Morch

If I was into feeling sorry for politicians, I'd feel sorry for Abbas. Trump sort of threw him under the bus with this one. For months, Abbas been more or less playing along, only to be end up looking like a fool. Cost him dearly (politically), and he doesn't have much to show for it.

So now, what with Hamas well into the routine banging on the war drums, Abbas needs to walk a tightrope between not looking soft, and not letting things get out of hand (which would play to his disadvantage). Hence, calling for "days of rage" etc., while Palestinian security forces cooperate with their Israeli counterparts keeping a lead on situation, at least relatively so, and so far.

Snubbing Pence, well...about a week until Pence shows up, so quite enough time to work something out, if Abbas so chooses. While this meeting may or may not take place, Abbas (and the PA) are in a bit of a bind here - the Palestinians rely on the USA for quite a chunk of their budget, and support of various programs and units. Then there's the Taylor Force Act, which while currently neutered, could be amended, resulting in further USA aid cuts. In terms of domestic politics, while Abbas can't be seen as weak on Jerusalem, he can't afford an economic crisis as well. Wouldn't bet on the Pence-Abbas meeting taking place as planned, but good chances (unless something really drastic happens) an alternative will be negotiated.

As for finding a new peace talks broker - no obvious credible candidates, and further complicated as the hypothetical mediator will need to be accepted by Israel as well. The easiest option (if not necessarily practical) would be to call for a wide international conference  etc. This would satisfy political leaders' need to be seen as doing something, but unlikely to be coordinated enough to do much in real terms.

So bottom line, Abbas got shafted, even more so as the statement doesn't convey any real change. And worse, he doesn't seem to have much of back up plan geared to deal with developments. Acting tough is all very well, but to paraphrase Vaya Con Dios - " What are you gonna do, when the days of rage are over?".

Lucky break Douglas Murray didn't have an Iranian themed competition.

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

East Jerusalem is not in occupied territory , East Jerusalem is named Israels Capital in 1948

Err, West.

And technically, the whole of Jerusalem wasn't supposed to be under either side's exclusive control. But that's water under the bridge now.

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It goes to what has been repeatedly point out about the Crown Prince: his impulsivity and lack of regard for consequences. Here's some more:

Why Saudi Prince's Sale of the Century Won't Sell
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.826941

Goes nicely into how how his own actions have sabotaged his economic reform program.

 

 

So basically, you're hijacking the topic in order to push a point of view which isn't even debated much....

To reiterate - the Crown Prince may be as you describe him. His policies may not be well thought out, or well executed. My point of view on this relates to the state of things he inherited (or about to), and to the level of threat poised by Iran. In this context, carrying out in the same old style of his predecessors would not, IMO, would have generated better results, and would have run further risks related to domestic issues.

The OP is not really about yachts, paintings or Aramco, but deals with Iranian-Saudi struggle for dominance in the Middle East. Trying to make the Crown Prince's supposed character flaws into a centerpiece of each related topic is tiresome, and offers but a limited take on things.

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Please stop this endless speculating on other members opinions. You're presuming things not stated or intended, and sending these out as gospel.

 

It makes your posts less and less attractive to read due to all the spin.

 

I once appreciated your posts on this subject, stated so here on the board as well, but your personal opinions are deminishing them more and more.

Please stop your endless deflections. A short visit to most topics detailing such hypothetical events as described would net the responses mentioned. I wasn't referring to you specifically, and I don't really mind care all that much as to your personal assessment of my posts. If it bugs you so much, perhaps consider the amount of rubbish posts I respond to...

@Srikcir

The topic is : Hamas calls for Palestinian uprising against Israel.

You assertions as to what might have been if Israel was not Israel (without getting into the part where you do not discuss the Palestinian being the Palestinians, but treat them as a neutral player) are related to the topic in a roundabout way, if that.

Notably, there's nothing in your musings which relates to the Hamas (that object of the topic) - Does the Hamas call for an uprising because it wants a peaceful one-state solution? Or is the Hamas characterized by any liberal, secular traits?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had the project been carried out properly and Israel confined to the 1948 borders, with Jerusalem an international city, the world would have been spared much blood and treasure.

 

And that wouldn't have anything to do with the other side's rejection, naturally. And surely, if they had accepted,  it would have peacefully abide by the terms. Yeah, that's exactly how things go in the Middle East.

Topic, though, is ain't about posters fantasies, revisionist historical accounts or any of the many other usual deflections:

Hamas calls for Palestinian uprising against Israel.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Palestine has probably been "occupied" for all of human history, but the Romans, the Turks, the British and now the Zionists are the best known.

They are actually called Israelis, not Zionists. And, yes, most people do tend to skip the Jordanian and Egyptian bits. Of course, what some posters consider to be Palestine includes the State of Israel...

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city under UN supervision, and was never part of Israel in the UN charter.

The UN had only just begun, but failed in its first major test when it allowed the terms of the charter creating Israel to be voided, just because the US sided with Israel.

It has since shown itself to be completely useless in conflict resolution, but that is down to the corrupt veto system which made the entire project a nonsense from the beginning.

It is worth remembering that Israel would never have existed now if the Russians had vetoed it, but for some reason they did not.

Guess you won't get into the part where the Arab countries and the Palestinian leadership rejected the partition plan and the UN resolution. Much easier to present it as a one-sided issue. The USA support in Israel was far from solid back in the day, there was even an arms embargo during the 1948 war. Not a word about them Arab countries and the Palestinians not accepting the "terms of the charter" never mind "voiding" them.

3 hours ago, car720 said:

I  don't know if I am biased.  I don't particularly like any of them at all.

I cannot help remembering Lebanon though from several years back when it used to be one of the banking capitols of the world and also an extremely beautiful place so I also wonder what strife abounded in Palestine before it was  occupied.  Is occupied the right word?

That's ok, I know you are. Kinda obvious.

As for you memories of Lebanon - exaggerations a-la "one of the banking capitols of the world" aside, it is a beautiful country. Then, of course, there the question of relevance - are you referencing the Lebanese civil war? The Syrian occupation? Or simply trying to single out Israel's military adventurism in this regard, while pretending to be not  "biased"?

And, of course, being the non "biased" poster that you are - no mention of the Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank, no mention of the Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip, and no mention of any Palestinian violence whatsoever, ever.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

It is in the media, attack was apparently carried out by 20 men.

 

Agree, no excuse for this, on the upside: no injuries and no fire to the building. At the moment I would say the wounded in the Palestinian territories and in Israel are more serious than this incident though.

 

No surprise these things are happening right now, and this is exactly what DT is after, so he can blame the Palestinians after he incited it.

But it is worth noting that the target picked is not Israeli or American. The pattern of carrying out such attacks on targets not directly associated somehow seems to be almost taken for granted with some. I would venture that if there was such an attack carried out on a Swedish mosque, under a similar pretext, some of the usual suspects would cry foul rather than take it in their stride.

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

This story has just taken a very violent turn. A synagogue in Gothenberg,Sweden has just been firebombed by a large gang of attackers, furious about the Palestinian situ. Not sure why this is not headlining in all media, maybe it needs time? The President of the Jewish Assembly in Sweden was inside the synagogue at the time of the attack.

 

 No excuse whatsoever for this violence. It is a disgrace.

"...has just taken a very violent turn..."

Are you for real? How does "just taken" apply? And "very violent turn"? Was anyone killed? Injured?

As for the usual nonsense about lack of media coverage, perhaps you're looking at the wrong places.

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

At times Israeli government seems to behave more like a Jewish theocracy.

And some posters will insist on off-topic deflections.

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

A sample of the intifada so far.

 

Israel has killed  2 more in Gaza supposedly attacking a Hamas training compound, with the most moral army in the world injuring 6 children in the process. 

Even though Hamas have not fired at Israel, Israel regularly collectively punishes Hamas for any fire emanating from Gaza.

 

In East Jerusalem the IDF fired stun grenades and tear gas and charged on horseback using their whips through a crowd of peaceful demonstrators in Salah Eddin, one of the city's busiest shopping streets, because the demonstrators did not have a permit from the illegal occupiers.

 

'Israeli forces also closed down most shops on Salah Eddin and confiscated Palestinian flags and posters from demonstrators.

"One police officer didn't like a poster that a woman was holding. He went to take it, the woman objected so he punched her full in the face," said Fisher.'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/tense-scenes-rallies-jerusalem-move-continue-171209134755423.html

 

So much for freedom of speech in the only supposed democracy in the Middle East

 

There is no "intifada", other than in your posts which echo Hamas propaganda.

Two members of Hamas military wing were killed when a Hamas post was attacked in retaliation for rockets launched from the Gaza Strip. That there were civilians, and worse, kids, injured is unfortunate - but does not really have a whole lot to do with your bogus "most moral army" meme.

As you very well know, and was repeated on many previous topics - the understandings reached after the last round of fighting are that Hamas is responsible when it comes to rockets launched. Can't claim to be the sovereign power in the Gaza Strip, and not be held responsible. That you do not like it, or refuse to accept facts and reality, does not change either one bit.

Your descriptions of "peaceful demonstration" are misleading. Enough pictures and clips around - not quite what you're trying to sell. In your world, of course, police forces allow demonstrations to take place wherever, and demonstrators do whatever. Reality is, of course, different.

I guess that you will use your default pitiful excuses to justify or ignore any Palestinian violence associated with the demonstrations. 

1 hour ago, i claudius said:

Live on 148 baht a day? Luxuary. When i was young i lived on air and rainwater if i was lucky

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To use a relevant example, the Irish rebelled against the English for 600 years and didn't stop till England withdrew under duress. Why would any population willingly accept subjugation just because it's the 21st century?

Relevant how? Did the Irish routinely attack other "Western countries" which had nothing or little to do with their situation? Do they continue doing so today?

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Euro (and later, American) colonial adventures have always included Faustian bargains with despots.  I've already given you 3 examples in the Sauds, the Shah and Saddam.  They've installed puppet regimes for centuries.  But you can Google just as well as I can...

 

Flagellation?  No.  The west is now experiencing the natural consequences of centuries of colonialism (brought to an abrupt end when the colonial powers finally bankrupted and exhausted each other with endless, incestuous wars between the related monarchies)  It's going to be more centuries before the tangled mess that they created (and from which many of us have benefited, whether we acknowledge it or not) untangles itself.  We're now paying the price for despicable way those advantages were stolen for us by our predecessors.  With the help of corrupt, despotic regimes they propped up.

 

And anyone who neglects history is bound to repeat history.

 

Anyone who posts worn quotes out of context is bound to think he sounds deep.

Them "centuries" of supposed "western policy of propping up those repressive states" alluded to - do not apply for the rulers you cited later on. While I acknowledge some posters insist on judging any bit of history using the accepted norms of the present, nothing much explains the value of such an "analysis".

"The West" as a whole did not engage in s single minded policy. Nor does terrorism target only them  Western countries with such past as you describe. There isn't much African terrorism directed at "The West". Same goes for  South American, Central American, Native American, South East Asian or even Indian terrorism directed at "The West".

And yes, it is a point of view which centers on a supposed collective guilt trip, and it does feature self flagellation - by refusing to consider the accountability of those perpetrating such terrorist actions, and/or placing the lion share of responsibility with that imaginary collective "West".

9 hours ago, Redline said:

Time will talk

I'll take that as a no, then.

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Which these people are you talking about? An unarmed protestor rolling a burning tire the other side of a reinforced steel border fence against heavily armed Israeli soldiers does not deserve to be shot dead in cold blood. As you say, standard response for the most moral army in the world.

Milking it for all its worth.

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Kind of like the Yanks and the Brits reined down death and destructive punishment on millions of Afghani's and Iraqi's when a bunch of Saudis crashed airliners into the WTC?  Dub would have gone after the Iranians too, had the lies not been exposed with enough people saying enough is enough.

 

To respond to Morch, Saudi is a perfect example of the west propping up a brutal despotic regime.  Add the Shah, Saddam, and just about every despot over the centuries that would keep the gold, the silver, the spices, the oil and the human cannon fodder flowing westward.

 

 

 

To respond to the above: do tell about them hundreds of years of western policy supporting such regimes. I mean, I'm sure you could do it without the hyperbole, but probably wouldn't be half as fun, eh? And this was unique to The West (which probably didn't even know it was The West), right? 

I get it some are into the collective guilt self flagellation thing, but please - a wee bit of balance wouldn't hurt. It's one thing to go on about the evils of Western policies and actions, and another to ignore any further accountability by perpetrators (such as Islamic terrorists). 

47 minutes ago, JemJem said:

It seems that not too many (well, at least, not the high number feared) have heeded the terror group Hamas's call.

 

Could it be that many Palestinians are now fed up of the ongoing conflict and also the levels of corruption endemic among the Palestinian authorities ?! Also, I believe that many Palestinians just want to lead an ordinary life, with at least a decent standard of living; rather than to worry about Jerusalem's being the official capital of Israel.

 

Having said that, of course, there will still be thousands fighting pitched battles with the Israeli security services, at least in the coming days.

As said, there are thousands of demonstrators participating in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Lower scale and intensity demonstrations carried out within Israel by Arab citizens.

With regard to the Gaza Strip, friction points with Israeli security forces are limited to several "routine" flashpoints along the border fence and near the border passages. Whether participation is on par with what was expected or not, no idea. Seems about right, though.

When it comes to the West Bank, the main factors determining participation levels and, more importantly, direct clashes with Israeli security forces, are the PA leadership's public statements, the actual directives given to the Palestinian security forces, and the degree to which the latter obey them. When they wish it, these forces are rather adept at keeping demonstrators at a safe distance or funneling them to less volatile locations. There are localized and personal variations as to the level of control both the PA  and its security forces can (or are willing) to apply.

East Jerusalem itself is a somewhat different category. There are no Palestinian security forces there, and up until the previous demonstrations, the local Palestinian populace was not exactly at the fore of such activities. This changed, with residents displaying impressive persistence and unity - but the context was more concrete and involved clearer religious significance. Whether that was a one off remains to be seen.

I think people underestimate the meaning of Jerusalem for either Israelis and Palestinians. It's not about logic, and not necessarily even about religion.

34 minutes ago, transam said:

At last someone who has got "my" picture...Well done....Silver ahoooooy....

 

I think these blatant provocations call for a tune or two...just sayin'

12 minutes ago, dexterm said:

You were the one who said Hamas were all for violence. I pointed out that they are prepared to accept Israel in its 1967 borders. The current issue is rage against Israel expanding its borders into Palestinian land. Problem is no-one actually knows (not even the Israeli government) where Israel's borders are..Jerusalem's or the  state of Israel itself. Israel has never defined them !

 

It's not being 1000s miles away from Palestine that prevents me from criticizing Hamas. It's the fact that they are legally entitled to resist in any form they like. Personally I feel that violence in the face of the massive Israeli military machine is futile and sometimes counterproductive, and I support non violent passive resistance, or agitation for one man one vote in the whole of Palestine.

 

Amidst a lot of fence sitting and pseudo objectivity you never criticize the fact that Israel should remain a predominantly Jewish state...whatever it takes. To defeat that innate bullying racism is why I post.

If you must, please do a better job of taking my words out of context. For starters, consult the topic and stop deflecting. If you must deflect, stop lying - the Hamas by no means "accepts Israel". It accepts a temporary state in which the Palestine will be within the 1967 lines. This was discussed on many previous topics, pathetic that you should rehash it as it these things aren't clear. The current issue is not about Israel expanding anywhere - that happened long ago. The issue at hand is Hamas advocating violence in response to the President of the USA's speech.

As for the rest of your nonsense - make up your mind if distance is relevant or not, you made two different claims (not that either amounts to much anyway). Regardless, none of your deflections actually addresses the extreme partisan nature and lack of objectivity which are the hallmarks of your posts, nor do they recommend your view as conductive to discussion, or point to any merits other than it being a handy propaganda construct.

Deny it all you will, but justification and support of Palestinian violence are not, in fact, alien to your posts. Deny it all you will, but you do milk any unfortunate consequences of Palestinian violence to the max, while rarely, if ever, offering much by way of reflection on the responsibility of Palestinian leaders and the Palestinians in generals in this regard.

I get it that in your schoolyard world, people are obligated to take sides, and express extreme views as vehemently as possible. Hence the "fence sitting" nonsense. I get it that someone who doesn't do "objectivity", while supposedly being aware of actual facts will do his his best to deride anything that resembles "objectivity" from others. And of course, can't have it without some more off-topic deflection while throwing in the simplistic misrepresentation of another poster's views.

As for you being unequivocally against either bullying or racism..... But of course, according to your bizarre view such things could never be attributed to Palestinians, for example.

And now a reminder of that thing you try not to discuss - Hamas calls for Palestinian uprising against Israel.

30 minutes ago, dexterm said:

So now you have to be an international legal expert to be qualified to debate on this forum.
Links to Geneva Convention, UN resolutions not enough. But apparently your sayso is quite sufficient. Got it.

 

When the President of the USA and supposed free world flouts international law, as the OP Chinese suggest, we could be in for some new hostilities.

More of your nonsense. You do not have to be a legal expert, and others do not have to take your laymen legal interpretations seriously. Sounds fair enough to me. Wholesale links to "Geneva Convention, UN resolutions" are not by themselves an indication that the interpretation you push is correct.

9 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>The OP is about the Hamas. And the Hamas are all for violence.

...Hamas in its charter accepts Israel in its 67 borders (you know those borders that the heavily armed is firing across at the moment killing unarmed Palestinians), when will Israel reciprocate?

 

>>Being an armchair commentator thousands of miles away doesn't seem to hamper you from pronouncing judgement on anything else.
..doesn't seem to stop you either. This is a public forum. I thought exchange of opinions was the general idea.

Addressing lame deflection #1: Hamas does not recognize Israel. Accepting the 1967 lines does not imply, as far as Hamas goes, peace. Try harder. If you're having trouble, refer to the headline of the topic: Hamas calls for Palestinian uprising against Israel.

Addressing lame deflection #2: You cited being in an armchair thousands of miles away as excuse for avoiding criticism of the Hamas (and on other instances, the Palestinians in general). I am not as blind as yourself to faults on both sides' positions, nor do I routinely ignore all wrongs perpetrates by one of the sides, or refuse to discuss issues reflecting negatively on either.