52 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Clearly you do not speak for other posters, and it is hardly the case that no one understood. Just  another one of your lame trolling attempts. It would take either a decidedly partisan position or being intentionally obtuse to pretend not to understand the point made. 

 

It would seem that in your mind, there is no wrong with if the Palestinian exercised a right of return, regardless of the fact the the land is now populated by others (and been this way for 70 years). Most of the Israelis living on these lands weren't around at the time, and the same goes for the Palestinians.

 

So following your "logic" - would it be right to inflict a wrong on the current inhabitants, in order to correct a wrong done decades ago? Isn't it the very same thing you object to with regard to Israel's very existence?

Thank you for repeating you claim more clearly. But there is a difference between what you regard as the two wrongs. 

The wrong of the Nakba 70 years ago was to ethnically cleanse the inhabitants into Gaza so that Jewish colonizers could take their places, and come and live in or build over or simply raze their Palestinian villages.

The right of return I am suggesting is that Palestinians return not as ethnic cleansers but to share the land with the colonizers and their descendants.

 

It's up to Israel to facilitate that return as smoothly and slowly and justly as possible with all the security checks and balances, constitutional safeguards, carrots and sticks (for those who refuse to accept the new reality of a shared country) . It's up to Israel to manage this because they are in the boxseat with all the armed power, although I am sure they could call upon a whole hosts of UN, US, NATO, EU peacekeepers

 

One day on this forum we may be asked to think of creative ways to make this transition easier, instead of excuses for why 106 died and 12,000 were injured.

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Nitpicking nonsense. The Great March of Return was for publicity (like Gandhi's salt marches)to remind the world that 70% of Gazans are refugees who were ethnically cleansed 70 years ago from the land they can still see across the fence daily to make way for European colonizers.. 

 

Even if the protesters had breached the fence, it would not have led to an instant one state solution and a sudden change of Israeli policy. The inhabitants of Sderot would not have woken up with Palestinians camping in their gardens demanding access to their bathroom and half the title deed. That's just plain silly.

 

Israel gave the march added publicity of course by killing 106 demonstrators including 15 children. Whose fault that was might be cleared up with an independent inquiry, but Israel has quashed that idea.

 

Now the world is even more aware through the march of the injustice perpetrated against the Palestinians 70 years ago and continuing today. And it is this that may eventually lead to a change of Israeli policy. Israel will only change through outside pressure.

 

"Nitpicking" how? You said you addressed something, it was demonstrated you did nothing of the sort. Seems like you just issue instant deflections regardless of what was posted. Notably, you still avoid addressing points, and go on yet another rant, more suitable for your vehement comfort zone.

 

Not that surprised by you co-opting this or that figure, but doubt Gandhi would have look favorably on the violence employed by the Palestinian protestors. Don't recall him advocating clashing with soldiers, setting fires, carrying out armed attacks etc.

 

So this was all for publicity, eh? Would that mean that Hamas leaders egging protestors on, going on about crossing the fence, taking back never seen and no longer existing homes - weren't truthful with their people? Shocked. Was it necessary for people to die, for the sake of attracting publicity? Was it an acceptable trade-off? (and before expected nonsense - protests ceased when Hamas ordered it).

 

Your sneaky "if" notwithstanding, some Palestinians did manage to breach the fence. Luckily, numbers were small and instances quickly addressed.

 

And on with them ludicrous straw-man arguments - no one claimed that a mass breach of the fence would have resulted in a one state solution. That's something you made up. And it is, indeed, plain silly. But a mass breach of the fence could have easily resulted in either way more casualties - Israeli and Palestinian.

 

Israel certainly did it's "share" for the supposed Hamas publicity efforts. You already deciding it was all Israel's fault, and pretending a need for an "independent inquiry" is disingenuous. That you consider the investigation underway or others discussed to be "independent" or in any way balanced, is just another indication of your own bias. To point this out again - the current investigation's mandate focuses solely on Israel. So the crapola about "who's fault that was might be cleared up" is simply rubbish.

 

 

After addressing your latest rant, could you possibly stop deflecting and meaningfully refer to previous points made? Not holding my breath.

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Thank you for repeating you claim more clearly. But there is a difference between what you regard as the two wrongs. 

The wrong of the Nakba 70 years ago was to ethnically cleanse the inhabitants into Gaza so that Jewish colonizers could take their places, and come and live in or build over or simply raze their Palestinian villages.

The right of return I am suggesting is that Palestinians return not as ethnic cleansers but to share the land with the colonizers and their descendants.

 

It's up to Israel to facilitate that return as smoothly and slowly and justly as possible with all the security checks and balances, constitutional safeguards, carrots and sticks (for those who refuse to accept the new reality of a shared country) . It's up to Israel to manage this because they are in the boxseat with all the armed power, although I am sure they could call upon a whole hosts of UN, US, NATO, EU peacekeepers

 

One day on this forum we may be asked to think of creative ways to make this transition easier, instead of excuses for why 106 died and 12,000 were injured.

 

Disregarding your intentionally inflammatory rhetoric, there are several issues with your post, and essentially - it still doesn't solve the inconsistency pointed at.

 

You decide that sharing the land is acceptable. The fact is that neither side sees it this way. It is not the right of return as advertised by Hamas leadership's speeches. It is not what Palestinians wish for. And it is not something welcomed by Israelis. So once more, a made up construct, disconnected from reality, and presented as otherwise. If you feel that peaceful co-existence is helped by your inflammatory rhetoric, we'll have to disagree.

 

Considering recent posts, I don't expect your geographical knowledge to be up to scratch, but lets put it this way - what land to share? Israel is already densely populated. Assuming that returning Palestinian could just settle up in the vicinity of their old villages or homes is unrealistic. That's without acknowledging that the Palestinian concept iof right of return doesn't really align with yours.

 

I doubt Israel is obligated to deal with private cases of Palestinians wishing to return. Such issues are decided upon via diplomacy and negotiations. And while the expected response would be Israel this or that, it cannot be ignored that the Palestinian leadership is responsible as well.

 

The bottom line is that the inconsistency remains. As said, most people involved, on both sides, weren't around back then. The reality of the Israelis living there is that this is their home. You deciding that the re-settlement of the Palestinians does not constitute a "wrong" will probably be at odds with how Israelis see it. So yes, you are willing to adopt "two wrongs make a right", by insisting the second "wrong" is no such thing.

 

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

"Nitpicking" how? You said you addressed something, it was demonstrated you did nothing of the sort. Seems like you just issue instant deflections regardless of what was posted. Notably, you still avoid addressing points, and go on yet another rant, more suitable for your vehement comfort zone.

 

Not that surprised by you co-opting this or that figure, but doubt Gandhi would have look favorably on the violence employed by the Palestinian protestors. Don't recall him advocating clashing with soldiers, setting fires, carrying out armed attacks etc.

 

So this was all for publicity, eh? Would that mean that Hamas leaders egging protestors on, going on about crossing the fence, taking back never seen and no longer existing homes - weren't truthful with their people? Shocked. Was it necessary for people to die, for the sake of attracting publicity? Was it an acceptable trade-off? (and before expected nonsense - protests ceased when Hamas ordered it).

 

Your sneaky "if" notwithstanding, some Palestinians did manage to breach the fence. Luckily, numbers were small and instances quickly addressed.

 

And on with them ludicrous straw-man arguments - no one claimed that a mass breach of the fence would have resulted in a one state solution. That's something you made up. And it is, indeed, plain silly. But a mass breach of the fence could have easily resulted in either way more casualties - Israeli and Palestinian.

 

Israel certainly did it's "share" for the supposed Hamas publicity efforts. You already deciding it was all Israel's fault, and pretending a need for an "independent inquiry" is disingenuous. That you consider the investigation underway or others discussed to be "independent" or in any way balanced, is just another indication of your own bias. To point this out again - the current investigation's mandate focuses solely on Israel. So the crapola about "who's fault that was might be cleared up" is simply rubbish.

 

 

After addressing your latest rant, could you possibly stop deflecting and meaningfully refer to previous points made? Not holding my breath.

Nitpicking the finer details is a common Zionist troll method of bogging down a poster in order to deflect.

 

I hope one day that Israelis and Palestinians live together in peace either in one state or side by side in two states. Call that my aim/vision/dream whatever you like. You don't seem to have a vision at all, but you are fastidiously concerned with the details as to why the two peoples can't live in peace. I think it's just your obfuscatory cover to maintain the status quo.

 

For instance, I mentioned "gradually" regarding absorption of Palestinian refugees into Israeli society. Whoosh, you swoop on that word and demand details.  I gave you a very small sampler of a couple of suggestions. Not good enough. What do you want: a government department research or international institute think tank paper. This is TVF not Congress and the mods are usually quite strict about drifting off topic. I recall we had a thread about peace plans a couple of years ago. I'll wait for another such if you want to hear all my ideas.

 

Any inquiry would need to address Israeli claims that Hamas instigated the violence, and how and where each person died. It would be slammed internationally if it did not note Israel's input. But for Israel not even to co-operate suggests their claims may be bogus and that they have much to hide.

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Nitpicking the finer details is a common Zionist troll method of bogging down a poster in order to deflect.

 

I hope one day that Israelis and Palestinians live together in peace either in one state or side by side in two states. Call that my aim/vision/dream whatever you like. You don't seem to have a vision at all, but you are fastidiously concerned with the details as to why the two peoples can't live in peace. I think it's just your obfuscatory cover to maintain the status quo.

 

For instance, I mentioned "gradually" regarding absorption of Palestinian refugees into Israeli society. Whoosh, you swoop on that word and demand details.  I gave you a very small sampler of a couple of suggestions. Not good enough. What do you want: a government department research or international institute think tank paper. This is TVF not Congress and the mods are usually quite strict about drifting off topic. I recall we had a thread about peace plans a couple of years ago. I'll wait for another such if you want to hear all my ideas.

 

Any inquiry would need to address Israeli claims that Hamas instigated the violence, and how and where each person died. It would be slammed internationally if it did not note Israel's input. But for Israel not even to co-operate suggests their claims may be bogus and that they have much to hide.

 

You claim you addressed a point. Yet do not do so in any meaningful way. You claim to "debunk" things, despite there not being agreement or even evidence that you did. Similarly, "nitpicking" is just  a way of whining when your claims clash with reality. That's all.

 

And you can keep claiming whatever you like about my posts and their content - won't make it true, though. I've posted plenty a time that, IMO, the only workable solution is a two state one. That I don't shy from acknowledging that even this is likely to fall short of the utopia  some seem to imagine, or satisfy all sides' wishes - is because, unlike some, I'm not invested in a totally one-sided take on things. That you insist on ignoring facts, reality and the people involved is just another indication of irrelevant your views are.

 

There is no expectation that you can or will provide anything resembling a detailed account. Although in the past, you had no issues demanding (and receiving) such from me. The topic you refer to, for example, was pretty much a rehash of the current one, with you going on about imaginary construct, policies and rosy visions. Considering the one-sided nature of your posts, the refusal to acknowledge any negative issues related to the Palestinian side, or indeed obvious lack of in depth knowledge regarding both societies, your "ideas" do not carry all that much weight.

 

And lame spin with that "gradually" - the related comment was with regard to your previous insistence, in the context of the protests, that the Gazans ought to be allowed to cross over and go home. Another point was raised over whether this be an "absorption" of Palestinians within Israeli society, or rather, an uninvited, and probably unwelcome transformation of Israeli society. No meaningful response to either, naturally.

 

And let's try again  - the investigation commissioned is not mandated, nor tasked with examining issues relating to the Hamas involvement. That you pretend otherwise, doesn't change things. Previous investigations who were biased against Israel were not "slammed internationally". For Israel not to cooperate with an investigation that's set to be biased from the start is pointless.

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Disregarding your intentionally inflammatory rhetoric, there are several issues with your post, and essentially - it still doesn't solve the inconsistency pointed at.

 

You decide that sharing the land is acceptable. The fact is that neither side sees it this way. It is not the right of return as advertised by Hamas leadership's speeches. It is not what Palestinians wish for. And it is not something welcomed by Israelis. So once more, a made up construct, disconnected from reality, and presented as otherwise. If you feel that peaceful co-existence is helped by your inflammatory rhetoric, we'll have to disagree.

 

Considering recent posts, I don't expect your geographical knowledge to be up to scratch, but lets put it this way - what land to share? Israel is already densely populated. Assuming that returning Palestinian could just settle up in the vicinity of their old villages or homes is unrealistic. That's without acknowledging that the Palestinian concept iof right of return doesn't really align with yours.

 

I doubt Israel is obligated to deal with private cases of Palestinians wishing to return. Such issues are decided upon via diplomacy and negotiations. And while the expected response would be Israel this or that, it cannot be ignored that the Palestinian leadership is responsible as well.

 

The bottom line is that the inconsistency remains. As said, most people involved, on both sides, weren't around back then. The reality of the Israelis living there is that this is their home. You deciding that the re-settlement of the Palestinians does not constitute a "wrong" will probably be at odds with how Israelis see it. So yes, you are willing to adopt "two wrongs make a right", by insisting the second "wrong" is no such thing.

 

>>Considering recent posts, I don't expect your geographical knowledge to be up to scratch, but lets put it this way - what land to share? Israel is already densely populated.
.. I have visited Israel and am aware of the geography. It is a bit hypocritical to moan about the shortage of living space when the two peoples all live together already except you dont seem to mind that the Palestinians are pushed into the crampest quarters.

 

Perhaps the returning Palestinians could live in the areas that Israeli Jews wish to emigrate from.
A third of Jewish Israelis would leave the country if they could, according to a poll conducted by Masa Israeli, a group looking at the divisions of Jewish society in Israel.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/366561/why-do-a-third-of-israelis-want-to-leave-the-country/

>>You decide that sharing the land is acceptable. The fact is that neither side sees it this way.

 

Says who?  ...you?  Better do more research.

 

A majority of Palestinians and almost half of Israelis have given up on a two state solution. And if a two states solution is off the table that leaves only one state.

 

"Nearly half of Israeli Jews and 60 percent of Palestinians believe settlements have expanded so much that the two-state solution is no longer feasible, according to the poll. Meanwhile, 48 percent of all Israelis believe the two-state solution is still viable, as opposed to 42 percent who do not.

Furthermore, approximately three-quarters of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian respondents said they think the chances of a Palestinian state emerging in the next five years is low or non-existent (75 percent of Palestinians and 73 percent of Israeli Jews)"

https://972mag.com/support-for-two-states-drops-below-50-among-israelis-palestinians-alike/132682/

Are Israeli Jews beginning to accept the right of return?
"A number of new surveys shows that at least a fifth of Israel’s Jewish citizens are open to the idea of Palestinian refugees returning to their homes."
https://972mag.com/are-israeli-jews-beginning-to-accept-the-right-of-return/134788/

 

Times change; leaderships and political parties come and go. In that Palestinians and Israelis ae geographical neighbors for eternity, and that what we have already is a de facto single state in which Israel controls 100% of Palestine, it is inevitable that they will share the land eventually. It's just a matter of giving the majority Palestinian population equal rights.

 

An interesting corollary of this Gaza massacre and the US Embassy move is that it may finally convince Palestinians of the hopelessness of a two state solution. Trump has ensured that the US cannot be trusted as an honest broker, he has "taken Jerusalem off the table" pre-empting final status negotiations, Nikki Haley in the UN has blamed anyone but Israel for the mass murder. Palestinians have nothing to lose.  They live in a de facto one state already. It's time to move direction and launch an anti apartheid campaign for one man one vote. Just a matter of waiting for new leadership to emerge to spearhead it.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You claim you addressed a point. Yet do not do so in any meaningful way. You claim to "debunk" things, despite there not being agreement or even evidence that you did. Similarly, "nitpicking" is just  a way of whining when your claims clash with reality. That's all.

 

And you can keep claiming whatever you like about my posts and their content - won't make it true, though. I've posted plenty a time that, IMO, the only workable solution is a two state one. That I don't shy from acknowledging that even this is likely to fall short of the utopia  some seem to imagine, or satisfy all sides' wishes - is because, unlike some, I'm not invested in a totally one-sided take on things. That you insist on ignoring facts, reality and the people involved is just another indication of irrelevant your views are.

 

There is no expectation that you can or will provide anything resembling a detailed account. Although in the past, you had no issues demanding (and receiving) such from me. The topic you refer to, for example, was pretty much a rehash of the current one, with you going on about imaginary construct, policies and rosy visions. Considering the one-sided nature of your posts, the refusal to acknowledge any negative issues related to the Palestinian side, or indeed obvious lack of in depth knowledge regarding both societies, your "ideas" do not carry all that much weight.

 

And lame spin with that "gradually" - the related comment was with regard to your previous insistence, in the context of the protests, that the Gazans ought to be allowed to cross over and go home. Another point was raised over whether this be an "absorption" of Palestinians within Israeli society, or rather, an uninvited, and probably unwelcome transformation of Israeli society. No meaningful response to either, naturally.

 

And let's try again  - the investigation commissioned is not mandated, nor tasked with examining issues relating to the Hamas involvement. That you pretend otherwise, doesn't change things. Previous investigations who were biased against Israel were not "slammed internationally". For Israel not to cooperate with an investigation that's set to be biased from the start is pointless.

 

Perhaps Israel should conduct its own investigation then led by a prominent respected Israeli judge interviewing the snipers, examining how where and when each victim was shot, allowing footage and interview transcripts from both sides to be scrutinised. That's the least that would happen in any western democracy that Israel claims to be. But I'm not holding my breath.

Edited May 20, 20188 yr by dexterm

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Considering recent posts, I don't expect your geographical knowledge to be up to scratch, but lets put it this way - what land to share? Israel is already densely populated.
.. I have visited Israel and am aware of the geography. It is a bit hypocritical to moan about the shortage of living space when the two peoples all live together already except you dont seem to mind that the Palestinians are pushed into the crampest quarters.

 

Perhaps the returning Palestinians could live in the areas that Israeli Jews wish to emigrate from.
A third of Jewish Israelis would leave the country if they could, according to a poll conducted by Masa Israeli, a group looking at the divisions of Jewish society in Israel.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/366561/why-do-a-third-of-israelis-want-to-leave-the-country/

>>You decide that sharing the land is acceptable. The fact is that neither side sees it this way.

 

Says who?  ...you?  Better do more research.

 

A majority of Palestinians and almost half of Israelis have given up on a two state solution. And if a two states solution is off the table that leaves only one state.

 

"Nearly half of Israeli Jews and 60 percent of Palestinians believe settlements have expanded so much that the two-state solution is no longer feasible, according to the poll. Meanwhile, 48 percent of all Israelis believe the two-state solution is still viable, as opposed to 42 percent who do not.

Furthermore, approximately three-quarters of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian respondents said they think the chances of a Palestinian state emerging in the next five years is low or non-existent (75 percent of Palestinians and 73 percent of Israeli Jews)"

https://972mag.com/support-for-two-states-drops-below-50-among-israelis-palestinians-alike/132682/

Are Israeli Jews beginning to accept the right of return?
"A number of new surveys shows that at least a fifth of Israel’s Jewish citizens are open to the idea of Palestinian refugees returning to their homes."
https://972mag.com/are-israeli-jews-beginning-to-accept-the-right-of-return/134788/

 

Times change; leaderships and political parties come and go. In that Palestinians and Israelis ae geographical neighbors for eternity, and that what we have already is a de facto single state in which Israel controls 100% of Palestine, it is inevitable that they will share the land eventually. It's just a matter of giving the majority Palestinian population equal rights.

 

An interesting corollary of this Gaza massacre and the US Embassy move is that it may finally convince Palestinians of the hopelessness of a two state solution. Trump has ensured that the US cannot be trusted as an honest broker, he has "taken Jerusalem off the table" pre-empting final status negotiations, Nikki Haley in the UN has blamed anyone but Israel for the mass murder. Palestinians have nothing to lose.  They live in a de facto one state already. It's time to move direction and launch an anti apartheid campaign for one man one vote. Just a matter of waiting for new leadership to emerge to spearhead it.

 

Yeah, I'm aware you wave your visit as some sort of credential. Reminds me of tourists here going on about Thai politics. With all due respect to posting one-sided talking points, vehement rants and googled links, that's not quite what I referred to.

 

I didn't "moan" about anything, I pointed out that the land is densely populated. You can twist that whichever way you like, but it will still remain a fact. Nothing hypocritical about it. Israelis and Palestinians do not "already live together" in the areas discussed. And your usual emotional spins are irrelevant. The same goes for the nonsense about you imply regarding the Forward article.

 

And on we go...

 

The links you posted to them two polls do not actually support your point or negate mine. Just another attempt to muddy the waters and deflect. Asserting that the re-settling the Palestinians in Israel does not constitute a "wrong" is something you "decided", and is not how things are perceived by Israelis.

 

With regard to the first poll linked, you somehow conclude that since support for the two state solution allegedly decreased, the only option left is the one-state solution. Back in the real world, there are such things known as facts. Here are some - the link doesn't report figures related to a one-state solution. The figures that do appear mostly relate to the possibility of a confrontation or things dragging on. That you present a bogus, misleading "conclusion", while co-opting the poll and lecturing others about "research" is pretty much how you roll. If anything, the results highlight issues related to fear, trust and animosity. More supportive of the my early proposition - that sides aren't that keen living with each other.

 

Another point worth making is that the poll was conducted on December 2017, after Trump's Jerusalem announcement. Positions and views are often polarized following such events, and thus reflected in poll results (addressed in the link itself).

 

As for the second poll - disregarding the presentation (this is, after all, a far left website):  the quote is a bit misleading. The actual figure related to support is 16.2% , and it too, is divided between two possible answers. Guess that would see some "nitpicking" or "pedantry" nonsense comment, but what's the use of linking figures, then? The article does a fair job of not disclosing how many responded negatively, except in one case - 60.8%. It would seem that the positive responses are presented in aggregated form (as in lumping together positive responses, without clear differentiation). The bit about Palestinian views on the right of return, cites one person and determines it is "representative". To cap - most Israelis aren't supportive of the right of return, and the source is somewhat dodgy.

 

 

About your standard "new leadership" tagline, which is essentially hot air - it would be nice if you could actually have anything of substance to say about the Palestinian leadership (past, present and future), that isn't some general hollow musing. The same goes for your human rights campaigns hopes and slogans - nothing on how these actually relate to reality.

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Perhaps Israel should conduct its own investigation then led by a prominent respected Israeli judge interviewing the snipers, examining how where and when each victim was shot, allowing footage and interview transcripts from both sides to be scrutinised. That's the least that would happen in any western democracy that Israel claims to be. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

Having no reasonable comment regarding the commissioned investigation's mandate focusing solely on Israel, you go on yet another misleading tangent.

 

I have no idea if one will be initiated in this case, but on several past occasions, Israel did conduct such investigations. Incidentally, that's one of the main reasons the ICC refrains - its involvement is more closely related to countries which cannot or will not carry credible investigations. Allow me to doubt that either way, your response to findings not in line with your hateful agenda will be appreciative or positive.

 

The "from both sides" bit is amusing - do you imagine an Israeli judge will be able to conduct investigations in Gaza? Interview Hamas people, perhaps?

 

And as per script, no demands of international investigation applied to the Hamas, and no expectation that it will conduct a credible one.

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Having no reasonable comment regarding the commissioned investigation's mandate focusing solely on Israel, you go on yet another misleading tangent.

 

I have no idea if one will be initiated in this case, but on several past occasions, Israel did conduct such investigations. Incidentally, that's one of the main reasons the ICC refrains - its involvement is more closely related to countries which cannot or will not carry credible investigations. Allow me to doubt that either way, your response to findings not in line with your hateful agenda will be appreciative or positive.

 

The "from both sides" bit is amusing - do you imagine an Israeli judge will be able to conduct investigations in Gaza? Interview Hamas people, perhaps?

 

And as per script, no demands of international investigation applied to the Hamas, and no expectation that it will conduct a credible one.

>>And as per script, no demands of international investigation applied to the Hamas, and no expectation that it will conduct a credible one.

Blatant falsehood. You have been caught misrepresenting me in the past. Learn to read more carefully. I wrote above "Any inquiry would need to address Israeli claims that Hamas instigated the violence, and how and where each person died. It would be slammed internationally if it did not note Israel's input."

 

How is that not demanding that any investigation be even handed examining evidence Israel inputs against Hamas. 

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>And as per script, no demands of international investigation applied to the Hamas, and no expectation that it will conduct a credible one.

Blatant falsehood. You have been caught misrepresenting me in the past. Learn to read more carefully. I wrote above "Any inquiry would need to address Israeli claims that Hamas instigated the violence, and how and where each person died. It would be slammed internationally if it did not note Israel's input."

 

How is that not demanding that any investigation be even handed examining evidence Israel inputs against Hamas. 

 

Oooh..."blatant falsehood". Wait....no, waffle again.

 

Was there anything in your posts to indicate criticism along these lines of the investigation already commissioned?  Was there anything there casting doubt on the credibility and "independence" of the upcoming investigation?

 

Learn to read? How about this - this isn't about the investigation examining Israel's claim regarding the Hamas, but rather the investigation not mandated or tasked with investigating either the Hamas itself or "Israeli's claims".

 

So it would supposedly be "slammed internationally" if it did not "note" Israel's input - but no actual requirement to investigate the Hamas.

 

You're not demanding anything, more like deflecting.

 

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oooh..."blatant falsehood". Wait....no, waffle again.

 

Was there anything in your posts to indicate criticism along these lines of the investigation already commissioned?  Was there anything there casting doubt on the credibility and "independence" of the upcoming investigation?

 

Learn to read? How about this - this isn't about the investigation examining Israel's claim regarding the Hamas, but rather the investigation not mandated or tasked with investigating either the Hamas itself or "Israeli's claims".

 

So it would supposedly be "slammed internationally" if it did not "note" Israel's input - but no actual requirement to investigate the Hamas.

 

You're not demanding anything, more like deflecting.

 

You are prejudging the outcomes of an inquiry before they have even started gathering evidence. How do you know they won't look at accusations against Hamas? You are also assuming that Hamas is guilty of instigating the violence. Pretty hard to make those assumptions if Israel will not even allow its soldiers be interviewed or any video/drone footage examined. Same as in the Mavi Marmara murders by the IDF. Israel confiscated all the cellphone footage that might incriminate them. A bit harder to do this time though.

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

You are prejudging the outcomes of an inquiry before they have even started gathering evidence. How do you know they won't look at accusations against Hamas? You are also assuming that Hamas is guilty of instigating the violence. Pretty hard to make those assumptions if Israel will not even allow its soldiers be interviewed or any video/drone footage examined. Same as in the Mavi Marmara murders by the IDF. Israel confiscated all the cellphone footage that might incriminate them. A bit harder to do this time though.

 

I'm not "prejudicing" anything, the mandate does not include investigating Hamas. The investigations is not tasked with this at all.

 

I am not assuming Hamas "is guilty of instigating the violence". There was violence on offer from both sides. To deny this is bizarre. To deny Hamas involvement, when Hamas itself acknowledges it, is bizarre. To ignore Hamas leaders's speeches before and during the protests, is bizarre. It is not "hard" to make those assumptions, unless one is clueless, intentionally obtuse and/or totally biased.

 

Why would Israel be expected to cooperate with an investigation that focuses solely on one side?

 

Once more, no actual criticism of the investigation's narrow mandate, no demands to investigate the Hamas, no calls for the Hamas to address anything. In short - unadulterated rubbish. The same goes for your Mavi Marmara bogus comment.

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not "prejudicing" anything, the mandate does not include investigating Hamas. The investigations is not tasked with this at all.

 

I am not assuming Hamas "is guilty of instigating the violence". There was violence on offer from both sides. To deny this is bizarre. To deny Hamas involvement, when Hamas itself acknowledges it, is bizarre. To ignore Hamas leaders's speeches before and during the protests, is bizarre. It is not "hard" to make those assumptions, unless one is clueless, intentionally obtuse and/or totally biased.

 

Why would Israel be expected to cooperate with an investigation that focuses solely on one side?

 

Once more, no actual criticism of the investigation's narrow mandate, no demands to investigate the Hamas, no calls for the Hamas to address anything. In short - unadulterated rubbish. The same goes for your Mavi Marmara bogus comment.

I am trying to find the exact wording of the resolution. Best so far is 

"In the resolution, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, two against, and 14 abstentions, the Council decided to urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council, to investigate all alleged violations and abuses of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military assaults on the large-scale civilian protests that began on 30 March 2018."

 

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=23107&LangID=E

 

How does that exclude an investigation of Hamas too?

If Israel co-operated and provided its evidence against Hamas, wouldn't that help nail the guilty parties...whoever they are.

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am trying to find the exact wording of the resolution. Best so far is 

"In the resolution, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, two against, and 14 abstentions, the Council decided to urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council, to investigate all alleged violations and abuses of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military assaults on the large-scale civilian protests that began on 30 March 2018."

 

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=23107&LangID=E

 

How does that exclude an investigation of Hamas too?

If Israel co-operated and provided its evidence against Hamas, wouldn't that help nail the guilty parties...whoever they are.

 

 

 

 

 

Yawn.

 

Seriously doubt you couldn't find it. Here:

https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G18/136/13/PDF/G1813613.pdf?OpenElement

 

Do you see any reference to the Hamas? Do you discern any other party, other than Israel, criticized?

 

The scope is limited, the conclusions appear in the text (not to mention accompanying and related statements), protests were "peaceful", and it even includes a demands to stop the blockade, and allow free passage of persons etc.

 

Or perhaps you're too familiar with posting one-sided rants that this seems balanced to you.

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

 

Seriously doubt you couldn't find it. Here:

https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G18/136/13/PDF/G1813613.pdf?OpenElement

 

Do you see any reference to the Hamas? Do you discern any other party, other than Israel, criticized?

 

The scope is limited, the conclusions appear in the text (not to mention accompanying and related statements), protests were "peaceful", and it even includes a demands to stop the blockade, and allow free passage of persons etc.

 

Or perhaps you're too familiar with posting one-sided rants that this seems balanced to you.

Well seriously doubt away.  Your arrogance does you a disservice. I tried to find the wording of the resolution exactly as I stated. Maybe you think everyone else is as dishonest as you.

 

Even your link I couldn't open (poor connection Thailand? "There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link"), so I still can't see what you are talking about. 

 

Why should Hamas be specifically mentioned anyway? The IDF pulled the triggers that caused the deaths of 15 children, 2 paraplegics and 2 journalists. It's only Israel (and their tame poodles in the UN) accusing Hamas of being responsible and they won't co-operate with the inquiry to present their evidence. Like a naughty kid yelling "He did it, not me" then running away.

Let's hope the investigation does the best it can despite being hamstrung by Israel, as usual, to get to the  bottom of all allegations.

 

Edited May 21, 20188 yr by dexterm

32 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Well seriously doubt away.  Your arrogance does you a disservice. I tried to find the wording of the resolution exactly as I stated. Maybe you think everyone else is as dishonest as you.

 

Even your link I couldn't open (poor connection Thailand? "There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link"), so I still can't see what you are talking about. 

 

Why should Hamas be specifically mentioned anyway? The IDF pulled the triggers that caused the deaths of 15 children, 2 paraplegics and 2 journalists. It's only Israel (and their tame poodles in the UN) accusing Hamas of being responsible and they won't co-operate with the inquiry to present their evidence. Like a naughty kid yelling "He did it, not me" then running away.

Let's hope the investigation does the best it can despite being hamstrung by Israel, as usual, to get to the  bottom of all allegations.

 

You are flogging a dead horse.  If you quote facts to Morch that is, apparently,  being one sided!!

 

Israel has created a humanitarian disaster.  Thats it, end of argument.  The should be held to account.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with the Holocaust so hopefully the war criminal, Netanyahu won't pull that one out again ad nauseam.  Speaks volumes that the only one sticking up for the Israelis is Trump.  Says it all.

Edited May 21, 20188 yr by carmine

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Well seriously doubt away.  Your arrogance does you a disservice. I tried to find the wording of the resolution exactly as I stated. Maybe you think everyone else is as dishonest as you.

 

Even your link I couldn't open (poor connection Thailand? "There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link"), so I still can't see what you are talking about. 

 

Why should Hamas be specifically mentioned anyway? The IDF pulled the triggers that caused the deaths of 15 children, 2 paraplegics and 2 journalists. It's only Israel (and their tame poodles in the UN) accusing Hamas of being responsible and they won't co-operate with the inquiry to present their evidence. Like a naughty kid yelling "He did it, not me" then running away.

Let's hope the investigation does the best it can despite being hamstrung by Israel, as usual, to get to the  bottom of all allegations.

 

 

Funny I have no such issues, while looking at it from Thailand. Perhaps trolls got issues using Google?

 

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx

 

("Violations of international law in the context of large-scale civilian protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" - currently 5th from the top).

 

This being the 4th instance on recent topics (Hamas involvement/casualties, Lack of non-lethal means, Infant suffering a precondition, and the current bit), I think it can be called a pattern:

 

1. Deny facts.

2. Presented with factual reports, attempt to reject source on spurious grounds.

3. Reports are confirmed again.

4. Deny regardless, ignore, or claim it doesn't matter anyway.

 

So now we're at the step 4: Seems like after all the faux talk regarding the investigation needing to be even handed etc., you now declare Hamas does not have to be mentioned, and it's only Israel that's at fault. Do make up your mind. Countries not accepting the narrative pushed is a "tame poodles", whereas "human-rights focused countries" such as most who supported the above, are apparently alright. Guess the great "humanist" thing is also conditional...

2 hours ago, carmine said:

You are flogging a dead horse.  If you quote facts to Morch that is, apparently,  being one sided!!

 

Israel has created a humanitarian disaster.  Thats it, end of argument.  The should be held to account.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with the Holocaust so hopefully the war criminal, Netanyahu won't pull that one out again ad nauseam.  Speaks volumes that the only one sticking up for the Israelis is Trump.  Says it all.

 

You've been persistently ignoring facts on this topic, and keep repeating "alternative facts" as if they are true. Your "end of argument" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Here are some actual facts:

 

The Gaza Strip wasn't always under a blockade - fact.

The blockade on the Gaza Strip is directly related to the Hamas agenda, policies and actions - fact.

Hamas is widely considered a terrorist organization, this precludes many possibilities with regard to aid - fact.

The blockade is maintained by both Israel and Egypt - fact.

The Palestinian Authority got economic sanctions in place, related to the Hamas rule - fact.

Hamas is the main obstacle with regard to providing aid to the Gaza Strip - fact.

Hamas uses materials and funds intended for civilian purposes to promote military projects - fact.

Hamas stance vs. Israel and the PA is the root of most energy supply issues in the Gaza Strip - fact.

Hamas routinely engages Israel, regardless of being fully aware of the consequences - fact.

 

And no, Trump isn't the only one supporting Israel on this. 

 

It's one thing to say Israel is responsible, quite another to pretend it is solely responsible.

 

 

555.... still with the continual denials of wrong-doing by the rioters, despite about 50% of the casualties being claimed by Hamas, as Hamas “agents”

 

still with the denials that this is using civilians as human shields, should an investigation into a terrorist organization actually happen

 

still with the lack of ability to do ones own research, relying on others, then... 555... denying its existence, in favor of biased opinion pieces

 

still unwaveringly biased against a sovereign state, defending its borders, in exactly the way that they said they would defend the border.

 

ho hum.... much like talking to a “creationist.” I think.

 

meanwhile, I note that the UN said something along the line of “there was no evidence suggesting restraint was used”.... what a joke, thought I, as they went on to use figures like 115 dead ( half being Hamas fighter,) and 2700 wounded

 

seems to me that they either used restraint.... or really really bad snipers.

 

anyway Morch... keep plugging away, although its quite apparent that you won’t get anywhere arguing with someone with a single point of view, which, by and large, is unsubstantiated biased opinion. (At best)

 

 

@farcanell

 

Could also point out casualty reports are based on the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza. Somehow these are accepted without any doubts, regardless of track record.

 

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@farcanell

 

Could also point out casualty reports are based on the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza. Somehow these are accepted without any doubts, regardless of track record.

 

1. Deny facts.

2. Presented with factual reports, attempt to reject source on spurious grounds.

3. Reports are confirmed again.

4. Deny regardless, ignore, or claim it doesn't matter anyway.

 

..err...you were saying?

 

So let's see.. the IDF did not kill anyone at all because figures came from the Ministry of Health of Gaza, but the Israeli soldier was definitely bruised by a stone because Israel said so. Just another instance of Zionist apologists calling black white.

 

 

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

1. Deny facts.

2. Presented with factual reports, attempt to reject source on spurious grounds.

3. Reports are confirmed again.

4. Deny regardless, ignore, or claim it doesn't matter anyway.

 

..err...you were saying?

 

So let's see.. the IDF did not kill anyone at all because figures came from the Ministry of Health of Gaza, but the Israeli soldier was definitely bruised by a stone because Israel said so. Just another instance of Zionist apologists calling black white.

 

 

 

It would be refreshing, if you'd bother addressing points others make, instead of endlessly engaging in lame deflections and spins.

 

There was no denial of casualties. I did not say that the IDF did not kill anyone. Those are lies you made up.

 

For someone who refuses to accept any report whatsoever not in line with your adopted narrative, the faux objection above is preposterous. The questionable track record of both the Hamas, and the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza when reporting casualty figures is nothing new. That you wish to accept it as gospel doesn't change things.

 

Obviously, no comment on the previous post....

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

It would be refreshing, if you'd bother addressing points others make, instead of endlessly engaging in lame deflections and spins.

 

There was no denial of casualties. I did not say that the IDF did not kill anyone. Those are lies you made up.

 

For someone who refuses to accept any report whatsoever not in line with your adopted narrative, the faux objection above is preposterous. The questionable track record of both the Hamas, and the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza when reporting casualty figures is nothing new. That you wish to accept it as gospel doesn't change things.

 

Obviously, no comment on the previous post....

However much you spin it, you hypocritically did exactly what you accuse me of doing.

 

You wrote...
"Could also point out casualty reports are based on the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza. Somehow these are accepted without any doubts, regardless of track record."

 

That is denying  reports may be accurate because you reject the source on spurious grounds.

12 minutes ago, dexterm said:

However much you spin it, you hypocritically did exactly what you accuse me of doing.

 

You wrote...
"Could also point out casualty reports are based on the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza. Somehow these are accepted without any doubts, regardless of track record."

 

That is denying  reports may be accurate because you reject the source on spurious grounds.

 

No, that would be you misrepresenting things yet again.

 

I am not denying that there are casualties. I do doubt that the figures are accurate, based on past experience. There is no wholesale denial, as you often engage in. There are no "spurious grounds" - the affiliation of sources and track record speak for themselves.  Examples of such (which were addressed on previous posts) would be adding Hamas operatives killed in an unrelated explosion and nowhere near the protests being added to the casualty lists, or that infant story you milk - which isn't quite what you make of it. There would also be Hamas and Islamic Jihad personnel killed while carrying out attacks - something which you insist on denying.

 

Apparently, you are the only one allowed wholesale denials, whereas those not embracing your narrative should not even raise doubts. 

 

Troll on.

 

 

Edited May 21, 20188 yr by Morch

8 hours ago, carmine said:

You are flogging a dead horse.  If you quote facts to Morch that is, apparently,  being one sided!!

Israel has created a humanitarian disaster.  Thats it, end of argument.  The should be held to account.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with the Holocaust so hopefully the war criminal, Netanyahu won't pull that one out again ad nauseam.  Speaks volumes that the only one sticking up for the Israelis is Trump.  Says it all.

Should we assume you are less upset with the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmood Abbas referencing the Holocaust in denial fashion?  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/abbas-palestine-israel.html

12 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Should we assume you are less upset with the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmood Abbas referencing the Holocaust in denial fashion?  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/abbas-palestine-israel.html

The statements by Abbas are inexcusable and he absolutely must be called on them.

 

But this discussion is on the mass slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli forces.

 

I take it you are not arguing the disgraceful remarks by Abbas are justification for the slaughter?

Edited May 21, 20188 yr by Chomper Higgot

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The statements by Abbas are inexcusable and he absolutely must be called on them.

 

But this discussion is on the mass slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli forces.

 

I take it you are not arguing the disgraceful remarks by Abbas are justification for the slaughter?

Abbas not really running the show on the Gaza Strip. That would be Hamas. They are into referencing the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. As for 'Call them out on it' you could of course send them an email, but hey! they weren't running that show, right?

Edited May 21, 20188 yr by SheungWan

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

Abbas not really running the show on the Gaza Strip. That would be Hamas. They are into referencing the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. As for 'Call them out on it' you could of course send them a tweet, but hey! they weren't running that show, right?

Again, are you offering this as justification for the Israeli forces committing the mass slaughter of Palestinians?

 

If so, say so.

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, are you offering this as justification for the Israeli forces committing the mass slaughter of Palestinians?

If so, say so.

One more dead-end Hamas suicide job with the usual Western sympathisers cheering them on from the safety of the sidelines. Not quite your description but hey........................................