can save them.

 

In the interim, the Arab world will be moving on, past the views and complaints of the palestinians and their enabling  aging left wing supporters.  

If the Palestinians don't have a permanent peace, neither does Israel.

So what do you propose should happen to the 4.5 million indigenous Palestinians living within the area Israel wants to annex?.. ethnic cleansing Vers 3.0?... to make way for colonialist European immigrants?

Whatever perfidious deal UAE makes with Israel, the problem is not going away.

All Palestinians need do is remain exactly where they are in their homeland and increase in numbers, until a concerted effort from Israel's largest trading partner the EU or a new US administration that is serious about actually creating the conditions for a permanent peace, puts pressure on Israel to see sense and give up its expansionism in order to live side by side with its neighbors.

Israel wants 3 things: a Jewish State, democracy, and the West Bank. It can only have two of them.

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

You can't have any of those things if you are dead.

How many people died unnecessarily due to Trump not wanting to tell the truth? He knew it was airborne, yet, he still held conventions with no social distancing and denigrated mask wearing. Shows you just how much he thinks of his own supporters.....

Thank you, KB. I was about to say similar.

And he is still holding rallies where he mocks mask wearing and social distancing..sensible precautions that any leader in their right mind should be promoting rather than politicizing. Watch out for the second wave as winter approaches just in time for the election. Lets hope the candidate who treats this pandemic more seriously than his ego wins.

195,239 dead Americans would love to have had a bit of panic instilled in them to safeguard against this pandemic..rather than bleach and bright lights.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/#:~:text=United States Coronavirus%3A 6%2C549%2C475 Cases and 195%2C239 Deaths - Worldometer

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What you've posted have little to do with my post, or even the original post in this mini-exchange. How does the above relate to the Palestinian schism? To Hamas not subscribing to the politics alluded to on the OP and comments? What does it have to do with the two Palestinian leaderships being essentially unelected? Or with the Hamas being regarded as a terrorist organization?

 

Spin things as you like, but the fact is that Israel's politics (and indeed, Zionism) is hardly as monolithic as you and other posters present. There are significant forces within Israel who do not subscribe to the sort of politics and positions you describe. As opposed to your claim, the USA did not actually encourage the annexation move, to the extent that some of the people involved were acting or speaking against it.

 

Interesting to note that like other Palestinian "supporters" on here, there's very little by way of accepting any criticism whatsoever, even if it's firmly grounded by fact or even represents Palestinian views. Seems like for some posters, Palestinians are somehow exempt from being held accountable and responsible for choices made, actions taken and the like. That's not much of basis for discussion, let alone negotiations.

Why doesn't Israel or 3rd party countries moderating possible negotiations make free and fair elections in the West Bank a precondition of such negotiations. Israel controls every other aspect of Palestinian lives. I'm sure it could be arranged through UN observers. At least they'd all be on the same page.

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I did not "ignore" anything, certainly not the fact that you do not acknowledge points made by others, except when twisting their meaning or using them as stepping stones for more regurgitated propaganda.

 

What you post is untrue. Israelis are not even allowed to enter some of the areas controlled by the PA, and, of course, they are not permitted to enter the Gaza Strip. While you wish to ignore uncomfortable facts out of sync with your narrative, there's good reason for the Palestinians not being allowed free access - it would take some creative denial to erase all them terrorist attacks, suicide bombings and the like.

 

What you prefer is irrelevant to the fact that the "solution" you push is neither realistic, nor wished for by either people. That you try to paint it as being

 

And for the dishonest "agree with you", you do not. Twisting words is not "agreeing". I do not confine my comments, critical or otherwise to only one of the sides. You can go on about "Israeli mentality", but that leaves out the "Palestinian mentality" which you're either uninformed about or unwilling to discuss. Other than in your tirades, the conflict is not maintained solely by Israeli positions and stance.

 

It's interesting that you have no issues with applying foreign pressure on one side, but readily denounce the same with regard to the other. Following you "reasoning" this "tough love" could be used on both. But then, you have issues merely with countries not fully supporting the Palestinians in accordance with your views, so no surprises.

 

Let's check again - your points, such as they - addressed. Questions and points raised in my previous posts ignored. Not much of a discussion, but then you're not here for that.

>>Let's check again - your points, such as they - addressed. Questions and points raised in my previous posts ignored.
..the usual arrogant nonsense. You ignore the fact that Israel is already a de facto single state. Has been for the last 53 years.

Might be a good idea to keep some of them terrorist fanatical Jewish settlers the other side of the green line too, the ones that firebomb Palestinian homes and mosques, throw rocks at honest Palestinian farmers, poison wells and livestock, cut down olive trees. Cowards because they have the guns, and that goes for the IDF too, who simply turn a blind eye to these thugs. 

I am all in favour of a peace conference on the basis of the OP King Salman Peace Initiative but with honest brokers mediating, cajoling and banging both heads together. Trump and Kushner have clearly shown they don't fit that bill. Their deal of the century is a just a Netanyahu wishlist.  Maybe after the November election in the hope there's a fresh team.

If not, mai ben rai, Trump will help Israel dig a deeper hole for itself.

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, I did not. I was obviously referring mainly to your usual one-state nonsense, but also to the bogus confederation bit. My views on both the two-state solution and the Arab Peace Initiative were aired on these topic numerous times, there is no way you are not aware of them. Just another attempt to twist words and meaning, nothing new.

 

You can go on and on about your one-state nonsense. It would still be inapplicable with regard to either sides' positions and wishes. Other than rosy fantasies, you could not begin to realistically explain how it would work or come about even if sides were actually into it. This is the ME, not the EU. Why would you imagine it is possible to copy-paste this construct and apply it to these surroundings? Could you point to any regional precedent? Any regional country practicing democracy on the level required even without the conflict to get over first?

 

You can spin it all you like, but Hamas is not interested being part of negotiations on a peace initiative it did not embrace. Further, Hamas positions are such that the basis for the Arab Peace Initiative is rendered pointless. You simply do not wish to accept the reality of the Palestinian schism, or the implication of the Hamas's positions. What you seem to engage in our nonsense games about what if's which do not apply.

 

As for your "don't invite them" bit, I would suggest making yourself familiar with Palestinian positions and politics before posting. It's not only Israel which sees the problem of negotiation with only one of the Palestinian leaderships, the Palestinians themselves have rejected the notion of conducting separate negotiations. From the PA's point of view, this would give the Hamas ample political ammunition painting them as selling out or being soft, while also running the risk of not being able to deliver when the time comes - thus putting their position and authority under question. This too, was covered on many past topics. Your assertion that the Hamas will be simply or easily sidelined is not, that I'm aware of, supported by any significant assessment.

You ignore the patently obvious. Israel is already a single state..has been for the last 53 years.

If you are an Israeli Jew, you can live, work and worship anywhere you like from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.
If you are a West Bank or Gazan Palestinian you get to work and worship in Israel but only after you have been herded through metal cages at checkpoints by trigger happy IDF.

My preference is for a single democratic state which it will be ultimately because Palestinians and Israelis are geographical neighbors for eternity.
I don't care if it gets there via King Salman's Peace Initiative for a two state solution, which later melds into a EU or US style Confederation.

I agree with you that won't come from within the current Israeli mentality, but it can be brought about with a concerted push from a new US administration and an EU that doesn't just pay lip service to the mantra/fig leaf "We support direct negotiations towards a two state solution." then turns a blind eye to illegal settlement expansion.

Obama said "The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation."CNN interview May 19, 2011

If a new US admin wants to be a real friend to Israel, give them some tough love, and do as Bernie Sanders proposed: attach strings to the $billions of taxpayer money USA gives Israel each year.

@Morch

You called my proposal for a two state solution "fringe politics" , which is the same solution that the EU, King Salman's Peace Initiative and the Obama administration called for. You appear to be the one on the fringes of reality. 

You called my proposal for a single state with a bicameral parliament "rosy fantasies". Single state democracies with equal rights for all is how most of the members on this forum live. If you have lived in Israel you would not have experienced that I suppose.

If Hamas are included in negotiations, Israel says "We can't negotiate with terrorists".

If Hamas are not included in negotiations, Israel says "We need to negotiate a permanent peace with all Palestinians."

You are using the same playbook.

If Hamas oppose Salman's Peace Initiative, then don't invite them to the conference. If the Peace Initiative achieves its aims (67 borders with land swaps, shared Jerusalem or International City, acknowledgement of Palestinian refugees), and the prosperity that comes with peace is seen to be attainable, Hamas would be sidelined.

4 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Palestinians could have had a huge state called Palestine before WW2, and after offered by the UN, they did not want to accept as they could not bring themselves to recognize Israel. Their hatred will continue to turn down any offers, they must love playing the victim.

You keep regurgitating garbage about the Peel Commission's partition plan of 1937 which was also rejected by Zionists at their 20th Congress because they wanted even more: the whole of Palestine which they now have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#The_Jewish_reaction

Palestinians rejected it because it was unfair and involved a huge forced transfer of their population.

Ben Gurion noted it was a tragic mistake, because it left 6 million Jews to be murdered by Nazis in the Holocaust, who may otherwise have had a country to escape to.

Zionists learned from their tragic mistake second time around in 1948, because they knew they had the power to use it as a stepping stone to gain the whole of Palestine, which they have succeeded in doing.
Palestinians objected to foreign powers giving away 55% of their land to colonising European immigrants, when Jews formed only 31% of the population and owned a mere 6% of the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#British_censuses_and_estimations