What Historic Bangkok Bars Do We Have Left?

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You just keep harping on the same issue (which may or may not be an actual issue). As asked earlier - other than in your posts, did relevant, involved parties take up your complaint as their banner?

 

Whether or not this bit of info is crucial to analyzing the Trump administration position can be questioned. It's not like Trump got much issues declaring policies without firm factual basis. That said, though - criticism of UNRWA is nothing new (even the recent EU statement of support and pledge of funds included a bit of that). 

You did read the OP?

 

Perhaps there’s a secret coded message in the WH announcement and UNRWA response that opens up a discussion on who is/is not a refugee, the rights of Palestinians to rerun, the actions of Israel/Palestine and a whole lot of stuff about Hamas - all the other stuff being thrown into this thread.

 

But of course there is not.

 

There is only a WH decision/action that is claimed to be based on a detailed review and a UNRWA response.

 

We non of us have any understanding of the motives behind the US action without access to the review report.

 

The bright light of transparency is never a bad thing when examining claims and counter claims.

[simple1]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Problem with the first notion is that some seem to have trouble with the concept of "degree". Most "takes" on things end up as being one-sided, some in the extreme. That's all the more apparent when people get caught up in propaganda catchphrases and slogans. As for being "powerful" actually denotes having more responsibility, rather than more leverage - I think that this is, again, an area where posters conflate between the ideal and the real. Expecting too much of the former, and disregarding the latter is not particularly constructive.

 

The UN isn't a world government. The US may not have the "authority" to do whatever with regard to UN designations, but in effect, this remains in the formal or procedural level. In effect, the US can certainly decide on applying other criteria as to which efforts it funds and how.

Just my POV. Democracies having overwhelming power should translate to greater ownership for political solutions. My understanding, often played out in Realpolitik, but to the negative for the less powerful. Marshall Plan was an outstanding application of political power for the 'good'.

 

USA is a signatory to the 1967 UN Protocol for Refugees. As the USA doesn't wish to abide by the the Protocol, make it clear by following UN processes, not arbitrary political decisions against a particular group.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by simple1

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You did read the OP?

 

Perhaps there’s a secret coded message in the WH announcement and UNRWA response that opens up a discussion on who is/is not a refugee, the rights of Palestinians to rerun, the actions of Israel/Palestine and a whole lot of stuff about Hamas - all the other stuff being thrown into this thread.

 

But of course there is not.

 

There is only a WH decision/action that is claimed to be based on a detailed review and a UNRWA response.

 

We non of us have any understanding of the motives behind the US action without access to the review report.

 

The bright light of transparency is never a bad thing when examining claims and counter claims.

 

 

The OP doesn't include your assertions as to information being withheld as well, but that doesn't seem to bother you when harping on the same notion over and over again. Once more - other than in your posts, is the issue you insist is "the crux of the matter" actually taken up as such by relevant parties?

 

As for your wholesale comment on "our" supposed lack of understanding regarding motives involved - nonsense. This isn't some isolated case without context. It's not even "news" per se, it's been in the works for quite a while now. That, disregarding past times it was floated and by whom.

 

You can try and deflect, spin or paint anyone questioning your posts as objecting to transparency - but considering you didn't even make the case yet, a bit premature.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

The OP doesn't include your assertions as to information being withheld as well, but that doesn't seem to bother you when harping on the same notion over and over again. Once more - other than in your posts, is the issue you insist is "the crux of the matter" actually taken up as such by relevant parties?

 

As for your wholesale comment on "our" supposed lack of understanding regarding motives involved - nonsense. This isn't some isolated case without context. It's not even "news" per se, it's been in the works for quite a while now. That, disregarding past times it was floated and by whom.

 

You can try and deflect, spin or paint anyone questioning your posts as objecting to transparency - but considering you didn't even make the case yet, a bit premature.

 

Deflect you say?

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

The leadership of all players  have failed to develop acceptable peace plans, it is not a one way street. IMO the Israelis and the USA being the most powerful have a greater degree of responsibility and should cease throwing stones on the road for a two State Solution.

 

Under UN rules the US does not have the authority to make unilateral decisions concerning the status of any refugee group. The Trump Administration is again demonstrating its contempt for the Rule of Law.

The Palestinians have rejected every chance for peace that has ever been offered (before and after 1948). Why you may ask yourself, the answer is that at their core the Palestinian leaders have not ever believed that Israel has a right to exist (despite paying lip service to this idea). Until they decide that peace is desired and Israel can exist there will always be conflict. Don't get me wrong both sides have made mistakes but looking objectively at the issue the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected good offers and seem to not be interested in compromise.

 

Regarding the US not having the authority to make unilateral decisions concerning the status of any refugee group, you may be correct. However, the Trump administration is not demonstrating contempt for the rule of law but merely deciding which countries get to receive US foreign aid. Fortunately this is still a decision that the head of any country can legally decide without showing contempt for any law. 

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Just my POV. Democracies having overwhelming power should translate to greater ownership for political solutions. My understanding, often played out in Realpolitik, but to the negative for the less powerful. Marshall Plan was an outstanding application of political power for the 'good'.

 

USA is a signatory to the 1967 UN Protocol for Refugees. As the USA doesn't wish to abide by the the Protocol, make it clear by following UN processes, not arbitrary political decisions against a particular group.

 

 

Again, that difference between the ideal and the real. I don't know that "ought" carries that much weight, certainly not with the current US administration. Also, IMO, most humanitarian/aid efforts involve some less than altruistic motives - especially when governments are concerned.

 

The second point mentions "protocol" and "processes" - which seems to conform to what I posted earlier about "formal" and "procedural". Criticizing how the current administration goes about implementing its policies, and applying them is fine (and we're in agreement, I think, as to that). But bottom line, whether the US formally accepts or rejects the UN designation may not be directly related to it being "obliged" to fund related projects.

[Spidey]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Money spent on Israel is money well spent on a democratic ally (the only democracy in the middle east by the way) that supports the US. Money spent on Palestinians is money thrown down a bottomless hole of people that are not are allies and celebrate American defeats. Bottom line is that we get to decide where we want to spend US foreign aid, and it has been decided to no longer send it to a country that works against peace (Palestine) and support the country that is willing to have peace (Israel).

I wish I could reply in full to your post but it would only get deleted and I would probably get suspended.

 

This is a very one sided debate.

[candide]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Money spent on Israel is money well spent on a democratic ally (the only democracy in the middle east by the way) that supports the US. Money spent on Palestinians is money thrown down a bottomless hole of people that are not are allies and celebrate American defeats. Bottom line is that we get to decide where we want to spend US foreign aid, and it has been decided to no longer send it to a country that works against peace (Palestine) and support the country that is willing to have peace (Israel).

You don't wonder why Palestinian people don't feel "ally" to the USA, do you? Nothing to do with the de facto support of the continuous extension of settlements by Israel since the Oslo agreement? 

 

According to you, Israel wants peace. Can you explain to us in which way continuously extending settlements shows that Israel wants peace.

[simple1]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

The Palestinians have rejected every chance for peace that has ever been offered (before and after 1948). Why you may ask yourself, the answer is that at their core the Palestinian leaders have not ever believed that Israel has a right to exist (despite paying lip service to this idea). Until they decide that peace is desired and Israel can exist there will always be conflict. Don't get me wrong both sides have made mistakes but looking objectively at the issue the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected good offers and seem to not be interested in compromise.

 

Regarding the US not having the authority to make unilateral decisions concerning the status of any refugee group, you may be correct. However, the Trump administration is not demonstrating contempt for the rule of law but merely deciding which countries get to receive US foreign aid. Fortunately this is still a decision that the head of any country can legally decide without showing contempt for any law. 

UN Conventions / Protocols are the basis of many internationally recognised Rules of Law. The US had ratified the UN 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, now the US has unilaterally declared millions of UN designated refugees are no longer covered by the 'refugee' status. In fact the US Ambassador to the UN stated one of the primary reasons for their decision was the Palestinian representatives did not show enough respect for the USA. IMO the US action is collective punishment, a breach of the Rule of Law.

Edited September 2, 2018 by simple1

[DaddyWarbucks]

49 minutes ago, simple1 said:

UN Conventions / Protocols are the basis of many internationally recognised Rules of Law. The US had ratified the UN 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, now the US has unilaterally declared millions of UN designated refugees are no longer covered by the 'refugee' status. In fact the US Ambassador to the UN stated one of the primary reasons for their decision was the Palestinian representatives did not show enough respect for the USA. IMO the US action is collective punishment, a breach of the Rule of Law.

Agreed.

UNRWA Director Pierre Krahenbuhl summed it up very well when he said:  "We're talking about human beings. We cannot wish 5.3 million Palestinian refugees away... these are people who have rights and for many years now, for decades, have faced a plight and an injustice that is simply immense."

The collective punishment of these impoverished people is going to backfire on the US and Israel.

[rosst]

I wish the Australian government would stop giving money to the people who hate us, pathetic. 

[nausea]

I guess a lot of people are making money out of this. 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Deflect you say?

 

Indeed, that was what your nothing posts amount to. No actual or factual replies, just spins and deflections.

Once more - did the issue you claim to be "the crux of the matter" feature prominently on narratives and statements of involved parties? Even those not supportive of the Trump administration moves? That you consider something to be of importance is one thing, to assert this is a general position is another.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, candide said:

You don't wonder why Palestinian people don't feel "ally" to the USA, do you? Nothing to do with the de facto support of the continuous extension of settlements by Israel since the Oslo agreement? 

 

According to you, Israel wants peace. Can you explain to us in which way continuously extending settlements shows that Israel wants peace.

 

Most of the positions embraced by the Palestinians in relation to the conflict proved futile or detrimental to their cause. Choosing not to court the US's favor or "ally" with it, is a fine example of this. Considering it goes back way before the Oslo agreements, or even the illegal Israeli settlements, the above comment is somewhat off.

 

As for the "wants peace" thing - both sides claim to want "peace". What each actually means is "a peace", tailored to respective goals and interests. Neither is particularly straightforward about this, obviously.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

UN Conventions / Protocols are the basis of many internationally recognised Rules of Law. The US had ratified the UN 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, now the US has unilaterally declared millions of UN designated refugees are no longer covered by the 'refugee' status. In fact the US Ambassador to the UN stated one of the primary reasons for their decision was the Palestinian representatives did not show enough respect for the USA. IMO the US action is collective punishment, a breach of the Rule of Law.

 

Just to get this straight - would it have been more palatable had the Trump administration retained recognition of the Palestinian refugee status, while still withholding/redirecting/whatever related funds?

 

The Trump administration disregard for international conventions, laws and agreements is an ongoing issue, which manifests itself across multiple cases. Withholding funds from UNRWA, controversial as it may be, is IMO on a somewhat different level. Donating or providing aid funds to specific UN bodies and organizations is not necessarily a  core obligation.

 

[candide]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Most of the positions embraced by the Palestinians in relation to the conflict proved futile or detrimental to their cause. Choosing not to court the US's favor or "ally" with it, is a fine example of this. Considering it goes back way before the Oslo agreements, or even the illegal Israeli settlements, the above comment is somewhat off.

 

As for the "wants peace" thing - both sides claim to want "peace". What each actually means is "a peace", tailored to respective goals and interests. Neither is particularly straightforward about this, obviously.

You assume that courting US's favor would have had any positive outcome, I don't follow you on this assumption. The best proof is that by broadly playing the game (even if it was far from perfect), Abbas never obtained anything and is for this reason rather discredited among Palestinians. Unfortunately it leads them to turn to Hamas instead and may more unfortunately turn to worse than Hamas.

 

As for wanting peace, I maintain that taking land from the other party year after year can never lead to peace. Moreover, it structurally and probably permanently prevents any peace. The current faction in power have made a choice: expand its territory at the expense of peace.

 

I am not particularly shocked by it as it has been the case numerous times during the history of humanity. But they cannot complain that now they cannot have a peacefull life and feel insecure. They (the current faction in power since some time) cannot complain it does not lead to peace and rest. They have made a choice.

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, simple1 said:

UN Conventions / Protocols are the basis of many internationally recognised Rules of Law. The US had ratified the UN 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, now the US has unilaterally declared millions of UN designated refugees are no longer covered by the 'refugee' status. In fact the US Ambassador to the UN stated one of the primary reasons for their decision was the Palestinian representatives did not show enough respect for the USA. IMO the US action is collective punishment, a breach of the Rule of Law.

The US did no such thing (regarding the Palestinians refugee status), they have simply stated that we are decreasing the amount of US taxpayer cash that is flowing to that particular group of refugees. The last time I checked the UN does not control how US citizen's taxes are spent, and the UN never will control how the US spends it's money.

[Ahab]

19 hours ago, candide said:

You don't wonder why Palestinian people don't feel "ally" to the USA, do you? Nothing to do with the de facto support of the continuous extension of settlements by Israel since the Oslo agreement? 

 

According to you, Israel wants peace. Can you explain to us in which way continuously extending settlements shows that Israel wants peace.

Perhaps Israel is still building settlements in the West Bank because uprooting Israeli settlements and forcibly removing Jews from Gaza did nothing to help the peace process. In fact, Gaza is more of a basket case now than it was when there were Jewish settlements there. I agree that Jewish settlements are an issue, but when the settlements are removed and there are still issues it indicates to me that the settlements are not the real issue.

 

The real issue has and always will be the fact that Israel exists of lands that were formally Arab lands. 

[Nyezhov]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 

 

The real issue has and always will be the fact that Israel exists of lands that were formally Arab lands. 

The issue always arises: who is entitled? who was there first? is the right of conquest viable? Under what circumstances?

 

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, candide said:

You assume that courting US's favor would have had any positive outcome, I don't follow you on this assumption. The best proof is that by broadly playing the game (even if it was far from perfect), Abbas never obtained anything and is for this reason rather discredited among Palestinians. Unfortunately it leads them to turn to Hamas instead and may more unfortunately turn to worse than Hamas.

 

As for wanting peace, I maintain that taking land from the other party year after year can never lead to peace. Moreover, it structurally and probably permanently prevents any peace. The current faction in power have made a choice: expand its territory at the expense of peace.

 

I am not particularly shocked by it as it has been the case numerous times during the history of humanity. But they cannot complain that now they cannot have a peacefull life and feel insecure. They (the current faction in power since some time) cannot complain it does not lead to peace and rest. They have made a choice.

 

Regardless of how posters feel about the US, it is better to have it on one's corner of the ring rather than on the opposite side.

 

As for the supposed "proof" - you keep referencing relatively recent themes, whereas the Palestinian stance toward the US goes way back further than these. There was quite a lot going on before Abbas came on the scene, and it's not like Abbas was even fully committed to the alleged path. The Hamas's appeal wasn't just due to the peace process stalling, but also because of Abbas's and the PA's corruption and general inaptness. Painting it as a one faceted issue is incorrect.

 

As for "wanting peace", you can "maintain" what you like - it doesn't contradict my point. When either side speaks of peace, what each refers to is mostly a version of peace tailored to their receptive goals and interests. Addressing one side's positions while ignoring the other's is misleading. Same applies for going on about choices, consequences and complaints - cuts both ways.

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

The US did no such thing (regarding the Palestinians refugee status), they have simply stated that we are decreasing the amount of US taxpayer cash that is flowing to that particular group of refugees. The last time I checked the UN does not control how US citizen's taxes are spent, and the UN never will control how the US spends it's money.

Earlier this year the Trump Admin objected to the number of recognised Palestinian refugees and used the objection as a justification to withhold $65m of the $125m they had allocated for UNRWA this financial year. Now the US has ceased all aid for UNRWA. In addition, as per the OP, the US has cut off a further $200m in aid for projects in Gaza and the West Bank. Why the US now expects co-operation from the Palestinian leadership for the upcoming peace proposals, based on blackmail,  is beyond me as one assumes the Trump Administrations behaviour in the past year or so will only push them into others arms.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Regardless of how posters feel about the US, it is better to have it on one's corner of the ring rather than on the opposite side.

 

As for the supposed "proof" - you keep referencing relatively recent themes, whereas the Palestinian stance toward the US goes way back further than these. There was quite a lot going on before Abbas came on the scene, and it's not like Abbas was even fully committed to the alleged path. The Hamas's appeal wasn't just due to the peace process stalling, but also because of Abbas's and the PA's corruption and general inaptness. Painting it as a one faceted issue is incorrect.

 

As for "wanting peace", you can "maintain" what you like - it doesn't contradict my point. When either side speaks of peace, what each refers to is mostly a version of peace tailored to their receptive goals and interests. Addressing one side's positions while ignoring the other's is misleading. Same applies for going on about choices, consequences and complaints - cuts both ways.

 

Non of which explains why the US under Trump has chosen to take this action which is prejudicial to one side  of the conflict.

 

You frequently point out the futility of addressing one side of the conflict, one side’s position but seem to struggle with accepting the partisan nature of Trump’s action.

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Earlier this year the Trump Admin objected to the number of recognised Palestinian refugees and used the objection as a justification to withhold $65m of the $125m they had allocated for UNRWA this financial year. Now the US has ceased all aid for UNRWA. In addition, as per the OP, the US has cut off a further $200m in aid for projects in Gaza and the West Bank. Why the US now expects co-operation from the Palestinian leadership for the upcoming peace proposals, based on blackmail,  is beyond me as one assumes the Trump Administrations behaviour in the past year or so will only push them into others arms.

 

As posted elsewhere, I don't think that the Trump administration moves will have the expected results. Also, the timing and manner in which they were applied is indeed problematic. That said, I think I can understand the rationale (regardless of disagreeing with it).

 

The cuts applies do not kill UNRWA, even if they do disrupt operations and create hardships. What they are meant to broadcast is that the Trump administration is willing to utilize its leverage to an unprecedented degree. It highlights that holding on to certain positions comes with consequences. IMO, the Trump administrations banks on Palestinian leadership's (especially Abbas and would be next-in-lines) interests being focused on political survival, and that this requires economic viability to keep the circus running. In the same way, the underlying assumption seems to be that the people themselves may ultimately prefer a moderate improvement of their lot, and partial fulfillment of political aspirations over poverty and the failing "struggle".

 

I'm not exactly sure which "upcoming peace talks" are referred to. The Trump administration "peace plan" seems to be more about promoting conditions which would make it possible for the Palestinian side to be pressured into an agreement, rather than reenacting the past instances of talks. In this sense, this is more about arm-bending rather than securing cooperation.

 

To this end, some core issues (status of Jerusalem, right of return) which cannot (under most realistic scenarios) be resolved to the Palestinians' satisfactions are being "taken out" of the equation (or at least, minimized). Judging from the relatively mild response to both instances - I would wager that there's more in stock, probably with regard to further territorial concessions and Palestinian sovereignty issues.

 

It would seem the Trump administration believes that pressuring the weaker party is more conductive to achieving some sort of agreement, regardless of how fair or viable the result will be.

 

As for the Palestinians being pushed into "others' arms" - what others? In terms of the international community, nobody really wants to get involved in the quagmire. In terms of domestic support - there are views that this will end up strengthening the Hamas, but seeing as the Hamas can't offer even the populace under its rule anything but more hardship and instances of futile "struggle", it might not play out quite as neatly.

 

 

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Non of which explains why the US under Trump has chosen to take this action which is prejudicial to one side  of the conflict.

 

You frequently point out the futility of addressing one side of the conflict, one side’s position but seem to struggle with accepting the partisan nature of Trump’s action.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps if you'd actually bother reading my posts instead of making up what's in them, you'd get a clue as to my take.

 

I've addressed your "points" on many posts and across multiple topics. You wish to ignore that - fine. Just stop making up bogus assertions as to what I did or did not post.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Morch

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As posted elsewhere, I don't think that the Trump administration moves will have the expected results. Also, the timing and manner in which they were applied is indeed problematic. That said, I think I can understand the rationale (regardless of disagreeing with it).

 

The cuts applies do not kill UNRWA, even if they do disrupt operations and create hardships. What they are meant to broadcast is that the Trump administration is willing to utilize its leverage to an unprecedented degree. It highlights that holding on to certain positions comes with consequences. IMO, the Trump administrations banks on Palestinian leadership's (especially Abbas and would be next-in-lines) interests being focused on political survival, and that this requires economic viability to keep the circus running. In the same way, the underlying assumption seems to be that the people themselves may ultimately prefer a moderate improvement of their lot, and partial fulfillment of political aspirations over poverty and the failing "struggle".

 

I'm not exactly sure which "upcoming peace talks" are referred to. The Trump administration "peace plan" seems to be more about promoting conditions which would make it possible for the Palestinian side to be pressured into an agreement, rather than reenacting the past instances of talks. In this sense, this is more about arm-bending rather than securing cooperation.

 

To this end, some core issues (status of Jerusalem, right of return) which cannot (under most realistic scenarios) be resolved to the Palestinians' satisfactions are being "taken out" of the equation (or at least, minimized). Judging from the relatively mild response to both instances - I would wager that there's more in stock, probably with regard to further territorial concessions and Palestinian sovereignty issues.

 

It would seem the Trump administration believes that pressuring the weaker party is more conductive to achieving some sort of agreement, regardless of how fair or viable the result will be.

 

As for the Palestinians being pushed into "others' arms" - what others? In terms of the international community, nobody really wants to get involved in the quagmire. In terms of domestic support - there are views that this will end up strengthening the Hamas, but seeing as the Hamas can't offer even the populace under its rule anything but more hardship and instances of futile "struggle", it might not play out quite as neatly.

 

 

I have not had formal training in political conflict negotiations or the equivalent of, so my wording is often not precise enough. IMO your synopsis is fair enough. "Others". recall reading the Chinese are interested in supporting the Palestinians. Why would there not be other power players interested in gaining some form of footprint with the Palestinian leadership?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

I have not had formal training in political conflict negotiations or the equivalent of, so my wording is often not precise enough. IMO your synopsis is fair enough. "Others". recall reading the Chinese are interested in supporting the Palestinians. Why would there not be other power players interested in gaining some form of footprint with the Palestinian leadership?

 

There are sometimes reports about this or that this or that player is about to step in and pull its weight. To date, most of these did not effectively materialize.

 

Getting involved in a conflict that's unlikely to be solved anytime soon, and said involvement about as likely to result in negative feedback aren't much by way of enticement. There are plenty of other venues, more lucrative and carrying less risk, for gaining ME credibility and influence. China, for example, manages to do business and get along with both Israel and other ME countries (including Iran) - getting directly involved in highly contested regional conflict doesn't make a whole lot of sense from this position.

 

I don't know that by itself "gaining some form of footprint with the Palestinian leadership" amounts to much, even regionally. Then there's the question of which Palestinian leadership is referred to, anyway.

[metisdead]

An off topic obfuscation post has been reported and now removed. 

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Earlier this year the Trump Admin objected to the number of recognised Palestinian refugees and used the objection as a justification to withhold $65m of the $125m they had allocated for UNRWA this financial year. Now the US has ceased all aid for UNRWA. In addition, as per the OP, the US has cut off a further $200m in aid for projects in Gaza and the West Bank. Why the US now expects co-operation from the Palestinian leadership for the upcoming peace proposals, based on blackmail,  is beyond me as one assumes the Trump Administrations behaviour in the past year or so will only push them into others arms.

Not sure that anyone expects Palestinian cooperation on upcoming peace proposals, after all they haven't ever really cooperated before. Fiscal pressure has not been tried before and it might work better than everything that has been tried in the past (nothing which has worked). I don't think that anything Trump does now could possibly fail worse than what we have been doing for the past 4 or 5 decades, and this way we get the same failure as we always have gotten regarding Palestinian peace cooperation without having to throw millions of dollars down a bottomless pit.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Not sure that anyone expects Palestinian cooperation on upcoming peace proposals, after all they haven't ever really cooperated before. Fiscal pressure has not been tried before and it might work better than everything that has been tried in the past (nothing which has worked). I don't think that anything Trump does now could possibly fail worse than what we have been doing for the past 4 or 5 decades, and this way we get the same failure as we always have gotten regarding Palestinian peace cooperation without having to throw millions of dollars down a bottomless pit.

Cooperation should by definition be reciprocal. Why should Palestinians cooperate on terms that are imposed to them (including by force) by Israel and the USA?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

Cooperation should by definition be reciprocal. Why should Palestinians cooperate on terms that are imposed to them (including by force) by Israel and the USA?

 

You are arguing from a moral, ideal point of view, and that's fine. Out in the real world, though, cooperation is something that doesn't necessarily conform to the above notion. If it helps calling it coercion, that's alright too.