Computer Stores

[webfact]

Abbas wins renewed EU backing for Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem

By Robin Emmott

 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas gives a press statement before a meeting with European Union foreign ministers in Brussels, Belgium, January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Yves Herman

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union assured President Mahmoud Abbas it supported his ambition to have East Jerusalem as capital of a Palestinian state, in the bloc's latest rejection of U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

 

At a meeting in Brussels with EU foreign ministers, Abbas repeated his call for East Jerusalem as capital as he urged EU governments to recognise a state of Palestine immediately, arguing that this would not disrupt negotiations with Israel on a peace settlement for the region.

 

While Abbas made no reference to Trump's move on Jerusalem or U.S. Vice President Mike Pence's visit to the city on Monday, his presence at the EU headquarters in Brussels was seized on by European officials as a chance to restate opposition to Trump's Dec. 6 decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

 

Mogherini, in what appeared to be a veiled reference to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, called on those involved in the process to speak and act "wisely", with a sense of responsibility.

 

"I want to reassure President Abbas of the firm commitment of the European Union to the two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two states," Mogherini said.

 

Before Abbas' arrival, she was more outspoken, saying: "Clearly there is a problem with Jerusalem. That is a very diplomatic euphemism," in reference to Trump's position.

 

But Mogherini said she still wanted to work with the United States on Middle East peace talks and had discussed ways to restart them late last year with Pence and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

 

She played down the timing of the vice president's visit to Israel when Abbas was in Brussels, saying it was a coincidence.

 

Deputy German Foreign Minister Michael Roth told reporters that Trump's decision had made peace talks harder but said all sides needed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Abbas also struck a more diplomatic tone than in his recent public remarks, including earlier this month when he said he would only accept a broad, internationally-backed panel to broker any peace talks with Israel.

 

"We are keen on continuing the way of negotiations," Abbas said. "We are determined to reunite our people and our land."

 

In another gesture of support, EU foreign ministers discussed whether to increase the EU's aid to the Palestinian Authority, after the United States said last week it would withhold about half the initial aid it planned to give the U.N. agency that serves the Palestinians. No decisions were taken.

But Abbas' call for the European Union to immediately and officially recognise the state of Palestine won little support in the lunch meeting, diplomats said.

 

SLOVENIAN DECISION?

 

While nine EU governments including Sweden and Poland already recognise Palestine, the 28-nation bloc says such recognition must come as part of a peace settlement.

 

Only Slovenia has recently raised the possibility of recognising the state of Palestine. A parliamentary committee there is due to consider the issue on Jan. 31, but it remains unclear when the parliament could recognise Palestine.

 

That reflects the European Union's dual role as the Palestinians' biggest aid donor and Israel's biggest trade partner, even if EU governments reject Israeli settlements on land Israel has occupied since a 1967 war - including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

 

The European Union also wants the Palestinians to remain open to a U.S.-led peace plan, expected to be presented soon by Jason Greenblatt, Trump's Middle East envoy and Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.

 

Abbas said there was "no contradiction between recognition (of Palestine) and the resumption of (peace) negotiations."

 

Instead, France wants to push the European Union to offer closer trade ties through a so-called EU association agreement, an EU treaty covering unfettered access to the bloc's 500 million consumers, aid and closer political and cultural ties.

 

"We want to say to Mahmoud Abbas that we want to move ... towards an association agreement and to start the process already," said France's Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.

 

But offering an EU association agreement to the Palestinians was also fraught with difficulties, while Germany's Roth expressed some reservation in the closed-door meeting and Ireland's Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said the EU would need to offer something similar to Israel, diplomats said.

 

Under EU rules, the agreements need to be agreed with sovereign states. France argues that the EU has an association agreement with Kosovo, whose independence is not recognised by all countries, including EU member Spain.

 

(Additional reporting by Alastair Macdonald in Brussels and Marja Novak in Ljubljana, Editing by William Maclean)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-23

[mrwebb8825]

I just don't get why the UN keeps listening to and supporting claims by a people who have NO country claiming part of a member country as their own and part of that same member's country's capital as their own while not supporting the member country.

This has nothing to do with some so-called peace negotiations that hasn't produced peace in over 60 years in an area that has had multiple leader changes during that time.

The UN needs to grow a pair and just settle this. The Palestinians want a country so just give them the West Bank and they can build their own, shiney new capitol in that area. It's not like Israel is going to build a defensive wall around the city of Jerusalem. 

[ilostmypassword]

45 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I just don't get why the UN keeps listening to and supporting claims by a people who have NO country claiming part of a member country as their own and part of that same member's country's capital as their own while not supporting the member country.

This has nothing to do with some so-called peace negotiations that hasn't produced peace in over 60 years in an area that has had multiple leader changes during that time.

The UN needs to grow a pair and just settle this. The Palestinians want a country so just give them the West Bank and they can build their own, shiney new capitol in that area. It's not like Israel is going to build a defensive wall around the city of Jerusalem. 

I can think of one group of people who might not approve of this: the 314,000 Israeli settlers who live on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem. Anybody with a sliver of knowledge about this situation knows that the settlements on the West Bank are one of the 2 key issues.

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I just don't get why the UN keeps listening to and supporting claims by a people who have NO country claiming part of a member country as their own and part of that same member's country's capital as their own while not supporting the member country.

This has nothing to do with some so-called peace negotiations that hasn't produced peace in over 60 years in an area that has had multiple leader changes during that time.

The UN needs to grow a pair and just settle this. The Palestinians want a country so just give them the West Bank and they can build their own, shiney new capitol in that area. It's not like Israel is going to build a defensive wall around the city of Jerusalem. 

The problem is that the UN member country you refer to, Israel, does not have an internationally recognized eastern border. Even Israelis can't agree on where it should be: the 67 ceasefire lines, a border enclosing all its illegal colonies in the occupied West Bank, the separation wall, the Jordan River? That's what the conflict is all about.

 

The Palestinians are willing to accept for their state: the 67 ceasefire lines with some land swaps, East Jerusalem as their capital, and compensation/recognition for Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed in 1947 from where pre 67 Israel now stands.

 

Israel could have peace tomorrow if they accepted that very reasonable compromise (Israel gets to keep all the land it took in 1947-8), but they continue to grab more land, making a separate viable Palestinian state impossible, and a single state with equal rights for all inevitable.

Edited January 24, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

4 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I just don't get why the UN keeps listening to and supporting claims by a people who have NO country claiming part of a member country as their own and part of that same member's country's capital as their own while not supporting the member country.

This has nothing to do with some so-called peace negotiations that hasn't produced peace in over 60 years in an area that has had multiple leader changes during that time.

The UN needs to grow a pair and just settle this. The Palestinians want a country so just give them the West Bank and they can build their own, shiney new capitol in that area. It's not like Israel is going to build a defensive wall around the city of Jerusalem. 

 

Doubt that you do not know the answers to the above, or that you are unaware of actual facts (rather than the alternative ones presented). As for Israel building walls in and around Jerusalem, may want to apply some reality check.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I can think of one group of people who might not approve of this: the 314,000 Israeli settlers who live on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem. Anybody with a sliver of knowledge about this situation knows that the settlements on the West Bank are one of the 2 key issues.

 

Only two key issues?

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

The problem is that the UN member country you refer to, Israel, does not have an internationally recognized eastern border. Even Israelis can't agree on where it should be: the 67 ceasefire lines, a border enclosing all its illegal colonies in the occupied West Bank, the separation wall, the Jordan River? That's what the conflict is all about.

 

The Palestinians are willing to accept for their state: the 67 ceasefire lines with some land swaps, East Jerusalem as their capital, and compensation/recognition for Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed in 1947 from where pre 67 Israel now stands.

 

Israel could have peace tomorrow if they accepted that very reasonable compromise (Israel gets to keep all the land it took in 1947-8), but they continue to grab more land, making a separate viable Palestinian state impossible, and a single state with equal rights for all inevitable.

 

As usual, going for wholesale nonsense, rather than accuracy. It is not Israel's entire Eastern border which is under question, but them parts of it relevant to it's conflict with the Palestinians. The other parts of Israel's Eastern border (with Jordan) are internationally recognized and agreed upon. And Israelis not being of a single mind as to Israel's future border (with regard to the Palestinian territories) is not "what the conflict is all about" - that's just your one way version of presenting "facts".

 

There is no unified Palestinian position such as you claim, and even those Palestinians parties and leaders nominally in favor of such an agreement often balk from committing when push comes to shove. Posting such untruths as "facts" is pretty much a hallmark of your propaganda style posting.

 

The same goes for your nonsense about "could have peace tomorrow". That is simply disconnected from reality. There is no such widespread "ready and willing" attitude on the Palestinian side. 

 

[mrwebb8825]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As usual, going for wholesale nonsense, rather than accuracy. It is not Israel's entire Eastern border which is under question, but them parts of it relevant to it's conflict with the Palestinians. The other parts of Israel's Eastern border (with Jordan) are internationally recognized and agreed upon. And Israelis not being of a single mind as to Israel's future border (with regard to the Palestinian territories) is not "what the conflict is all about" - that's just your one way version of presenting "facts".

 

There is no unified Palestinian position such as you claim, and even those Palestinians parties and leaders nominally in favor of such an agreement often balk from committing when push comes to shove. Posting such untruths as "facts" is pretty much a hallmark of your propaganda style posting.

 

The same goes for your nonsense about "could have peace tomorrow". That is simply disconnected from reality. There is no such widespread "ready and willing" attitude on the Palestinian side. 

 

You know, instead of berating everyone for having an opinion and not having all the relevant facts, why not offer up your most learned opinion and present substantiated facts?

I do know that when Israel took East Jerusalem, they took it from Jordan, Egypt and Syria, not the Palestinians. 

"The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim; Arabic: النكسة, an-Naksah, "The Setback" or حرب ۱۹٦۷, Ḥarb 1967, "War of 1967"), also known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, or Third Arab–Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967 by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria."

Please explain just how and why the Palestinians have any claim to any territory what-so-ever.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You know, instead of berating everyone for having an opinion and not having all the relevant facts, why not offer up your most learned opinion and present substantiated facts?

I do know that when Israel took East Jerusalem, they took it from Jordan, Egypt and Syria, not the Palestinians. 

"The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim; Arabic: النكسة, an-Naksah, "The Setback" or حرب ۱۹٦۷, Ḥarb 1967, "War of 1967"), also known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, or Third Arab–Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967 by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria."

Please explain just how and why the Palestinians have any claim to any territory what-so-ever.

 

I comment quite frequently on these topics, including accounts of relevant facts. That you cannot abide your nonsense being pointed out to be what it is, not my problem.

 

Israel did not take East Jerusalem from "Jordan, Egypt and Syria". Egypt and Syria are nowhere near Jerusalem. That Jordan illegally held and annexed Jerusalem in its turn, does not make the Israeli occupation legit.

 

I do not believe that you are unaware of previous UN resolutions, such as the one under which Israel was formed. The very same resolution called for the formation of a Palestinian State. Whether you like to acknowledge this or not is irrelevant. That the Palestinians, and Arab countries sponsoring them, rejected this resolution does not annul it - just complicates things. A whole lot of posters seem to hang on to over simplified versions of events and consequences. Guess it's easier (or better panders to their political views).

[mrwebb8825]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I comment quite frequently on these topics, including accounts of relevant facts. That you cannot abide your nonsense being pointed out to be what it is, not my problem.

 

Israel did not take East Jerusalem from "Jordan, Egypt and Syria". Egypt and Syria are nowhere near Jerusalem. That Jordan illegally held and annexed Jerusalem in its turn, does not make the Israeli occupation legit.

 

I do not believe that you are unaware of previous UN resolutions, such as the one under which Israel was formed. The very same resolution called for the formation of a Palestinian State. Whether you like to acknowledge this or not is irrelevant. That the Palestinians, and Arab countries sponsoring them, rejected this resolution does not annul it - just complicates things. A whole lot of posters seem to hang on to over simplified versions of events and consequences. Guess it's easier (or better panders to their political views).

Again with the personal attacks as opposed to simply answering the questions asked. You should rewrite this page then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Edited January 24, 2018 by mrwebb8825

[dexterm]

OP...
"I want to reassure President Abbas of the firm commitment of the European Union to the two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two states," Mogherini said.

 

Trouble is the EU have been reassuring Palestinians for the last 50 years via UN resolutions and other intiatives, as have the US administration until recently (that rings somewhat hollow now since Trump  recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital thus taking the issue off the table as he said and torpedoing his own imminent peace talks). While Israel has ignored all the empty rhetoric.

 

I do hope the Palestinians don't fall for another 50 years of reassuring yadda yadda charades.

 

The EU, as Israel's largest trading partner, could bring Israel to its senses tomorrow through sanctions, if they really wanted to.

 

I think Palestinian negotiators should lobby the EU, P5+1, France, Russia, UK or any country that both sides regard as an honest broker to host peace talks without any preconditions from either side as soon as possible this year to hear what Israel has to offer for a two state solution. 

If the deal falls short of satisfying the minimum aspirations of Palestinians for a viable state based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, then abandon the goal of separate statehood, and through mass peaceful anti apartheid demonstrations and civil disobedience, begin agitating for equal civil rights and one man one vote in a single secular democratic state.

Edited January 24, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

3 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Again with the personal attacks as opposed to simply answering the questions asked. You should rewrite this page then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

 

Again whining when trolling is pointed out and highlighted. Your "questions" are faux. The "answers" were provided on many a topic, and are even included in the link you posted. Why should I "rewrite" the Wikipedia entry? Does it say anything about Jerusalem being taken from either Egypt or Syria? Does it fail to provide relevant background or link to other entries covering it?

Edited January 24, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

OP...
"I want to reassure President Abbas of the firm commitment of the European Union to the two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two states," Mogherini said.

 

Trouble is the EU have been reassuring Palestinians for the last 50 years via UN resolutions and other intiatives, as have the US administration until recently (that rings somewhat hollow now since Trump  recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital thus taking the issue off the table as he said and torpedoing his own imminent peace talks). While Israel has ignored all the empty rhetoric.

 

I do hope the Palestinians don't fall for another 50 years of reassuring yadda yadda charades.

 

The EU, as Israel's largest trading partner, could bring Israel to its senses tomorrow through sanctions, if they really wanted to.

 

I think Palestinian negotiators should lobby the EU, P5+1, France, Russia, UK or any country that both sides regard as an honest broker to host peace talks without any preconditions from either side as soon as possible this year to hear what Israel has to offer for a two state solution. 

If the deal falls short of satisfying the minimum aspirations of Palestinians for a viable state based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, then abandon the goal of separate statehood, and through mass peaceful anti apartheid demonstrations and civil disobedience, begin agitating for equal civil rights and one man one vote in a single secular democratic state.

 

The trouble is that you continue to post lies. 50 years? The Palestinian stance in the early 70's was hardly one seeking peace. That you invent assurances by various international forces going back to these times does not make them a reality either.

 

What you hope for is ongoing strife. That's pretty much the fuel that feeds your posts. If the Palestinians "fell" for anything, it was for the illusion that rejection and intransigence will change their situation. And, obviously, the EU does not share your extreme views, nor is it taken by your prescriptions.

 

Going on about "no preconditions" when bringing up supposed Palestinian preconditions on pretty much each and every topic is kinda lame. Especially when followed by "if the deal falls short of satisfying the minimum aspirations of the Palestinians...".  About as lame as ignoring the fact that Abbas does not, in effect, control or represent the Palestinians as a whole. And, obviously, no mentions of requirements for the Palestinians to come up with any public, formal solutions.

 

As for your standing "secular democratic" one-state "solution" - any bright ideas as to how religious Palestinian elements, such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad (not to mention wide tracts of Fatah supporters) feel about that? But even on the "democratic" angle - does the ongoing undemocratic rule of either Palestinian faction, in their respective turfs indicate anything positive as far as your fantasies go?

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The trouble is that you continue to post lies. 50 years? The Palestinian stance in the early 70's was hardly one seeking peace. That you invent assurances by various international forces going back to these times does not make them a reality either.

 

What you hope for is ongoing strife. That's pretty much the fuel that feeds your posts. If the Palestinians "fell" for anything, it was for the illusion that rejection and intransigence will change their situation. And, obviously, the EU does not share your extreme views, nor is it taken by your prescriptions.

 

Going on about "no preconditions" when bringing up supposed Palestinian preconditions on pretty much each and every topic is kinda lame. Especially when followed by "if the deal falls short of satisfying the minimum aspirations of the Palestinians...".  About as lame as ignoring the fact that Abbas does not, in effect, control or represent the Palestinians as a whole. And, obviously, no mentions of requirements for the Palestinians to come up with any public, formal solutions.

 

As for your standing "secular democratic" one-state "solution" - any bright ideas as to how religious Palestinian elements, such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad (not to mention wide tracts of Fatah supporters) feel about that? But even on the "democratic" angle - does the ongoing undemocratic rule of either Palestinian faction, in their respective turfs indicate anything positive as far as your fantasies go?

>>What you hope for is ongoing strife. 
...ongoing strife is what we have now. I am suggesting ways to a peaceful transition. You don't offer anything but the status quo of Israel managing the conflict while it continues to colonize.

 

No preconditions means no preconditions...neither party refuses to sit down to talk unless the other agrees beforehand on a certain issue, such as Netanyahu insisting upon Palestinians recognising Israel as a Jewish state, or Palestinians insisting upon recognition of East Jerusalem as their capital.

 

What emerges during talks is another matter. Both sides know each others' positions. If talks fail under present leadership, so be it. At least all the cards would be on the table.

I would then suggest that the Palestinians up the ante to match Trump's pre-empting of Jerusalem as the capital and Israel's accelerated colonization of the West Bank, by agitating peacefully on an anti apatheid platform towards a single democratic state with one man one vote.

 

I have lots of bright ideas for a peaceful transition to a secular truly democratc state, which is inevitable if Israel's colonialist expansion continues.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

As expected, even more lies and the usual dodging of anything that might present the Palestinian side as less than righteous, or even bearing some semblance of responsibility for its predicament.

 

What you are on about is advocating ongoing "struggle", unless the Palestinian aspirations are fully addressed to their (or rather, your) satisfaction. The only times the Palestinians made gains, were under negotiations. With each phase of rejectionism or "struggle", they lose. That you routinely lie about my positions is routine as well - either trying to falsely align them with the Israeli government's or counter-factually claim that I do not offer anything (we've been through this song and dance more than once).

 

Your various "offers" routinely ignore any uncomfortable (read, not conforming to the one-sided touted presentation of the Palestinian side) facts and realities. Indeed, you do not even acknowledge these issues, just glossing over them in favor of some imaginary constructs and slogans.

 

Spin it as much as you like, both sides do have preconditions, and neither is particularly keen on ignoring them. That in essence, prescribe one thing, then advocate its opposite, is nothing new. No preconditions, but if preconditions are not met, then the negotiations are off. While appreciating the difficulty of making a coherent argument while holding an extreme one-sided position, this one is lame even by your standards.

 

Once more - catchphrases and slogans notwithstanding,  them "bright ideas" do not include an actual input on how supposedly secular and democratic notions compare with major Palestinians factions' actual ideals and ways. Also, nothing which suggests how, or why, one of the most explosive conflicts around is ideally suited be used as playground for Left wing social engineering.

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

As expected, even more lies and the usual dodging of anything that might present the Palestinian side as less than righteous, or even bearing some semblance of responsibility for its predicament.

 

What you are on about is advocating ongoing "struggle", unless the Palestinian aspirations are fully addressed to their (or rather, your) satisfaction. The only times the Palestinians made gains, were under negotiations. With each phase of rejectionism or "struggle", they lose. That you routinely lie about my positions is routine as well - either trying to falsely align them with the Israeli government's or counter-factually claim that I do not offer anything (we've been through this song and dance more than once).

 

Your various "offers" routinely ignore any uncomfortable (read, not conforming to the one-sided touted presentation of the Palestinian side) facts and realities. Indeed, you do not even acknowledge these issues, just glossing over them in favor of some imaginary constructs and slogans.

 

Spin it as much as you like, both sides do have preconditions, and neither is particularly keen on ignoring them. That in essence, prescribe one thing, then advocate its opposite, is nothing new. No preconditions, but if preconditions are not met, then the negotiations are off. While appreciating the difficulty of making a coherent argument while holding an extreme one-sided position, this one is lame even by your standards.

 

Once more - catchphrases and slogans notwithstanding,  them "bright ideas" do not include an actual input on how supposedly secular and democratic notions compare with major Palestinians factions' actual ideals and ways. Also, nothing which suggests how, or why, one of the most explosive conflicts around is ideally suited be used as playground for Left wing social engineering.

 

 

What you are suggesting is that the Palestinians roll over and simply accept terms dictated by the invading mainly European colonizers and occupiers. Like a mugger knocking someone to the ground saying "Stop struggling to get your money back; accept it, stay down or I'll kick you some more."

 

Palestinians have compromised enough. Look at the classic maps of Zionist colonialists swallowing up Palestine over the last 100 years.

No spin. Let both sides simply sit down to talk and allow the world to see what's on offer....not secret "ultimate deals".

 

Palestinians outnumber Jews in Palestine...always have done. No colonial settler project has ever succeeded in oppressing a majority indigenous population for ever. Time is on the side of Palestinians. If Israel cannot offer a viable just two state solution. So be it. Let there be a single binational state.

 

When the time comes to absorb 4.5 million Palestinians into a true Israeli democracy, I have lots of ideas about how that transition could happen smoothly rather than overnight. Another more appropriate thread maybe.

 

IMO Palestinians would be foolish to allow the smoke and mirrors of phony negotiations to drag on for years yet again. At least Trump has ended the US hypocrisy of pretending to be an honest broker. The EU are in danger of being exposed as hypocrites too paying lip service to a two state solution, when they could make it happen if they really wanted to. Or the EU in the OP fobbing off the Palestinians by saying they should go back to negotiating with Trump. EU and US politicians should take note that a younger generation of voters is more aware of Israel's injustice inflicted upon Palestinians, and European and American complicity in that.

 

Zionists want the land but not the majority native Palestinians who have always lived there. The only way they can get rid of them is by further ethnic cleansing. The EU should be careful that their hypocritical heel-dragging approach does not create a further influx of refugees on Europe's doorstep.

Edited January 25, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

More lies and misrepresentations. More inability (or unwillingness) to address points raised. Nothing new here.

 

Nowhere did I suggest that the Palestinians "roll over" and simply accept dictated terms. That there is a gap between the full extant of what the Palestinian aspire for, and what they can realistically achieve is a fact. Refusing to accept or acknowledge this won't change things.

 

I get it that you have no real interest in solutions, other than such which amount to some imagined "victory". That's fair enough for those who care more about "struggle", rather than achieving resolution.

 

There was no Palestinian state a 100 years ago. There wasn't even much of Palestinian national sentiment to speak of. That you engage in lies and historical revisionism won't change that. Same goes for shoving as many of your usual stock catchphrases into each and every post, regardless of their relevance.

 

Going on about "no preconditions", while ignoring the fact that the Palestinian side does have preconditions, and while advocating that unless these preconditions are met negotiations are to be cancelled, is a spin and worse. Twist it all you like.

 

And that "time is on the Palestinians' side" waffle again? Kinda ridiculous considering you're just as likely to raise some bogus alarm over an imaginary impeding calamity in this regard. Also, there is little support for this notion, if one actually looks at how things panned out for the Palestinians during the decades of holding on to such ideas. As said earlier, not surprising you'll push that, as it only serves to prolong the ongoing situation, thus fueling your extreme hateful positions.

 

Still nothing of substance on how them imaginary notions of secularism and democracy apply with regard to the various Palestinian factions, Palestinian politics and society. Whether this reflects lack of actual knowledge or an aversion to face uncomfortable truths can be debated. Posting slogans is not an informed point of view. Nothing as well on what the Palestinian side(s) actually bring to the negotiating table, and what's actually on offer - your own, disconnected from reality versions, notwithstanding.

 

You have no obvious insight as to either Israeli or Palestinian societies and politics, and considering the extreme one-sided positions you convey, hard to see any "ideas" you may have as being grounded in reality or devoid of constant hatred. No evidence of any such on the many topics these issues were raised and discussed.

 

That last "IMO" bit is quite telling, and exemplifies the ongoing contradictions - earlier you are for negotiations, now opining no point wasting time on negotiations. This also seems at odds with the "time is on the Palestinian's side" notion. What would be the imperative to make haste under such a paradigm?

 

Neither the US, nor the EU are party to your extreme views and prescriptions. That you  imagine otherwise or refuse to accept reality, doesn't change how things are.

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

More lies and misrepresentations. More inability (or unwillingness) to address points raised. Nothing new here.

 

Nowhere did I suggest that the Palestinians "roll over" and simply accept dictated terms. That there is a gap between the full extant of what the Palestinian aspire for, and what they can realistically achieve is a fact. Refusing to accept or acknowledge this won't change things.

 

I get it that you have no real interest in solutions, other than such which amount to some imagined "victory". That's fair enough for those who care more about "struggle", rather than achieving resolution.

 

There was no Palestinian state a 100 years ago. There wasn't even much of Palestinian national sentiment to speak of. That you engage in lies and historical revisionism won't change that. Same goes for shoving as many of your usual stock catchphrases into each and every post, regardless of their relevance.

 

Going on about "no preconditions", while ignoring the fact that the Palestinian side does have preconditions, and while advocating that unless these preconditions are met negotiations are to be cancelled, is a spin and worse. Twist it all you like.

 

And that "time is on the Palestinians' side" waffle again? Kinda ridiculous considering you're just as likely to raise some bogus alarm over an imaginary impeding calamity in this regard. Also, there is little support for this notion, if one actually looks at how things panned out for the Palestinians during the decades of holding on to such ideas. As said earlier, not surprising you'll push that, as it only serves to prolong the ongoing situation, thus fueling your extreme hateful positions.

 

Still nothing of substance on how them imaginary notions of secularism and democracy apply with regard to the various Palestinian factions, Palestinian politics and society. Whether this reflects lack of actual knowledge or an aversion to face uncomfortable truths can be debated. Posting slogans is not an informed point of view. Nothing as well on what the Palestinian side(s) actually bring to the negotiating table, and what's actually on offer - your own, disconnected from reality versions, notwithstanding.

 

You have no obvious insight as to either Israeli or Palestinian societies and politics, and considering the extreme one-sided positions you convey, hard to see any "ideas" you may have as being grounded in reality or devoid of constant hatred. No evidence of any such on the many topics these issues were raised and discussed.

 

That last "IMO" bit is quite telling, and exemplifies the ongoing contradictions - earlier you are for negotiations, now opining no point wasting time on negotiations. This also seems at odds with the "time is on the Palestinian's side" notion. What would be the imperative to make haste under such a paradigm?

 

Neither the US, nor the EU are party to your extreme views and prescriptions. That you  imagine otherwise or refuse to accept reality, doesn't change how things are.

 

 

>>Going on about "no preconditions", while ignoring the fact that the Palestinian side does have preconditions, and while advocating that unless these preconditions are met negotiations are to be cancelled, is a spin and worse. Twist it all you like.

Better check with Ambassador Friedman on that one..

"The United States has not asked for a settlement freeze and the Palestinians have dropped that demand as a precondition for talks with Israel, America’s new Ambassador David Friedman told the Hebrew daily Yisrael HaYom.

“We have no demands for a settlement freeze and [Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas] Abu Mazen wants to meet [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu without any preconditions,” Friedman said in an interview published on Wednesday."

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Friedman-Palestinians-drop-settlement-freeze-as-precondition-for-peace-490978

 

Will Netanyahu "I will talk peace, any place any time" match that?

 

>>That there is a gap between the full extant of what the Palestinian aspire for, and what they can realistically achieve is a fact. 
...the gap is not that wide. In 2000 and 2008 peace talks that gap was almost closed..67 borders including land swaps, East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, compensation for/recognition of refugees. So it is quite realistic to ask the aggressor Israel to go the extra mile if it wants a lasting peace.

 

And that is far from a victory for Palestinians; it represents a huge compromise. Palestinians will accept a mere 22% of their homeland, while Israel gets to keep all the land it grabbed and ethnically cleansed (an increase to 78% beyond the 55% allotted in the Mandate in 1947). Palestinian aspirations sound pretty reasonable to me.

 

Time is on the side of the majority population in Palestine, and all roads lead to a single state solution anyway, either via an initial 2 states or a one state sooner than I anticipated. Thank you Donald, and the heel-dragging EU.

 

If Israel now greedily wants even more land (emboldened by Trump, most in Netanyahu's right wing government want the lot ), I am saying "Have it. Annex the lot. Create overt apartheid. Openly control the lives of 100% of the population in Palestine, which you de facto do now anyway without any sort of civil rights, while hiding behind the pretense of 2 state peace negotiations." Then the fight against Israeli injustice moves up a gear. See how the EU and world opinion deals with that.

 

I will ignore your usual tactic on other issues you raised: leading posters up the deflection path, then cry off topic.

Edited January 25, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Is that the best deflection you can come up with? Seriously?

 

There was no claim that the Israeli side does not raise preconditions, just that the Palestinian side does the same. Interesting to see that when it suits, you're happy enough to quote anything coming out of Friedman as fact, while on many other occasions, an opposite sentiment is offered. That you try to create the impression as if the Palestinian preconditions are reduced to a single issue is ridiculous, considering the many times you specified others in your own posts. 

 

The Palestinian side did not push forward with peace efforts on the occasions you specified, nor others. When push came to shove, the Palestinian leadership habitually retreated or remained uncommitted. Spin away. The full extant of the Palestinian aspirations goes further than what you advertise. What you're on about is a list of minimal preconditions, to which there is no full Palestinian support, nor a committed Palestinian leadership able to carry them through.

 

What you consider "reasonable" is irrelevant. The point made was that, historically, the longer the Palestinians retain the rejectionist stance advocated, the less they can realistically get. If this is too complicated - back in 1948, or back in 1967, or even shortly afterwards, the Palestinians would have had an easier time securing better conditions than they can dream about nowadays. The rejectionist approach, which your posts echo, did not bring about anything positive for the Palestinians. Other than, that is, for those Palestinians and their supporters who find their raison d'etre in the "struggle" itself. These are the same sort of people going on about time being on the Palestinians' side - they do not face the adverse consequences, nor share the hardship. Easier said than experienced, but that's what armchair wannabe activists are all about. As your last bit indicates, that what you're about - not so much a solution, imperfect as it may be, but a supposedly ongoing lengthy "heroic" struggle against oppression. You have little interest in anything beyond the prospects of this going on ad infinitum, or as said, until some decisive "victory".

 

You can ignore whatever uncomfortable truths you like, whether they I raised by myself or otherwise. But shying away from anything which does not support your pet agenda is not going to change facts, or make your "arguments" more compelling. Them supposedly "other issues" raised (and which you consistently ignore) pretty much undermine most of what you're on about, or at least put some heavy doubt as to your grasp of actual conditions and reality.

 

 

[dexterm]

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Is that the best deflection you can come up with? Seriously?

 

There was no claim that the Israeli side does not raise preconditions, just that the Palestinian side does the same. Interesting to see that when it suits, you're happy enough to quote anything coming out of Friedman as fact, while on many other occasions, an opposite sentiment is offered. That you try to create the impression as if the Palestinian preconditions are reduced to a single issue is ridiculous, considering the many times you specified others in your own posts. 

 

The Palestinian side did not push forward with peace efforts on the occasions you specified, nor others. When push came to shove, the Palestinian leadership habitually retreated or remained uncommitted. Spin away. The full extant of the Palestinian aspirations goes further than what you advertise. What you're on about is a list of minimal preconditions, to which there is no full Palestinian support, nor a committed Palestinian leadership able to carry them through.

 

What you consider "reasonable" is irrelevant. The point made was that, historically, the longer the Palestinians retain the rejectionist stance advocated, the less they can realistically get. If this is too complicated - back in 1948, or back in 1967, or even shortly afterwards, the Palestinians would have had an easier time securing better conditions than they can dream about nowadays. The rejectionist approach, which your posts echo, did not bring about anything positive for the Palestinians. Other than, that is, for those Palestinians and their supporters who find their raison d'etre in the "struggle" itself. These are the same sort of people going on about time being on the Palestinians' side - they do not face the adverse consequences, nor share the hardship. Easier said than experienced, but that's what armchair wannabe activists are all about. As your last bit indicates, that what you're about - not so much a solution, imperfect as it may be, but a supposedly ongoing lengthy "heroic" struggle against oppression. You have little interest in anything beyond the prospects of this going on ad infinitum, or as said, until some decisive "victory".

 

You can ignore whatever uncomfortable truths you like, whether they I raised by myself or otherwise. But shying away from anything which does not support your pet agenda is not going to change facts, or make your "arguments" more compelling. Them supposedly "other issues" raised (and which you consistently ignore) pretty much undermine most of what you're on about, or at least put some heavy doubt as to your grasp of actual conditions and reality.

 

 

You are the one deflecting and spinning.

 

Ambassador Friedman knows what preconditions mean, so do I. It is stating reasons upfront why you refuse even to sit down with your opposite number to talk.

 

You are deliberately conflating "preconditions" as the whole world knows the term (except for you.) with [known] positions each side may take during the actual peace talks, once they have sat down. That's when negotiations begin.

 

The only preconditions in every universe except yours, that I am aware of, are the Palestinians refuse to accept the USA as a sole peace broker now that the Trump admin has blatantly shown its overwhelming bias towards Israel. Everyone knew that already, but with Trump's recognition of Jerusalem and his blackmail threats it's now a slap in the face.  Even so, the Palestinians are still willing to include them with other countries' negotiating teams.

 

Pray do tell any other reasons Palestinians have stated why they refuse even to sit down with Netanyahu. 

 

The EU in the OP are hypocrites to vote Trump's recognition of Jerusalem null and void, then suggest Palestinians use USA as a sole peace broker, after he has just insulted them.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Nope, the one deflecting and trying to present a false one-sided view of things is yourself.  I guess that if I would have posted the above you'd whine about nitpicking and whatnot. I don't think that you are speaking for "the whole universe", or even a significant part of it.

 

The same goes for the misrepresentation of the Palestinian side as ready and willing. That Abbas and Netanyahu, on various occasions, issue such statements is waffle. In reality, neither is interested in actual direct talks and neither is actively seeking to make them a reality.

 

While your notions of the Palestinians' forbearance and goodwill are amusing, they reflect little more than realpolitik. In the real world, there is no substitute for US involvement in mediation. Despite your misconceptions, the Palestinian side does not have an exclusive right to determine mediators. And, of course, the Palestinians are not actually as principled about this - no aversions to receiving US aid (and quite a bit of whining when this was withheld), and not really in a hurry to cut cooperation with Israel (on security matters and others).

 

In the past, and on various occasions (vs. your usual game of citing a single case as being the norm) Palestinian leaders conditioned commencing negotiations and talks on such matters as settlement construction freeze, release of Palestinian prisoners, pre-acceptance of basic demands regarding borders, "right of return" etc. Considering these featured on past topics and even on your own posts, kinda funny (if expected) you'll feign ignorance. Other reasons cited, were the existence of Israeli raised preconditions - such as no settlement construction freeze, or the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

 

And to save further expected nonsense - I do not deny that the Israeli government engages in delaying tactics, raises preconditions, deals in less than good faith and is not, on the whole, interested in advancing peace. The point made is that this sort of behavior exists on both sides, and that both leaderships, in this regard, invest more energy posturing and playing blame games than anything else. That you choose to present it as a solely Israeli thing is false.

 

Whining about the US and the EU will not help the Palestinian cause one bit, nor would it contribute much to improving their situation. That you refuse to accept that neither is about to adopt your extreme views is irrelevant. The EU is realistic with regard to its ability to replace the US mediating the conflict, the possibility of actually getting an agreement, and the commitment of both sides to going forward with the peace process. The US under Trump is what it is - and the Trump administration handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict conforms to how it handles other conflicts and crises.

 

 

[dexterm]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Nope, the one deflecting and trying to present a false one-sided view of things is yourself.  I guess that if I would have posted the above you'd whine about nitpicking and whatnot. I don't think that you are speaking for "the whole universe", or even a significant part of it.

 

The same goes for the misrepresentation of the Palestinian side as ready and willing. That Abbas and Netanyahu, on various occasions, issue such statements is waffle. In reality, neither is interested in actual direct talks and neither is actively seeking to make them a reality.

 

While your notions of the Palestinians' forbearance and goodwill are amusing, they reflect little more than realpolitik. In the real world, there is no substitute for US involvement in mediation. Despite your misconceptions, the Palestinian side does not have an exclusive right to determine mediators. And, of course, the Palestinians are not actually as principled about this - no aversions to receiving US aid (and quite a bit of whining when this was withheld), and not really in a hurry to cut cooperation with Israel (on security matters and others).

 

In the past, and on various occasions (vs. your usual game of citing a single case as being the norm) Palestinian leaders conditioned commencing negotiations and talks on such matters as settlement construction freeze, release of Palestinian prisoners, pre-acceptance of basic demands regarding borders, "right of return" etc. Considering these featured on past topics and even on your own posts, kinda funny (if expected) you'll feign ignorance. Other reasons cited, were the existence of Israeli raised preconditions - such as no settlement construction freeze, or the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

 

And to save further expected nonsense - I do not deny that the Israeli government engages in delaying tactics, raises preconditions, deals in less than good faith and is not, on the whole, interested in advancing peace. The point made is that this sort of behavior exists on both sides, and that both leaderships, in this regard, invest more energy posturing and playing blame games than anything else. That you choose to present it as a solely Israeli thing is false.

 

Whining about the US and the EU will not help the Palestinian cause one bit, nor would it contribute much to improving their situation. That you refuse to accept that neither is about to adopt your extreme views is irrelevant. The EU is realistic with regard to its ability to replace the US mediating the conflict, the possibility of actually getting an agreement, and the commitment of both sides to going forward with the peace process. The US under Trump is what it is - and the Trump administration handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict conforms to how it handles other conflicts and crises.

 

 

So your assertion that Palestinians have preconditions for talks with Netanyahu is a blatant lie. 

 

I asked what preconditions now, and you side step the question with "In the past"..then blather on.

 

>>Despite your misconceptions, the Palestinian side does not have an exclusive right to determine mediators.
...More spin. Learn to read more carefully.. I wrote above.

"I think Palestinian negotiators should lobby the EU, P5+1, France, Russia, UK or any country that both sides regard as an honest broker to host peace talks without any preconditions from either side as soon as possible this year to hear what Israel has to offer for a two state solution."
https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1021547-abbas-wins-renewed-eu-backing-for-palestinian-capital-in-east-jerusalem/?do=findComment&comment=12648083 

 

 

You're just trolling.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Only a zealot, bent on not accepting anything any remotely negative view of his views could come to the above "conclusion". The ongoing, "blatant lie", is the extreme one-sided position you push in your posts. That you choose a single comment (and by a person who's comments you usually reject) as "proof" for some imagined overreaching state of things is ridiculous. Hardly a first, though.

 

You can waffle all you like about the Palestinians' supposed willingness to commence talks and negotiate - the reality is that there are no such efforts by their side, and the same goes for Abbas's ability (even if he was, indeed, willing) to carry through any actual progress.

Before whining about "spins", may want to to reflect on the post replied to (rather than on the one nitpicked) - which tried to paint the Palestinians as somehow magnanimous for allowing US to be part of the mediating effort:

 

".... Even so, the Palestinians are still willing to include them with other countries' negotiating teams."

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1021547-abbas-wins-renewed-eu-backing-for-palestinian-capital-in-east-jerusalem/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-12651574

 

Also funny how you refuse to discuss or address issues and points on the pretext that they were raised by another poster (me), but expect your own, faux points, to be commented on. About the expected level of inconsistency and  and disingenuousness.

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Only a zealot, bent on not accepting anything any remotely negative view of his views could come to the above "conclusion". The ongoing, "blatant lie", is the extreme one-sided position you push in your posts. That you choose a single comment (and by a person who's comments you usually reject) as "proof" for some imagined overreaching state of things is ridiculous. Hardly a first, though.

 

You can waffle all you like about the Palestinians' supposed willingness to commence talks and negotiate - the reality is that there are no such efforts by their side, and the same goes for Abbas's ability (even if he was, indeed, willing) to carry through any actual progress.

Before whining about "spins", may want to to reflect on the post replied to (rather than on the one nitpicked) - which tried to paint the Palestinians as somehow magnanimous for allowing US to be part of the mediating effort:

 

".... Even so, the Palestinians are still willing to include them with other countries' negotiating teams."

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1021547-abbas-wins-renewed-eu-backing-for-palestinian-capital-in-east-jerusalem/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-12651574

 

Also funny how you refuse to discuss or address issues and points on the pretext that they were raised by another poster (me), but expect your own, faux points, to be commented on. About the expected level of inconsistency and  and disingenuousness.

You claim Palestinians won't agree to sit down to talk peace without preconditions. 
I quote from the Jerusalem Post (no less!) that the US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman (no less!) says yes they will. So I catch you out in yet another lie. Your reaction: call that proof! lol.

 

Quite bizarre behavior, until one factors in the standard Zionist apologist's ability to call black white.

 

Abbas briefly empowered as a point of resistance to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem (totally unnecessary, unless deliberately designed to derail his own imminent peace talks because he knew his ultimate deal was baloney) has come back from the EU empty handed except for the usual platitudes of lip service to the two state solution.

 

Unless serious talks occur this year, the two state solution is well and truly dead, Israel will enact its annexation legislation officially stealing more Palestinian owned private land, the PA will lose its function as the interim government on the way to statehood intended in the Oslo Accords, and the impetus changes to a one state solution that Israel has sleep walked into.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Your supposed argument and ridiculous accusations rest on a single line, included in an 8 month old statement made by the controversial US ambassador. There is no follow up offered, no corroboration, and no direct Palestinian statement saying as much. On previous occasions both sides sometimes claimed "no preconditions", just as long as there was an understanding (or US assurances given) that certain preconditions will be adhered to, one way or the other. 

 

As pointed out earlier in the topic, this "debate" tactic of using a scrap of information as "proof" is quite common in your posts, and the fiery rhetoric attached is more of a cover for the "argument" lacking much by way of merit.

 

Try harder.

 

Abbas "empowered" how? Approval ratings, both personal and the for the PA as a whole are low. Abbas is seen as weak, corrupt and more concerned with his own survival then sorting out main issues. How does coming back empty handed from the EU "empowers" Abbas, exactly?

 

Not that I put much stock in your predictions and pronouncement, neither ever proved particularly accurate - but the funny bit is the ongoing contradiction between the promised doom and gloom, and the nonsensical, worn "time is on the Palestinians' side"  slogan.

 

As said many times in the past - it is in the Palestinians' best interests to negotiate. Not as in agreeing to any dictates or accepting all demands. But as in moving the peace process along and getting the best term available, rather than waiting for a perfect "victory" which will not materialize.

 

 

[dexterm]

51 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Your supposed argument and ridiculous accusations rest on a single line, included in an 8 month old statement made by the controversial US ambassador. There is no follow up offered, no corroboration, and no direct Palestinian statement saying as much. On previous occasions both sides sometimes claimed "no preconditions", just as long as there was an understanding (or US assurances given) that certain preconditions will be adhered to, one way or the other. 

 

As pointed out earlier in the topic, this "debate" tactic of using a scrap of information as "proof" is quite common in your posts, and the fiery rhetoric attached is more of a cover for the "argument" lacking much by way of merit.

 

Try harder.

 

Abbas "empowered" how? Approval ratings, both personal and the for the PA as a whole are low. Abbas is seen as weak, corrupt and more concerned with his own survival then sorting out main issues. How does coming back empty handed from the EU "empowers" Abbas, exactly?

 

Not that I put much stock in your predictions and pronouncement, neither ever proved particularly accurate - but the funny bit is the ongoing contradiction between the promised doom and gloom, and the nonsensical, worn "time is on the Palestinians' side"  slogan.

 

As said many times in the past - it is in the Palestinians' best interests to negotiate. Not as in agreeing to any dictates or accepting all demands. But as in moving the peace process along and getting the best term available, rather than waiting for a perfect "victory" which will not materialize.

 

 

You were caught in a lie. Your refutation is pathetic. For every fact apparently now Zionist apologists require multiple sources of proof. Got a feeling even then the trolls wouldn't be happy. LOL

 

And there's more.

 

I wrote...

"Abbas briefly empowered as a point of resistance to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem....has come back from the EU empty handed except for the usual platitudes of lip service to the two state solution."

 

You wrote..
"Abbas "empowered" how? Approval ratings, both personal and the for the PA as a whole are low. Abbas is seen as weak, corrupt and more concerned with his own survival then sorting out main issues. How does coming back empty handed from the EU "empowers" Abbas, exactly?"

 

Precisely! I am agreeing with you! I am even being critical of Palestinian leadership, that you so often whine about. But you are so full of arguing just for the sake of arguing that you can't see beyond your own vitriol. LOL

 

Learn to read more carefully. It would help if you actually quoted my posts rather than cherry picking to create your imagined straw man arguments. Distorting a member's post is against forum rules. But in this case you have actually shot yourself in the foot with your lack of comprehension skills and overhasty venom. 

 

I'll leave it at that. No new points are emerging. While Trump at Davos is much more interesting.

Edited January 26, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

The only lies on this topic is the ones you liberally spread. Of course, you do not comment on these, as they were raised by someone other than yourself. Pathetic.

 

You tried to make an argument, crashed and burned. Now you're trying to cover up the mess. That's all there is to it. Talking about lies - there was no "requirement" for "multiple sources of proof", but for an actual corroboration of the quoted bit included in the statement. That you cannot provide any such support, for something claimed so strongly, is quite routine. As pointed out, this was 8 months ago - something which you glossed over, as usual.

 

Not that I'm overly impressed by ongoing comments about "Zionists apologists" (and, of course, you often whine when similar comments are made regarding your positions), but it's worth pointing out that there was no defense of either Zionists or Zionism offered - on the contrary, it was clearly asserted that Israel's government is up to the same behavior. Do go on about lies and spins, though.

 

As for your other deflection - nice try, no cigar. Abbas wasn't "empowered", briefly or otherwise. So once more, "empowered" how? And "precisely" what? You are obviously not agreeing with me, in as much as your have a solid position on this, rather than ad-hoc waffle changing according to shifting circumstances.

 

There is no requirement to fully quote your pamphlet-like tirades. And there is no nitpicking involved. Rather, it is you who avoids addressing points raised on bogus pretexts. I have not distorted your posts, and have not posted anything against forum rules - stop with your constant lies and stop playing moderator. You're bad at both.