Big bike forced off road by car on Bangkok highway - video

[KhunFred]

Strange how no one ever denounces violence against Israel.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, KhunFred said:

Strange how no one ever denounces violence against Israel.

That's because Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, not the other way around. The Palestinians are entitled by international law to resist occupation.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, KhunFred said:

Strange how no one ever denounces violence against Israel.

 

That is not always the case. For example, following the recent mortar/rocket attacks there was wide international condemnation of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The OP deals with a UN resolution sponsored by the usual suspects, so no expectations it would be worded otherwise. Reactions depend on both venue and context.

 

36 minutes ago, dexterm said:

That's because Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, not the other way around. The Palestinians are entitled by international law to resist occupation.

 

Other than yourself, and some other extremists, there is no wide acceptance of carte blanche for Palestinian violence. That you justify any Palestinian violence whatsoever, is just another indication of how far gone your views are.

 

'Unacceptable to Fire at Civilian Communities': UN, EU Condemn Attacks on Israel From Gaza

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-unacceptable-to-fire-at-civilians-world-condemns-attacks-from-gaza-1.6132551

 

EU, UN condemn ‘indiscriminate’ attack on Israel from Gaza

https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-condemns-unacceptable-indiscriminate-attack-on-israel-from-gaza/

 

 

[notmyself]

On 6/2/2018 at 9:24 PM, dexterm said:

The US counter resolution is a ridiculous exercise in futility when war crimes have been committed.

 

"A second draft resolution proposed by the United States blaming Hamas for the violence while mentioning Israel's right to defend itself, was later voted on.
Only the United States voted in favor of the second draft resolution, while there were three negative votes and 11 abstentions." [OP]

 

 

On 6/2/2018 at 9:29 PM, Morch said:

 

That you decide war crimes were committed  doesn't make it a fact.

 

 

I go with member Morch in that war crimes being committed cannot be presented as fact. In order to find out, an investigation would have to take place which would require the U.S. to refrain from vetoing it and that is quite simply not going to happen. In the video below, broadcaster Sam Seder states that the U.S. is losing its ability to do anything on an international stage which is patently absurd and also shows (purportedly) Nikki Haley running around trying to get someone, anyone, to vote for the draft resolution. This may be the case but it also may not be the case.

 

 

..... unrelated to the quotes about but related to the topic in general.

 

Over a long time has become quite evident that any criticism of Israel will be met claims of bias and/or anti-Semitism at a 'boy who cried wolf' level.

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Scott
Quote and link edited out.

[bristolboy]

On 6/3/2018 at 11:36 PM, Morch said:

 

That is not always the case. For example, following the recent mortar/rocket attacks there was wide international condemnation of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The OP deals with a UN resolution sponsored by the usual suspects, so no expectations it would be worded otherwise. Reactions depend on both venue and context.

 

 

Other than yourself, and some other extremists, there is no wide acceptance of carte blanche for Palestinian violence. That you justify any Palestinian violence whatsoever, is just another indication of how far gone your views are.

 

'Unacceptable to Fire at Civilian Communities': UN, EU Condemn Attacks on Israel From Gaza

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-unacceptable-to-fire-at-civilians-world-condemns-attacks-from-gaza-1.6132551

 

EU, UN condemn ‘indiscriminate’ attack on Israel from Gaza

https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-condemns-unacceptable-indiscriminate-attack-on-israel-from-gaza/

 

 

Yes, it sounds so fairminded. On the one hand  not to excusee the Israelis for their missteps, as certain posters make a point of doing, but on the other  to condemn the Palestinians for their violence. But of course it's a crock. As anyone who has considered just the economic warfare Israel has waged on the Palestinians.( forget about confiscation of land and water rights) what would be expected but that things would degenerate to this point? What legitimate and effective non-violent remedy is open to the Palestinians? Israel has very purposely and steadfastly sabotaged the Palestinians from day one of the occupation. Sometimes I see certain self-professsed liberal posters mourning the collapse of the Labour party in Israel. As though Labour were fundamentally different from the present government in regards to the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu is the honest face of this policy after all the cosmetics have been stripped off.   

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy

 

Crock would be an apt description of your latest attempt to hijack the topic.

 

Spin it any way you wish, what your post amounts to is a carte blanche justification for violence and terrorism. And while it's very convenient laying it all on Israel - choices made by the Palestinians, their leaderships, and Arab countries got a lot to do with their current predicament. That you announce a free pass carries very little weight.

 

Choosing violence, over and over again, did not bring the Palestinians any real achievements. If anything, it worsened their situation. This is regardless of which arbitrary point you start your bogus argument from.

 

The Palestinian cause would have garnered much more support, and would be harder to deny had they dropped or minimized the violence. This is why the PA is internationally acceptable, whereas the Hamas is not. And, of course, the PA did not become acceptable, until the PLO officially renounced violence and terrorism.

 

Those not competently blinkered would notice that the situation of the Palestinian in the Gaza Strip is not similar to that of the Palestinian in the West Bank. That's not to say the West Bank Palestinians are doing great and all is well. Just pointing out that using a wide brush is not the way to address things.

[bristolboy]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy

 

Crock would be an apt description of your latest attempt to hijack the topic.

 

Spin it any way you wish, what your post amounts to is a carte blanche justification for violence and terrorism. And while it's very convenient laying it all on Israel - choices made by the Palestinians, their leaderships, and Arab countries got a lot to do with their current predicament. That you announce a free pass carries very little weight.

 

Choosing violence, over and over again, did not bring the Palestinians any real achievements. If anything, it worsened their situation. This is regardless of which arbitrary point you start your bogus argument from.

 

The Palestinian cause would have garnered much more support, and would be harder to deny had they dropped or minimized the violence. This is why the PA is internationally acceptable, whereas the Hamas is not. And, of course, the PA did not become acceptable, until the PLO officially renounced violence and terrorism.

 

Those not competently blinkered would notice that the situation of the Palestinian in the Gaza Strip is not similar to that of the Palestinian in the West Bank. That's not to say the West Bank Palestinians are doing great and all is well. Just pointing out that using a wide brush is not the way to address things.

When you follow a recipe to bake a cake, and the cake repeatedly blows up, do you say it's the responsibility of the ingredients? What the Israelis have done just economically, is the kind of thing that has repeatedly resulted in violent blowups emong indigenous propulations around the world. Violence is the inevitable result of such actions. And it the people who profess moral indignation at this result, who don't acknowledge the unacceptable behavior that is ultimately  responsible for it, who are engaged in deflection and distraction.

 

"The Palestinian cause would have garnered much more support, and would be harder to deny had they dropped or minimized the violence. This is why the PA is internationally acceptable, whereas the Hamas is not. And, of course, the PA did not become acceptable, until the PLO officially renounced violence and terrorism."

Because  that's worked so well for other indigenous populations in similar circumstances? What kind of support would purely peaceful protests have resulted in? An economic boycott? Western government support for non-governmental movements  like BDS? Or, as is most likely the case, an amplified clucking of tongues? Given Israel's brutal determination, it's ridiculous to believe that a nonviolent campaign would have worked.

 

"Those not competently blinkered would notice that the situation of the Palestinian in the Gaza Strip is not similar to that of the Palestinian in the West Bank. "

So let me get this straight. You're contending that the economic measures Israel imposed on Palestinians in Gaza are not similar to those it imposed on the Palestinians in West Bank? Let the hemming and the hawing begin.

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by bristolboy

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy

 

Basically, what your waffle amounts to is simple - that there's one side responsible for anything and everything, whereas the other side is essentially not accountable for anything whatsoever. Twist things all you like, but my position is in no way to mirror image of this.

 

Violence is not "inevitable" unless a whole lot of allowances are made with regard to choices made. All the more so when it comes to organized violence. Your assertion are just a repeat of the same faulty premise - that the Palestinian side cannot be held accountable for anything whatsoever, and that it is automatically absolved of any wrongdoing or bad choices made.

 

As for international support - let's try again: The Palestinians repeatedly choosing violence did not promote their national aspirations one bit, and in effect prove detrimental to such. At the same time, their armed struggle not failed to be accepted and embraced internationally, but in effect, alienated potential supporters. I think it can be agreed upon that Palestinian violence proved futile, and that overall outcomes were negative ones. If denouncing violence seems too much of a compromise for some, simply avoiding terrorism (as in targeting civilians) would have been a big step in the right direction. Alas.

 

What your nothing "argument" says is that choosing non-violence would have made no difference. But in reality, each time violence was embraced, the end result was a worsening of the Palestinian predicament. Simply not making this   choice would have already constituted an improvement.

 

And whether posters are willing to acknowledge it or not, what gains achieved by the Palestinians were a product  of denouncing violence, garnering legitimacy and international support, and engaging Israel on a diplomatic level.  What is ridiculous is your assertion that the Palestinian choices have no effect whatsoever on how things pan out. 

 

Regarding differences between circumstances in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - whether you like to acknowledge it or not, these exist. It would be hard to claim that these have nothing to do with the policies of respective Palestinian leaderships. Or deny that these are related to the different relevant actions and reactions, by both Israel and the Palestinians.

 

If it's not too hard to ask, do work on your formatting skills. Wouldn't want my words to be confused with your unadulterated rubbish.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

What’s interesting is not the US vote against the resolution, nor the US’ own laughable counter resolution, both are fully inline with expectations.

 

The interesting point is China’s vote in favour of the resolution.

 

The US is rapidly loosing its position as trusted international partner of choice, waisting what remains of that reputation on defending Israeli vilolence while China’s reputation rises is not a wise choice for the US.

 

A failing US diplomatic reputation will eventually not be good news for Israel.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s interesting is not the US vote against the resolution, nor the US’ own laughable counter resolution, both are fully inline with expectations.

 

The interesting point is China’s vote in favour of the resolution.

 

The US is rapidly loosing its position as trusted international partner of choice, waisting what remains of that reputation on defending Israeli vilolence while China’s reputation rises is not a wise choice for the US.

 

A failing US diplomatic reputation will eventually not be good news for Israel.

 

I don't know that the US resolution is any more "laughable" than the original one. That you, apparently, favor another one-sided resolution proposal doesn't make the argument carry a whole lot of weight.

 

As for China's vote - "interesting" how? Does China have much of a history backing pro-Israeli resolutions in the UNSC? Or resisting resolutions targeting Israel?

 

I think that like rumors about the US dollar's imminent collapse, similar assertions regarding the US international standing and leverage are more wishful thinking, for now. Trump will be out and the course will be corrected. I'm pretty sure that beyond fiery statements, most leaders and politicians know what's what.

 

Whether a supposed "failing US diplomatic reputation" will "eventually not be good news for Israel" can be debated. Going by some views, this would pave the way for international pressure - thus leading to a change in current Israeli policies. The notion that the current Israeli government's policies reflect Israel's best interests is hardly universal.

[cdnvic]

If you make allegations that someone is a propagandist and/or is paid to post it will be removed.

 

Before anyone gets overheated and says anything that gets their account suspended, remember that nothing said by anyone here is going to matter the least in the long run. So dial down the self-righteousness on all sides please.

[Srikcir]

In the midst of wrangling between the US, Palestine, Israel and 140 other nations, where is Kushner's peace plan?

• November 2017 - "After 10 months of educating themselves on the complexities of the world’s most intractable dispute,"
• "President Trump and his advisers have begun developing their own concrete blueprint to end the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, a plan intended to go beyond previous frameworks offered by the American government in pursuit of what the president calls “the ultimate deal.” (my bold emphasis)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/world/middleeast/trump-peace-israel-palestinians.html

• February 2018 - "The White House has said Kushner and Greenblatt are in the process of "finalizing" their peace plan but have yet to present it to Israeli and Palestinian officials" (my bold emphasis)

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/middle-east-peace-jared-kushner-security-clearance/index.html

• May 2018 - opening ceremonies for US Embassy in Jerusalem

Seems the latest rounds of bickering is merely disguising the failure to produce the Ultimate Deal.

 

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

In the midst of wrangling between the US, Palestine, Israel and 140 other nations, where is Kushner's peace plan?

• November 2017 - "After 10 months of educating themselves on the complexities of the world’s most intractable dispute,"
• "President Trump and his advisers have begun developing their own concrete blueprint to end the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, a plan intended to go beyond previous frameworks offered by the American government in pursuit of what the president calls “the ultimate deal.” (my bold emphasis)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/world/middleeast/trump-peace-israel-palestinians.html

• February 2018 - "The White House has said Kushner and Greenblatt are in the process of "finalizing" their peace plan but have yet to present it to Israeli and Palestinian officials" (my bold emphasis)

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/middle-east-peace-jared-kushner-security-clearance/index.html

• May 2018 - opening ceremonies for US Embassy in Jerusalem

Seems the latest rounds of bickering is merely disguising the failure to produce the Ultimate Deal.

 

 

"Seems the latest rounds of bickering is merely disguising the failure to produce the Ultimate Deal."

 

Not sure how you meant this. Doubt that everything revolves around the supposed ultimate peace plan. Or taking it a step further that anything much revolves around it. Would seem a bit of a contrived, focus and ongoing effort, transcending the Trump administration's capabilities.

 

I've no idea if there will be such a presentation, and what it will include - but I'd bet good money it would be rejected anyway.

[Different]

I guess arrogant US administration never learned from 9/11, they seem to want more.

[bristolboy]

22 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy

 

Basically, what your waffle amounts to is simple - that there's one side responsible for anything and everything, whereas the other side is essentially not accountable for anything whatsoever. Twist things all you like, but my position is in no way to mirror image of this.

 

Violence is not "inevitable" unless a whole lot of allowances are made with regard to choices made. All the more so when it comes to organized violence. Your assertion are just a repeat of the same faulty premise - that the Palestinian side cannot be held accountable for anything whatsoever, and that it is automatically absolved of any wrongdoing or bad choices made.

 

As for international support - let's try again: The Palestinians repeatedly choosing violence did not promote their national aspirations one bit, and in effect prove detrimental to such. At the same time, their armed struggle not failed to be accepted and embraced internationally, but in effect, alienated potential supporters. I think it can be agreed upon that Palestinian violence proved futile, and that overall outcomes were negative ones. If denouncing violence seems too much of a compromise for some, simply avoiding terrorism (as in targeting civilians) would have been a big step in the right direction. Alas.

 

What your nothing "argument" says is that choosing non-violence would have made no difference. But in reality, each time violence was embraced, the end result was a worsening of the Palestinian predicament. Simply not making this   choice would have already constituted an improvement.

 

And whether posters are willing to acknowledge it or not, what gains achieved by the Palestinians were a product  of denouncing violence, garnering legitimacy and international support, and engaging Israel on a diplomatic level.  What is ridiculous is your assertion that the Palestinian choices have no effect whatsoever on how things pan out. 

 

Ulysses Klaue

 

If it's not too hard to ask, do work on your formatting skills. Wouldn't want my words to be confused with your unadulterated rubbish.

 

 

22 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy

 

Basically, what your waffle amounts to is simple - that there's one side responsible for anything and everything, whereas the other side is essentially not accountable for anything whatsoever. Twist things all you like, but my position is in no way to mirror image of this.

 

Violence is not "inevitable" unless a whole lot of allowances are made with regard to choices made. All the more so when it comes to organized violence. Your assertion are just a repeat of the same faulty premise - that the Palestinian side cannot be held accountable for anything whatsoever, and that it is automatically absolved of any wrongdoing or bad choices made.

 

As for international support - let's try again: The Palestinians repeatedly choosing violence did not promote their national aspirations one bit, and in effect prove detrimental to such. At the same time, their armed struggle not failed to be accepted and embraced internationally, but in effect, alienated potential supporters. I think it can be agreed upon that Palestinian violence proved futile, and that overall outcomes were negative ones. If denouncing violence seems too much of a compromise for some, simply avoiding terrorism (as in targeting civilians) would have been a big step in the right direction. Alas.

 

What your nothing "argument" says is that choosing non-violence would have made no difference. But in reality, each time violence was embraced, the end result was a worsening of the Palestinian predicament. Simply not making this   choice would have already constituted an improvement.

 

And whether posters are willing to acknowledge it or not, what gains achieved by the Palestinians were a product  of denouncing violence, garnering legitimacy and international support, and engaging Israel on a diplomatic level.  What is ridiculous is your assertion that the Palestinian choices have no effect whatsoever on how things pan out. 

 

 Regarding differences between circumstances in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - whether you like to acknowledge it or not, these exist. It would be hard to claim that these have nothing to do with the policies of respective Palestinian leaderships. Or deny that these are related to the different relevant actions and reactions, by both Israel and the Palestinians.

 

If it's not too hard to ask, do work on your formatting skills. Wouldn't want my words to be confused with your unadulterated rubbish.

 

For the sake of clarity I have put quotations from what I have written previously in italics. Both quotes from you and me will be in larger type than the comments I make in this post? Okay?

 

“As anyone who has considered just the economic warfare Israel has waged on the Palestinians.( forget about confiscation of land and water rights) what would be expected but that things would degenerate to this point?”

 

“Those not competently [sic] blinkered would notice that the situation of the Palestinian in the Gaza Strip is not similar to that of the Palestinian in the West Bank.”

“So let me get this straight. You're contending that the economic measures Israel imposed on Palestinians in Gaza are not similar to those it imposed on the Palestinians in West Bank? Let the hemming and the hawing begin.”

 

“Regarding differences between circumstances in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - whether you like to acknowledge it or not, these exist. “

 

I had expected you to hem and haw. I didn’t expect you to resort to blatant misrepresentation and setting up a straw man.. I nowhere said that “differences in circumstance” between the West Bank and Gaza don’t exist. (Of what 2 geographic entities isn’t that true?) My point was very clearly made: the economic sanctions Israel imposed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were similar. “Similar” does not mean” identical.” In fact if 2 things are similar, that also means that they differ in some respects.

 

So, are you denying that Israel has imposed a raft of similar economic sanctions on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank? And what’s more, are you contending that the outcomes are not similar?  Remember you’re the one who explicitly wrote that “the situation of the Palestinian in the Gaza Strip is not similar to that of the Palestinian in the West Bank.”

[KhunFred]

On 6/3/2018 at 10:53 PM, dexterm said:

That's because Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, not the other way around. The Palestinians are entitled by international law to resist occupation.

Every country in existence is "illegally" occupying their country. They took it from somebody. USA grabbed land from native tribes. England, France Germany and most of Europe stole every piece of land they ever inhabited. History is nothing but a huge land grab. I have one thing to say to the Palestinians: consider yourselves Israeli citizens and act like it. Many have taken that advice already. Independence only serves the purpose of despots who are usually following an Islamist playbook.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, KhunFred said:

Every country in existence is "illegally" occupying their country. They took it from somebody. USA grabbed land from native tribes. England, France Germany and most of Europe stole every piece of land they ever inhabited. History is nothing but a huge land grab. I have one thing to say to the Palestinians: consider yourselves Israeli citizens and act like it. Many have taken that advice already. Independence only serves the purpose of despots who are usually following an Islamist playbook.

Actually there is a movement among Palestinians to forego the 2 state solution and follow a 1 state solution.

 

And since when has Israel ever treated the Palestinians like they were Israeli citizens? Before there was violence the Israelis were already treating them very badly.

 

You really believe that all that stands in the way of Palestinians become citizens of Israel is their behavior? Do you actually know anything about the situation there?

[Scott]

Please quote people correctly.  

 

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy

 

Wouldn't know that your new efforts on the formatting front managed much clarity. May want to take some time off pointless arguments and work on the skills a bit. It's not that complicated, really. So no, not "Okay".

 

Let me reiterate - by describing the Palestinian choice of violence as "inevitable", you essentially define them as a people unable, or unequipped to take charge of their own destiny. Doubt if that's quite the position someone often going on about colonialism etc. ought to hold, but then again - learned not to expect much consistency from certain posters. And if one does portray the Palestinians as passive, unaccountable, unable to apply reason - does that really makes a good case for their cause? What value would be the word of such people? What can they be expected to achieve given their freedom and their state? Making wide brush allowances with regard to Palestinian choices carries quiet a few implications. Doubt you thought that all they way through.

 

And dodging the issue of international support, or the effect Palestinian choices carry in this regard is absurd. All the more so on a topic dealing with such international response (or lack of), and considering this was one of the main motivations declared by the Hamas. One of the main reasons the Palestinians fail to garner wide enough support and strong commitment is precisely due to the choice of violence. It also makes it much easier for the US to apply its veto power, and for Israel to claim whatever. Simply letting go of that, would pull the rug under the the latter, and enhance the former. Maybe small potatoes for posters, but in the real world, that's quite a shift.

 

I've no intention entertaining your obsession with petty arguments regarding minute interpretations of words. Suffice to say that the "sanctions" (whether economic or otherwise) applied by Israel on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not similar, and that the "outcome" (whatever is meant by that) isn't similar. If your point was that this is otherwise - you are wrong. While the Palestinians in the West Bank face a lot of restrictions and hardships caused by the Israeli occupation, their situation is nowhere as dire as that of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. If you somehow imagine that is not the case, or that it doesn't have anything to do with different choices represented by respective Palestinian leaderships, I'll have to resort to a question you asked another poster - "do you actually know anything about the situation there?" 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Actually there is a movement among Palestinians to forego the 2 state solution and follow a 1 state solution.

 

And since when has Israel ever treated the Palestinians like they were Israeli citizens? Before there was violence the Israelis were already treating them very badly.

 

You really believe that all that stands in the way of Palestinians become citizens of Israel is their behavior? Do you actually know anything about the situation there? 

 

Whether such a "movement" actually exists, whether it holds much sway, and whether the notions implied are quite what some posters advertise, can be debated.

 

I doubt that most Israelis would have been keen on a making the all of the Palestinians citizens. But that said, hard to ignore this attitude is further enhanced by Palestinians choices (or "behavior") such as violence.

 

Either way not a whole lot to do with the topic.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, KhunFred said:

Every country in existence is "illegally" occupying their country. They took it from somebody. USA grabbed land from native tribes. England, France Germany and most of Europe stole every piece of land they ever inhabited. History is nothing but a huge land grab. I have one thing to say to the Palestinians: consider yourselves Israeli citizens and act like it. Many have taken that advice already. Independence only serves the purpose of despots who are usually following an Islamist playbook.

 

Most of the countries you refer to went through their expansionist stage a while back, and effectively wiped out, fully subjugated or mingled with relevant other population groups. Israel being late to the party is faced with the reality of related norms changing. What was accepted once, isn't so now (unless you're China, or Russia).

 

Be that as it may, the Palestinians aren't all that keen on becoming Israeli citizens, at least no in any sense which implies something positive for such a solution. As for them considering themselves Israeli citizens and acting like such - I really don't think that's how it works. Wouldn't know that "many have taken that advice already" - Arabs (they weren't Palestinians back then) who remained in Israel post-1949 were granted citizenship. There isn't such a wholesale offer with regard to (most) of the rest.

 

But as posted above, not quite what this topic is about. 

 

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Whether such a "movement" actually exists, whether it holds much sway, and whether the notions implied are quite what some posters advertise, can be debated.

 

I doubt that most Israelis would have been keen on a making the all of the Palestinians citizens. But that said, hard to ignore this attitude is further enhanced by Palestinians choices (or "behavior") such as violence.

 

Either way not a whole lot to do with the topic.

As a 2-State Solution Loses Steam, a 1-State Plan Gains Traction

 

The Israeli right, emboldened by President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, is not the only faction arguing for a single state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Palestine Liberation Organization has also begun to ask whether that might not be such a bad idea, though it has a radically different view of what that state would look like.

As momentum ebbs for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides are taking another look at the one-state idea.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-state.html

 

Something tells me a poster is about to invoke nuance and/or something like "considerably more complicated than your quote suggests." In other words, persiflage.

Edited June 9, 2018 by bristolboy

[KhunFred]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Most of the countries you refer to went through their expansionist stage a while back, and effectively wiped out, fully subjugated or mingled with relevant other population groups. Israel being late to the party is faced with the reality of related norms changing. What was accepted once, isn't so now (unless you're China, or Russia).

 

Be that as it may, the Palestinians aren't all that keen on becoming Israeli citizens, at least no in any sense which implies something positive for such a solution. As for them considering themselves Israeli citizens and acting like such - I really don't think that's how it works. Wouldn't know that "many have taken that advice already" - Arabs (they weren't Palestinians back then) who remained in Israel post-1949 were granted citizenship. There isn't such a wholesale offer with regard to (most) of the rest.

 

But as posted above, not quite what this topic is about. 

 

One more anti-semite makes my 'ignore list' 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As a 2-State Solution Loses Steam, a 1-State Plan Gains Traction

 

The Israeli right, emboldened by President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, is not the only faction arguing for a single state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Palestine Liberation Organization has also begun to ask whether that might not be such a bad idea, though it has a radically different view of what that state would look like.

As momentum ebbs for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides are taking another look at the one-state idea.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-state.html

 

Something tells me a poster is about to invoke nuance and/or something like "considerably more complicated than your quote suggests." In other words, persiflage.

 

Something tells me a poster pretends to have a clue, but basically relies on Google to supply headiness and bits which appear to support whatever "argument" he pushes at any given moment. That you try to preempt comments relating a more in-depth take, is quite telling.

 

I seriously doubt you have a firm grasp of who the people interviewed or mentioned are. Most represent fringe groups, with minimal support, and have been doing so for years - without their ideas actually getting that fabled traction.

 

How the idea is marketed is one thing - what it implies, how it could be carried out, and how the people interpret this, is another story. The article chooses not to go into the problematic parts, more so when these relate to Palestinian perceptions. A good example would be citing 30% support. This actually relies on single item in a poll, formulated in a very simplistic way.

 

As said, not quite what this topic is about.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, KhunFred said:

One more anti-semite makes my 'ignore list' 

 

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As a 2-State Solution Loses Steam, a 1-State Plan Gains Traction

 

The Israeli right, emboldened by President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, is not the only faction arguing for a single state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Palestine Liberation Organization has also begun to ask whether that might not be such a bad idea, though it has a radically different view of what that state would look like.

As momentum ebbs for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides are taking another look at the one-state idea.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-state.html

 

Something tells me a poster is about to invoke nuance and/or something like "considerably more complicated than your quote suggests." In other words, persiflage.

Now that Trump has taken the supposedly final status issue of Jerusalem "off the table" although he has left himself some slight wriggle room and with Israel continuing its expansion of illegal settlements and laws being debated to allow Israel's annexation of privately owned Palestinian land, there doesn't seem much of a two state solution left. Therefore a one state solution seems inevitable.

 

The demonstrators in the OP are protesting under the banner the "Great March of Return" because of course the majority of Gazan families have been ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel. The wording is quite significant and this theme may be a sign of the changing times. IMO the next generation should move the emphasis away from a two state solution after decades of stonewalling and futile negotiations, to an anti apartheid campaign and calls for a single democratic state.

Edited June 10, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Trump's Embassy move and related statements refer to Jerusalem's final status being a matter of negotiation. That you routinely insist on ignoring that doesn't change facts. The same goes for your annexation talking points - in effect, there is no annexation. On the basis of these two faulty arguments, you announce the demise of the two-state solution. Not particularly compelling. And, as usual, failing to address anything related to the Palestinian side's role in this.

 

You can also pretend whatever nonsense version you like, but there wasn't a whole lot said about a "single democratic state", or peaceful solutions by Hamas leaderships, in the context of the Gaza protests. Similarly, all of your posts fail to address that no matter what form a peaceful solution will take - it will only be achieved through negotiations. Since negotiations seem anathema to your position, entirely unsurprising.

 

And the topic is not about a one-state solution, as much as you'd like it to be.

 

 

[dexterm]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Trump's Embassy move and related statements refer to Jerusalem's final status being a matter of negotiation. That you routinely insist on ignoring that doesn't change facts. The same goes for your annexation talking points - in effect, there is no annexation. On the basis of these two faulty arguments, you announce the demise of the two-state solution. Not particularly compelling. And, as usual, failing to address anything related to the Palestinian side's role in this.

 

You can also pretend whatever nonsense version you like, but there wasn't a whole lot said about a "single democratic state", or peaceful solutions by Hamas leaderships, in the context of the Gaza protests. Similarly, all of your posts fail to address that no matter what form a peaceful solution will take - it will only be achieved through negotiations. Since negotiations seem anathema to your position, entirely unsurprising.

 

And the topic is not about a one-state solution, as much as you'd like it to be.

 

 

>>but there wasn't a whole lot said about a "single democratic state", or peaceful solutions by Hamas leaderships, in the context of the Gaza protests.

...that's because Hamas were not behind the Gaza protests, as you falsely claim.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>but there wasn't a whole lot said about a "single democratic state", or peaceful solutions by Hamas leaderships, in the context of the Gaza protests.

...that's because Hamas were not behind the Gaza protests, as you falsely claim.

 

Even if this inane deflection somehow had to do with what I posted, it would still be a blatant lie. That you would repeat such nonsense after it was thoroughly debunked on previous topics, and pretty much against all accounts, just goes to show your disregard for facts, whenever a talking point needs to be made.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Morch

[dexterm]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Even if this inane deflection somehow had to do with what I posted, it would still be a blatant lie. That you would repeat such nonsense after it was thoroughly debunked on previous topics, and pretty much against all accounts, just goes to show your disregard for facts, whenever a talking point needs to be made.

Don't confuse yours, Netanyahu's, and Nikki Haley's opinions with facts. Nothing has been debunked at all. Just a smear campaign launched by Israel and parroted by you.

 

If the US had proposed a counter UN resolution for an open, independent, transparent inquiry to get to the bottom of the violence and deaths in the Great March of Return demonstrations, instead of playing games by wording an anti Hamas resolution to protect Israel that not a single other Security Council member voted for except USA, we may be approaching something like facts.

Edited June 10, 2018 by dexterm