Putin Urged to Deploy Nuclear Weapons to Expedite War and Sever NATO Supply Routes

[webfact]

Netanyahu sees Europeans following Trump on Jerusalem

 

French President Emmanuel Macron and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attend a joint news conference at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France December 10, 2017. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, visiting the European Union, praised U.S. President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as his country's capital on Monday and said he expected Europeans to follow suit.

 

Ahead of a meeting with EU foreign ministers in Brussels, Netanyahu said Trump's move, condemned by the Palestinians and by European governments, would contribute to peace in the Middle East. He called on the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and to accept that Jerusalem was its capital.

 

Moments earlier, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told reporters as she greeted Netanyahu on the first visit to the EU by an Israeli premier in 22 years, that the bloc would continue to recognise the "international consensus" on Jerusalem.

 

(Reporting by Alastair Macdonald and Robin Emmott; editing by Philip Blenkinsop)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-11

[pegman]

Bibi will see a jail cell over his corruption scandal long before any E.U. country follows Trump on this. Maybe former E.U. member and American  lapdog the U.K. could follow. In a couple years.

[dexterm]

OP..

"He called on the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and to accept that Jerusalem was its capital."

 

Seems harmless enough but look more closely.

 

1) Ignoring for a moment that Netanyahu can't even define where his state's borders are.. Israel has never declared them and they keep somehow creeping eastwards. Let alone asking neighboring countries to recognize these fantasy borders as Jewish.

So why make this an international issue? Domestically Israel can call itself what it likes: the Jewish Republic of Israel. Just as Iran calls itself the Islamic Republic, but it doesn't demand surrounding countries must recognize its religious exclusivity to be allowed to be a peaceful neighbor.

 

Netanyahu has deeper reasons...

 

How can Netanyahu force the PA to recognise a system in which Israel's 20% Arab citizens would become instantly second class : the "non-Jewish" citizens of the "Jewish state" – a contradiction with serious implications: discrimination, loyalty oaths or else, and much more.  

 

But the main reason for Netanyahu's demand is to negate the right of 4 million Palestinian refugees to return to their homes from which they have been ethnically cleansed from Israel and to which many still have the keys. It would upset Israel's phony demographic engineering that tenuously makes it a Jewish state.

 

2) When talking to an international audience notice Netanyahu does not say "accept that Jerusalem was its undivided capital." He fudges it, omitting "undivided". Of course Palestinians will accept West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, if Israel will accept East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital where their sacred sites are located.

 

So there you have it: two blatantly unacceptable preconditions, and Netanyahu knows it.

He grandstands calling for peace talks while simultaneously knowingly putting the kibosh on them.

Edited December 11, 2017 by dexterm

[observer90210]

...some hot trouble will be ahead in that confusing region !!!....it's a pity as a somewhat pretence of peace was established the last few years....

 

....and once again on both sides of the wall,  it's the innocent, those who don't give a damm on politics, controversial policies and who just want to work or live in peace,  who will suffer,

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

As a matter of fact, Israel does have marked and agreed upon borders with some of its neighbors, not all. It isn't the only country in the region involved in border disputes and disagreements. At least one of the current Palestinian leaderships subscribes to a murky version of border definition as well. That you will misrepresent the former and ignore the latter is expected.

 

The point about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state touches on two related issues. One of the key components in any permanent agreement would be a clause pertaining to no future claims being raised. In Islam, there are differing instructions regarding lands defined as Muslim and those that aren't. One of the main ones would be that the former cannot be handed over to infidels and such. Further, while the Oslo Accords did include clauses which included a commitment by the Palestinians to recognize the historical, traditional and religious connections between the land of Israel and Judaism, the actual application of this particular issue was and is lacking.

 

Your interpretation regarding "religious exclusivity" is not very clear. Such a recognition would not bar the practice of other religions (mainly Islam and Christianity), nor would it imply a change in status for Israel's non-Jewish citizens. It is, first and foremost, a diplomatic or a political tool related to possible future claims. It is an international issue because it applies to relations between states. If it was a domestic issue, then there would have been a definition of what the term implies in practical terms.

 

Your made up insights as to Netanyahu's supposed "deeper reasons" fail to explain how such a foreign recognition by one neighboring country (the future Palestinian state) of a basically hollow construct ("Israel as a Jewish State") would imply a significant change with regard to the Arab citizens of Israel. Unless my memory fails, surveys show that Israel's Arab citizens have less issues with such a definition themselves, provided that their civil rights are not impinged. I think that having a peace agreement with the Palestinians would go a long way toward improving things for Arab Israelis as well.

 

Setting unrealistic expectations and standards with regard to the outcome of any peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is one way for naysayers to discredit any possible solution. I think that most people on both sides, would accept a less than perfect, but workable solution. Nobody expects either Israel or the future state of Palestinian to transform overnight into replicas of well established Western democracies.

 

There will be no full application of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return. That you harp on this fanrasy, while going on about the Saudi Peace Plan is disingenuous. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state will not bar compensation, for refugees or their return to the future Palestinian state. Not good enough for those, like yourself, who wish for Israel's destruction, but it is what it is. It would fall under "end of mutual future claims".

 

Both Netnayahu (or other Israeli leaders), and Palestinian (or other Arab leaders) use different rhetoric and terms when addressing domestic and international crowds. The same goes for sides having preconditions, rather than in being only Israel which poses them. That you present these as a one-sided phenomenons is either an indication of further dishonesty or not having much clue. Same goes for favorably misrepresenting Palestinian positions. Or both leaders expressing fake willingness to negotiate.

 

All of these faux points were addressed many times on previous posts and previous topics. You keep bringing up the exact same nonsense, practically cut and paste. One wonders about that line between discussing topics on the forum and using them as a platform for political activism, never mind outright propaganda.

 

 

[Jsinbkk]

Trump acknowledges Jerusalem as Israeli capital. 

 

Sun rises following day 

 

who would of thunk?

 

 

[rudi49jr]

11 hours ago, Jsinbkk said:

Trump acknowledges Jerusalem as Israeli capital. 

 

Sun rises following day 

 

who would of thunk?

 

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Care to elaborate?

[jobwolf]

He is more dillusional then his friend the Duck,

[dexterm]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

As a matter of fact, Israel does have marked and agreed upon borders with some of its neighbors, not all. It isn't the only country in the region involved in border disputes and disagreements. At least one of the current Palestinian leaderships subscribes to a murky version of border definition as well. That you will misrepresent the former and ignore the latter is expected.

 

The point about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state touches on two related issues. One of the key components in any permanent agreement would be a clause pertaining to no future claims being raised. In Islam, there are differing instructions regarding lands defined as Muslim and those that aren't. One of the main ones would be that the former cannot be handed over to infidels and such. Further, while the Oslo Accords did include clauses which included a commitment by the Palestinians to recognize the historical, traditional and religious connections between the land of Israel and Judaism, the actual application of this particular issue was and is lacking.

 

Your interpretation regarding "religious exclusivity" is not very clear. Such a recognition would not bar the practice of other religions (mainly Islam and Christianity), nor would it imply a change in status for Israel's non-Jewish citizens. It is, first and foremost, a diplomatic or a political tool related to possible future claims. It is an international issue because it applies to relations between states. If it was a domestic issue, then there would have been a definition of what the term implies in practical terms.

 

Your made up insights as to Netanyahu's supposed "deeper reasons" fail to explain how such a foreign recognition by one neighboring country (the future Palestinian state) of a basically hollow construct ("Israel as a Jewish State") would imply a significant change with regard to the Arab citizens of Israel. Unless my memory fails, surveys show that Israel's Arab citizens have less issues with such a definition themselves, provided that their civil rights are not impinged. I think that having a peace agreement with the Palestinians would go a long way toward improving things for Arab Israelis as well.

 

Setting unrealistic expectations and standards with regard to the outcome of any peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is one way for naysayers to discredit any possible solution. I think that most people on both sides, would accept a less than perfect, but workable solution. Nobody expects either Israel or the future state of Palestinian to transform overnight into replicas of well established Western democracies.

 

There will be no full application of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return. That you harp on this fanrasy, while going on about the Saudi Peace Plan is disingenuous. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state will not bar compensation, for refugees or their return to the future Palestinian state. Not good enough for those, like yourself, who wish for Israel's destruction, but it is what it is. It would fall under "end of mutual future claims".

 

Both Netnayahu (or other Israeli leaders), and Palestinian (or other Arab leaders) use different rhetoric and terms when addressing domestic and international crowds. The same goes for sides having preconditions, rather than in being only Israel which poses them. That you present these as a one-sided phenomenons is either an indication of further dishonesty or not having much clue. Same goes for favorably misrepresenting Palestinian positions. Or both leaders expressing fake willingness to negotiate.

 

All of these faux points were addressed many times on previous posts and previous topics. You keep bringing up the exact same nonsense, practically cut and paste. One wonders about that line between discussing topics on the forum and using them as a platform for political activism, never mind outright propaganda.

 

 

>>As a matter of fact, Israel does have marked and agreed upon borders with some of its neighbors, not all.

 

And of course, it's the "not all" that Netanyahu is referring to in the OP, a future Palestinian state; we're not discussing other countries. But nice try at deflection. So far Israel has never declared its eastern border, the core issue of any peace talks...is it the ceasefire line of 67 (which Palestinians and the majority of Arab states are willing to accept), is it the separation/segregation wall that steals more Palestinian land, is it the boundaries of its large illegal settlement blocs deep within the occupied West Bank, is it the Jordan river? 

 

You whitewash the seriousness of Netanyahu's call for a Jewish state. It's nothing to do with minor recognition of Judaism having historical, traditional and religious connections to the land....everyone knows that. Palestinians have similar connections too. You don't need to write that sort of stuff into a peace treaty.

 

Netanyahu's call has very sinister implications. It's all about the changes to its Basic Law ( Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People.) that Israeli politicians are at the moment debating. That has very serious ramifications indeed. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_proposal:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#Public_debate

 

It is a purely racist/religionist law. They cannot even decide whether to put the word democracy in it, defining Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic" state. 

As such it will seriously undermine the rights of its existing 20% Israeli Palestinian population, the ones it didn't manage to ethnically cleanse in 1948, and the rights of 4 million Palestinian refugees that it did get rid of. Let alone ones it might also inherit in Jerusalem and Area C if it annexes it. Not even counting the wider Palestinian diaspora.

 

It will enshrine in law:
- the Jewish only right to self determination, but not Palestinians
- the Jewish only right of return for any Jew worldwide even though they have never set eyes on the place before (even Ivanka Trump can claim citizenship), but Palestinian refugees who were born there do not have a right of return
- that only Hebrew is the official language, deviating from the previous understanding that Arabic was also an official language.. in education, road signs, courts, application forms etc etc....and if Hebrew is not your mother tongue...tough...i.e. an attempt to Judaize the whole country, make 20% of its population the invisible people the right wing would love them to be. If you want to integrate your 20% Palestinian population you don't denigrate their language and culture, and undermine their ability to function in Israeli society. Israel should be doing the opposite, legislating to make Arabic compulsory in its education system so that it can talk and build bridges with all its Arab neighbors. What's the problem in following the model of other bilingual countries.

 

Such a Basic Law will overide any other law, like a constitution does, and will open the floodgates for other apartheid style laws that the Israeli Supreme Court will then no longer be able to counter, which currently upsets the ultra nationalists.

 

Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Defense Minister, has already demanded that Israeli Arabs take loyalty oaths, and if not..ethnically cleanse them.  Will it allow Israel to jail citizens Jewish and Palestinians who voice criticism of the Jewish State?

 

The only way that Israel can be a state with a predominantly Jewish character is if the majority of its people are Jewish. Simple math.

It can't legislate itself as such then try to force neighbors to recognize its religionist supremacy. Isn't that what it criticizes Hamas for.

 

And if this Jewish State business is only a minor issue, why is Netanyahu insisting on it, when he knows it will seriously hinder  peace talks.

 

He insists upon it because he knows the proposed Basic Law pre-empts all the Palestinian aspirations in a peace agreement.

The Palestinians aren't idiots. That's why they won't agree to Netanyahu's OP demand for recognition of a Jewish State.

Edited December 12, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Of course not all of Israel's borders are agreed upon, but your comment, as usual, went for the wholesale wide brush presentation. You could have simply referred to the border issue in relation to the Palestinians - you chose to mislead.

To add to this, your are even claim the OP includes things which aren't there - Netanyahu did not directly address borders, or a Palestinian state. And more of this wide brush nonsense - Israel's Eastern border is also with Jordan, and factually, not all of it is under question.

 

That you repeatedly misrepresent certain Palestinian positions as being consensual, while ignoring other prevalent Palestinian views is the usual dishonesty. The obvious example would be the Hamas's point of view, which is not even in favor of a peace agreement as such.

 

If there will be an agreement reached, the border will not run exactly along the 1967 lines. A certain amount of land swaps will be applied, so that some settlement blocs (most likely, those not "deep within" Palestinian territory) would remain under Israeli sovereignty. Parts of the Barrier will be either dismantled or moved. The Jordan river border will probably see a lengthy period of Israel military presence, which will be phased away in time. Either that or some sort of agreed upon foreign military presence.

 

Considering all of these points were raised and addressed on numerous topics the insistence on rehashing them over and over again as if unaware of answers is, again, not conductive to discussion. Reads more like an endless barrage of propaganda pamphlets.

 

I did not "whitewash" anything, but gave an explanation which doesn't suit your agenda. There was nothing said about this recognition being "minor", that's your own added twist aimed at misrepresenting the explanation. Considering it is already written into past agreements, your "expert" opinion about it being irrelevant or unneeded does not carry much weight. That you opine "everyone knows that" is both incorrect and does nor reflect Palestinian attitudes and positions. Make up whatever nonsense you like, the Palestinian history in this regard is a new construct - relatively and objectively.

 

It is about blocking possible future claims. Nothing minor about that.

 

The major flaw in your supposed insight to Netnayahu's "sinister" plans would be that the demand to recognize "Israel as a Jewish State" predates the current legislation efforts. Not that anything short of hyperbole would do - but even the link provided indicates that the legislation is still in early stages, and that it does not necessarily enjoy a wall to wall support (even not from all right wing politicians and parties). And that's before hitting the Supreme Court.

 

So all most of your rant deals with hyping something that might come about, and this flimsy reasoning is suggested as an explanation for a negotiation condition which was set at an earlier date. While this legislation effort is all wrong, and obviously nothing good will come out of it, it is not quite the alleged smoking gun to Netanyahu's supposed "sinister" plans.

 

As stated in previous posts, IMO the situation of Israel's Arab citizens will gradually improve on all aspects following sides signing a peace agreement. A renouncement of future claims would go along way toward reducing much of the negative sentiment which is at the motivation for such legislation (for example). Obviously, if a peace agreement will materialize, then there will be no annexation which renders the related "point", well..pointless.

 

No matter how much you'll harp on it - there will be no full application of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return. A small number may be accepted, compensation will certainly be discussed and Palestinians will be free to reside within the newly formed Palestinian state. That you keep referring to the rights of Palestinian refugees and their decedents and implying otherwise is misleading. If you wish to make this, post-peace-agreement, the future nexus of your anti-Israeli rants, by all means. Just highlights the standing disconnect and irrational nature of your views.

 

Trying to equate Israel with the Hamas is both off mark, and, considering your obvious hatred of everything to do with Israel, and support for anything associated with the Palestinians - rather perplexing.

 

So to sum once more, the issue of recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" is not a "minor issue". That is a bogus spin  of yours to both my view and the facts associated with it. Regrettable, if expected. It is not a "minor issue", but not in the way you describe. It pertains, first and foremost for blocking possible future claims. That's neither "minor" nor easily accepted by the Palestinians. The timeline does not support your truly clueless interpretation, both with regard to Netanyahu raising this condition, and the Palestinians rejecting it.

 

Obviously, the topic does not actually deal with what most of your tirade was about, but as you see these discussions as a platform for laying out an extreme political agenda, shouldn't bother you much.  

[dexterm]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Of course not all of Israel's borders are agreed upon, but your comment, as usual, went for the wholesale wide brush presentation. You could have simply referred to the border issue in relation to the Palestinians - you chose to mislead.

To add to this, your are even claim the OP includes things which aren't there - Netanyahu did not directly address borders, or a Palestinian state. And more of this wide brush nonsense - Israel's Eastern border is also with Jordan, and factually, not all of it is under question.

 

That you repeatedly misrepresent certain Palestinian positions as being consensual, while ignoring other prevalent Palestinian views is the usual dishonesty. The obvious example would be the Hamas's point of view, which is not even in favor of a peace agreement as such.

 

If there will be an agreement reached, the border will not run exactly along the 1967 lines. A certain amount of land swaps will be applied, so that some settlement blocs (most likely, those not "deep within" Palestinian territory) would remain under Israeli sovereignty. Parts of the Barrier will be either dismantled or moved. The Jordan river border will probably see a lengthy period of Israel military presence, which will be phased away in time. Either that or some sort of agreed upon foreign military presence.

 

Considering all of these points were raised and addressed on numerous topics the insistence on rehashing them over and over again as if unaware of answers is, again, not conductive to discussion. Reads more like an endless barrage of propaganda pamphlets.

 

I did not "whitewash" anything, but gave an explanation which doesn't suit your agenda. There was nothing said about this recognition being "minor", that's your own added twist aimed at misrepresenting the explanation. Considering it is already written into past agreements, your "expert" opinion about it being irrelevant or unneeded does not carry much weight. That you opine "everyone knows that" is both incorrect and does nor reflect Palestinian attitudes and positions. Make up whatever nonsense you like, the Palestinian history in this regard is a new construct - relatively and objectively.

 

It is about blocking possible future claims. Nothing minor about that.

 

The major flaw in your supposed insight to Netnayahu's "sinister" plans would be that the demand to recognize "Israel as a Jewish State" predates the current legislation efforts. Not that anything short of hyperbole would do - but even the link provided indicates that the legislation is still in early stages, and that it does not necessarily enjoy a wall to wall support (even not from all right wing politicians and parties). And that's before hitting the Supreme Court.

 

So all most of your rant deals with hyping something that might come about, and this flimsy reasoning is suggested as an explanation for a negotiation condition which was set at an earlier date. While this legislation effort is all wrong, and obviously nothing good will come out of it, it is not quite the alleged smoking gun to Netanyahu's supposed "sinister" plans.

 

As stated in previous posts, IMO the situation of Israel's Arab citizens will gradually improve on all aspects following sides signing a peace agreement. A renouncement of future claims would go along way toward reducing much of the negative sentiment which is at the motivation for such legislation (for example). Obviously, if a peace agreement will materialize, then there will be no annexation which renders the related "point", well..pointless.

 

No matter how much you'll harp on it - there will be no full application of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return. A small number may be accepted, compensation will certainly be discussed and Palestinians will be free to reside within the newly formed Palestinian state. That you keep referring to the rights of Palestinian refugees and their decedents and implying otherwise is misleading. If you wish to make this, post-peace-agreement, the future nexus of your anti-Israeli rants, by all means. Just highlights the standing disconnect and irrational nature of your views.

 

Trying to equate Israel with the Hamas is both off mark, and, considering your obvious hatred of everything to do with Israel, and support for anything associated with the Palestinians - rather perplexing.

 

So to sum once more, the issue of recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" is not a "minor issue". That is a bogus spin  of yours to both my view and the facts associated with it. Regrettable, if expected. It is not a "minor issue", but not in the way you describe. It pertains, first and foremost for blocking possible future claims. That's neither "minor" nor easily accepted by the Palestinians. The timeline does not support your truly clueless interpretation, both with regard to Netanyahu raising this condition, and the Palestinians rejecting it.

 

Obviously, the topic does not actually deal with what most of your tirade was about, but as you see these discussions as a platform for laying out an extreme political agenda, shouldn't bother you much.  

I am sure that IF a two state solution peace agreement is ever achieved all the issues you and I have mentioned will have been ironed out before a signing....the status of Jerusalem, borders, return of Palestinian refugees (or compensation if they prefer it).

 

As Yasser Arafat wrote in 1993 at the Oslo Accords

"The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-palestinian-letters-of-mutual-recognition-september-1993

 

You assert that Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is somehow necessary  because it "pertains, first and foremost for blocking possible future claims."

 

Well,  if Israel is so worried about future claims, it could simply insert a clause to the effect that both sides agree that all matters have been finally concluded. There will be no future claims.

 

You and Netanyahu are putting the cart before the horse.

 

In negotiating a peace agreement you don't pre-empt all those issues with a silly unnecessary final status precondition, thus deliberately wrecking the chance of even sitting down to talk.

 

But Netanyahu knows all this. So that is why he is insisting upon it.

Edited December 12, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am sure that IF a two state solution peace agreement is ever achieved all the issues you and I have mentioned will have been ironed out before a signing....the status of Jerusalem, borders, return of Palestinian refugees (or compensation if they prefer it).

 

As Yasser Arafat wrote in 1993 at the Oslo Accords

"The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-palestinian-letters-of-mutual-recognition-september-1993

 

You assert that Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is somehow necessary  because it "pertains, first and foremost for blocking possible future claims."

 

Well,  if Israel is so worried about future claims, it could simply insert a clause to the effect that both sides agree that all matters have been finally concluded. There will be no future claims.

 

You and Netanyahu are putting the cart before the horse.

 

In negotiating a peace agreement you don't pre-empt all those issues with a silly unnecessary final status precondition, thus deliberately wrecking the chance of even sitting down to talk.

 

But Netanyahu knows all this. So that is why he is insisting upon it.

 

Back with that old chestnut?

 

We've been through this on multiple topics. That you feign ignorance of these and the facts is disingenuous. There was (and there is) a discrepancy between what Arafat wrote, and what actually transpired. Arafat's advisors and he himself spoke about various agreement being but a steps in achieving a greater goal - yep, the river to sea bit. The reference given, on at least several of these occasions was based on Islamic teachings and scripture. That you treat Arafat word as sanctified does not mean much.

 

I do not assert that the a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State is necessary. That's you lamely trying to paint me into a corner. I am explaining where this demand comes from, and the reasoning relating to it. There was nothing whatsoever said about it being necessary.

 

Hard to tell if your next comment about "simply inserting a clause" stems from not being familiar with details or ignoring them. Such clauses and provisions are standard, and alluded to in formulations of finale agreements. As pointed out above, the concept does not seem to be fully embraced by all Palestinians, including leadership. And that's well ahead of the Hamas coming to the fore.

 

Whether you like to accept it or not, the Palestinians do not have a tradition of democracy, or even much experience with governance, let alone when things touch on core issue. There is also, and this applies regionally, less of an obvious commitment to upholding unpopular signed agreements or honoring past commitments by previous leaderships. Hence, applying more safeguards for quite possible loopholes is not "minor" nor is it "silly".

 

The "You and Netanyahu" nonsense is, once more, your lame attempt to associate me with positions I do not hold. You are well aware of this, and yet....

 

As for your prescriptions on the art of negotiation - you are neither a negotiator, and your views are not based on anything much but your standing bias. Ignoring the existence of Palestinian preconditions is neither new nor surprising, just part of painting the same old one-sided picture.

[Bluespunk]

On 12/11/2017 at 10:47 AM, webfact said:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, visiting the European Union, praised U.S. President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as his country's capital on Monday and said he expected Europeans to follow suit.

Dream on you deluded fool...

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Please stick to the topic.  

[ballpoint]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:47 PM, webfact said:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, visiting the European Union, praised U.S. President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as his country's capital on Monday and said he expected Europeans to follow suit.

 

42 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Dream on you deluded fool...

Yes, the European's suit is no trumps.  It makes the jokers wild.

[dexterm]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Back with that old chestnut?

 

We've been through this on multiple topics. That you feign ignorance of these and the facts is disingenuous. There was (and there is) a discrepancy between what Arafat wrote, and what actually transpired. Arafat's advisors and he himself spoke about various agreement being but a steps in achieving a greater goal - yep, the river to sea bit. The reference given, on at least several of these occasions was based on Islamic teachings and scripture. That you treat Arafat word as sanctified does not mean much.

 

I do not assert that the a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State is necessary. That's you lamely trying to paint me into a corner. I am explaining where this demand comes from, and the reasoning relating to it. There was nothing whatsoever said about it being necessary.

 

Hard to tell if your next comment about "simply inserting a clause" stems from not being familiar with details or ignoring them. Such clauses and provisions are standard, and alluded to in formulations of finale agreements. As pointed out above, the concept does not seem to be fully embraced by all Palestinians, including leadership. And that's well ahead of the Hamas coming to the fore.

 

Whether you like to accept it or not, the Palestinians do not have a tradition of democracy, or even much experience with governance, let alone when things touch on core issue. There is also, and this applies regionally, less of an obvious commitment to upholding unpopular signed agreements or honoring past commitments by previous leaderships. Hence, applying more safeguards for quite possible loopholes is not "minor" nor is it "silly".

 

The "You and Netanyahu" nonsense is, once more, your lame attempt to associate me with positions I do not hold. You are well aware of this, and yet....

 

As for your prescriptions on the art of negotiation - you are neither a negotiator, and your views are not based on anything much but your standing bias. Ignoring the existence of Palestinian preconditions is neither new nor surprising, just part of painting the same old one-sided picture.

Morch wrote...

>>I do not assert that the a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State is necessary. 

... Good. So we both agree that Netanyahu's call for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talks begin is unnecessary. Thank you. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

Morch wrote...

>>I do not assert that the a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State is necessary. 

... Good. So we both agree that Netanyahu's call for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talks begin is unnecessary. Thank you. 

 

That would be you misrepresenting what I posted. Again:

 

Quote

I do not assert that the a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State is necessary. That's you lamely trying to paint me into a corner. I am explaining where this demand comes from, and the reasoning relating to it. There was nothing whatsoever said about it being necessary.

 

I didn't say anything about it being either necessary or unnecessary. We are definitely not in agreement, certainly not on made up versions of my views.

[Naam]

On 12/11/2017 at 2:47 PM, webfact said:

Netanyahu sees Europeans following Trump on Jerusalem

Netanyahu needs glasses, he got a crystal clear NO in Paris.

[dexterm]

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would be you misrepresenting what I posted. Again:

 

 

I didn't say anything about it being either necessary or unnecessary. We are definitely not in agreement, certainly not on made up versions of my views.

How can I be misrepresenting you when as always when responding to comply with forum rules I quote your entire post for readers to assess ....unlike you.

Edited December 13, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

How can I be misrepresenting you when as always when responding to comply with forum rules I quote your entire post for readers to assess ....unlike you.

 

Pathetic and dishonest. The bit you referred to in your post, the one cherry picked and twisted out of context is a clear misrepresentation. I did not "agree" with your point of view, as you falsely claimed, nor did my post make a similar point to yours.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.   This will likely be the final warning to address the topic and not the poster.