After UAE-Israel breakthrough, Kushner pushes other Arabs to go next

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Yes...that's why they are well guarded...and still the Iranians were able to penetrate said defenses and cause major damage. And this was during a period of heightened tensions in the Gulf, when one would expect the Saudis to have been on high alert.

 

Ok, let's try again. Oil facilities such as those that were attacked might be heavily protected by weapon systems, but other than that, they are mostly "soft" targets. You need relatively less firepower for them to go boom or suffer major damages. Prime military installations, such as airfields are both heavily defended and way more robust. Of course, this has little, if anything, to do with the topic.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

>>Israel is not universally seen as "colonial". ROFL

Says who? You? And how many other Zionist apologists? What a joke.

So how come 36 out of the 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence were not born in Palestine?

 

Zionism was founded to establish an exclusively  racist supremacist "Jewish State" in Palestine. But unfortunately there was already a majority non Jewish population living there, and there still is. Israel has to accommodate that fact ..doesn't matter many Gulf State Judases stab the Palestinians in the back.  

 

"reasonable time frame"  LOL Israel could have peace tomorrow if they accepted the "universally" agreed formula land for peace that's been on the table for decades.

 

The UAE dictators have sold out the Palestinians and got nothing in return other than arrangements to prop up their corrupt regimes. 

 

 

You are the one going on about "colonial" and such. I'm pointing out that reading references to Israel not grounded in the sort of extreme politics you're into doesn't actually see a whole lot of that. Not familiar with governments making this point much or going on about it. So no, nothing quite on par with your decisive extreme views. Might be different in your echo chamber.

 

You could replay your usual vehement, and tunnel-visioned version of events, history and political labels. Or copy/paste from a previous rant, it's all the same. That's what you do at times when unable to actually address the topic at hand, or when the Palestinians suffer a setback, or when unwilling to comment about any factual objective criticism raised vs. the Palestinian side and their leaderships.

 

Israel could not have "peace tomorrow" even if it somehow agreed to what you specified. Ignoring Hamas and Islamic Jihad positions on this is a choice. That wasn't even a lame deflection, try to address what I actually posted and the proper context.

 

How did the UAE "sold out" the Palestinians? Were they eternally obligated to support the Palestinians no matter what? Put Palestinian interests before their own? Ignore that Abbas pretty much cut ties with the UAE a while back? Or maybe they should support the Hamas and Islamic Jihad then? I'm not expecting a coherent, to the point and reasonable response to that.

 

As for "dictators" - I doubt this would have bothered you much had the UAE rejected the agreement, or renounced Israel. The faux outrage is more to do with the political position taken, rather than the nature of the regime in question. It is doubtful that the UAE rulers are not aware of trends and views among their people. It is rather unlikely they would go for such a move had they thought it might put their positions at risk.

 

Other than that, you've dodged two related points on the "dictators" thing - one, considering that there is very little on offer by way of democratic regimes in the ME, does it follow no peace agreements until the situation changes? And, two, given that the "dictators" pretty much applies to both Palestinian leadership, how come the same grievances (voice of the people and all that) do not feature in your rants?

 

As an aside, and probably more on topic - at least as far as related things Palestinian go, I would pay close attention to this guy - Mohammed Dahlan.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Nout said:

If Obama had achieved this milestone agreement there would be plaudits and celebrations and praise.

 

Not from @dexterm. Unlikely as it seems, some posters are more invested in being against other stuff, like Israel. Trump is just a bonus, makes rants way easier.

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

 

[simple1]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

As an aside, and probably more on topic - at least as far as related things Palestinian go, I would pay close attention to this guy - Mohammed Dahlan.

I looked him up - you're not wrong!

 

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/did-mohammed-dahlan-help-orchestrate-israel-uae-deal-638832

 

 

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You are the one going on about "colonial" and such. I'm pointing out that reading references to Israel not grounded in the sort of extreme politics you're into doesn't actually see a whole lot of that. Not familiar with governments making this point much or going on about it. So no, nothing quite on par with your decisive extreme views. Might be different in your echo chamber.

 

You could replay your usual vehement, and tunnel-visioned version of events, history and political labels. Or copy/paste from a previous rant, it's all the same. That's what you do at times when unable to actually address the topic at hand, or when the Palestinians suffer a setback, or when unwilling to comment about any factual objective criticism raised vs. the Palestinian side and their leaderships.

 

Israel could not have "peace tomorrow" even if it somehow agreed to what you specified. Ignoring Hamas and Islamic Jihad positions on this is a choice. That wasn't even a lame deflection, try to address what I actually posted and the proper context.

 

How did the UAE "sold out" the Palestinians? Were they eternally obligated to support the Palestinians no matter what? Put Palestinian interests before their own? Ignore that Abbas pretty much cut ties with the UAE a while back? Or maybe they should support the Hamas and Islamic Jihad then? I'm not expecting a coherent, to the point and reasonable response to that.

 

As for "dictators" - I doubt this would have bothered you much had the UAE rejected the agreement, or renounced Israel. The faux outrage is more to do with the political position taken, rather than the nature of the regime in question. It is doubtful that the UAE rulers are not aware of trends and views among their people. It is rather unlikely they would go for such a move had they thought it might put their positions at risk.

 

Other than that, you've dodged two related points on the "dictators" thing - one, considering that there is very little on offer by way of democratic regimes in the ME, does it follow no peace agreements until the situation changes? And, two, given that the "dictators" pretty much applies to both Palestinian leadership, how come the same grievances (voice of the people and all that) do not feature in your rants?

 

As an aside, and probably more on topic - at least as far as related things Palestinian go, I would pay close attention to this guy - Mohammed Dahlan.

The UAE and any other Gulf States who sign a peace deal with Israel are traitors because they were signatories to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, 2007, 2017 which Israel ignored.

 

"The Arab Peace Initiative also known as the Saudi Initiative, is a 10 sentence proposal for an end to the Arab–Israeli conflict that was endorsed by the Arab League in 2002 at the Beirut Summit and re-endorsed at the 2007 and at the 2017 Arab League summits. The initiative calls for normalizing relations between the Arab world and Israel, in exchange for a full withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories (including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Lebanon), a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN Resolution 194, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

 

The unelected Emirati authoritarian aristocrats have also abandoned the holy city of Jerusalem, whose sacred place Al Aqsa mosque can now literally be trampled over by non believers who disrespect another's faith. I'm an atheist. Doesn't bother me what fanatical nutjobs are doing what (so long as they don't harm others), but I don't suppose religious Emirati citizens, if they were allowed a say in the matter, would be very pleased with that.

 

UAE has now lost all leverage in peace negotiations to end the wider conflict, all in exchange for a handful of shekels and some technology to suppress dissent amongst its own citizens to keep its corrupt dictators in power.
And in the process abandoning the struggle against the injustice perpetrated by European colonialists. Shameful.

 

But it doesn't matter how many peace treaties with traitors, the elephant in the room remains: What to do about 4.5 million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories ruled over by Israel but denied basic human rights under apartheid. 

 

Do you think a peace treaty with dictators will solve the festering sore of illegal occupation which is Israel's real permanent security problem, let alone appease the morality and guilt of the Israeli minority lording over the indigenous non Jewish majority population? Will Israel remain in denial?

 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

I looked him up - you're not wrong!

 

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/did-mohammed-dahlan-help-orchestrate-israel-uae-deal-638832

 

 

Yes, another self serving corrupt Judas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Oslo_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Allegation_of_murdering_Yasser_Arafat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Criticism

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The UAE and any other Gulf States who sign a peace deal with Israel are traitors because they were signatories to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, 2007, 2017 which Israel ignored.

 

"The Arab Peace Initiative also known as the Saudi Initiative, is a 10 sentence proposal for an end to the Arab–Israeli conflict that was endorsed by the Arab League in 2002 at the Beirut Summit and re-endorsed at the 2007 and at the 2017 Arab League summits. The initiative calls for normalizing relations between the Arab world and Israel, in exchange for a full withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories (including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Lebanon), a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN Resolution 194, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

 

The unelected Emirati authoritarian aristocrats have also abandoned the holy city of Jerusalem, whose sacred place Al Aqsa mosque can now literally be trampled over by non believers who disrespect another's faith. I'm an atheist. Doesn't bother me what fanatical nutjobs are doing what (so long as they don't harm others), but I don't suppose religious Emirati citizens, if they were allowed a say in the matter, would be very pleased with that.

 

UAE has now lost all leverage in peace negotiations to end the wider conflict, all in exchange for a handful of shekels and some technology to suppress dissent amongst its own citizens to keep its corrupt dictators in power.
And in the process abandoning the struggle against the injustice perpetrated by European colonialists. Shameful.

 

But it doesn't matter how many peace treaties with traitors, the elephant in the room remains: What to do about 4.5 million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories ruled over by Israel but denied basic human rights under apartheid. 

 

Do you think a peace treaty with dictators will solve the festering sore of illegal occupation which is Israel's real permanent security problem, let alone appease the morality and guilt of the Israeli minority lording over the indigenous non Jewish majority population? Will Israel remain in denial?

 

 

Traitors is a harsh word, especially coming from an outsider activist. I don't know that signing the Arab Peace Initiative implies eternal commitment to putting Palestinian interests first. Might be your opinion, but that doesn't carry much weight. Considering not all Palestinians subscribed to the Arab Peace Initiative, making the sort of argument you try for is dubious.

 

As for the "holy city of Jerusalem", laughable coming from someone proclaiming on and on to be an atheist. There is nothing in the current agreement which imply changes in the status of the Al Aqsa mosque, certainly not permissions such as you claim. That's simply an "alternative fact", "fake news" or more plainly, a lie. An atheist would not be that vehemently invested in what religious Emirati may or may not feel about this.

 

The UAE is not and was not a central party in this conflict. Understandable as it is that you wish to unload on them, please try and keep it real. They did not have much "leverage" to begin with anyway. As posted previously, I think the agreement will also facilitate the sale long wished for USA F-35 aircraft. Since you consider the UAE rulers to be "dictators", why would you expect them to "struggle against injustice"? Or would you have less issues with them being "dictators" had they refused the agreement?

 

And no, I've posted earlier (maybe on a parallel topic) that the agreement does not ultimately address or solve the problems between Israelis and Palestinians. In the same way, I think that the stability of this agreement might be put to the test next time there's a serious flare up between the side. On the other hand, I do not see the benefit of not exploring such chances for peace and normalization - at the very least, it provided a way to defuse the annexation drive, a good thing all around.

 

As I've addressed most of your points, bogus as they are, it would be nice if, for a change, you'd step off the soap box and engage by responding to what others post, rather than just post various versions of the same tirade.

[simple1]

29 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Yes, another self serving corrupt Judas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Oslo_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Allegation_of_murdering_Yasser_Arafat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Criticism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, I read that stuff. Deeply embedded in the politics and cruelty of the region. Morch can clarify if there are actually any good guys who can influence positive outcomes or if in his opinion the guy can do some good or not, despite his alleged activities.

 

I have to say I find Morch's posted content and opinions very interesting - for me, albeit, with little regional knowledge - Morch comes across as very well informed.

Edited September 3, 2020 by simple1

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Yes, another self serving corrupt Judas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Oslo_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Allegation_of_murdering_Yasser_Arafat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Criticism

 

Yeah, a nice guy he ain't. But then again, many on both Palestinian leaderships aren't. The point made was more to do with showing how Palestinian politics are deeply tied to current developments. You can choose to rile against him, and that's fine, but that seems to be about the scope of your comments on these topics.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, simple1 said:

yes, I read that stuff. Deeply embedded in the politics and cruelty of the region. Morch can clarify if there are actually any good guys who can influence positive outcomes or if in his opinion the guy can do some good or not, despite his alleged activities.

 

The Palestinian leaderships are full of such characters. Almost all these dead set against him do so because he represents a political challenge to their positions (current and future). Does that make him a good guy? No way. Does it mean he can deliver? Probably not more than the others.

 

There are (or rather, were) some Palestinian leaders of stature, that could see beyond the rhetoric and the hollow fantasies such as those appearing in the other poster's rants. Most of them were either sidelined by the other variety, or prefer not to get into the cesspit of Palestinian politics. A couple of the more familiar named were Salem Fayed and Sari Nusseibeh, obviously others out there. 

 

Edit for clarification - Dahlan is  currently supported by the UAE. This potentially means funds and support in case he gets into the political ring, and easier relations if he comes on top. How long would this support last? Who knows. Are personal connections a stable way to run a country or a people? Not really. Is this how things are for many weaker sides and parties in the ME? Yes. Having a sponsor is almost routine.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Morch

[dexterm]

Today Israelis are celebrating ties with UAE. Think how exciting it might be if Israelis could normalize relationships with every country in the world that quite rightly bans them. And all they need do is agree to respect international law.

 

It would be very nice if they could reciprocate by allowing Palestinians to travel the 30 minutes from their refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza to visit their properties from which they were ethnically cleansed decades ago, and for which they still hold the title deeds. And Israel is still perpetrating the same war crimes to this day.

 

Other countries should not betray the Palestinians and to top it all get nothing in return, apart from a few trinkets of technology, and huge disgrace.

Edited September 3, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Today Israelis are celebrating ties with UAE. Think how exciting it might be if Israelis could normalize relationships with every country in the world that quite rightly bans them. And all they need do is agree to respect international law.

 

It would be very nice if they could reciprocate by allowing Palestinians to travel the 30 minutes from their refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza to visit their properties from which they were ethnically cleansed decades ago, and for which they still hold the title deeds. And Israel is still perpetrating the same war crimes to this day.

 

Other countries should not betray the Palestinians and to top it all get nothing in return, apart from a few trinkets of technology, and huge disgrace.

 

Again with the la la fantasies. There aren't all that many countries in the world "banning" Israel. And like the UAE, some that do carry on relations unofficially. This comment is even more ridiculous considering you just poured scorn on the UAE for being a vile dictatorship. Many of the other countries on that list are not much different, some worse.

 

It would be very nice if you could acknowledge that peace involves at least two sides, and that with the Palestinian divide, it's a already a three-way thing. It would also be very nice if you could acknowledge that not all Palestinians, or even most, subscribe to your fantasies, and will conduct peaceful visit to Israel. The bits tossed in about title deeds (forgot the keys one?) etc. are fluff. 

 

Once more you fail to address other posters' points, just the usual diatribes, rants and ravings about Israel bad. You do not bring anything else to such discussions. No critical or objective take on Palestinian issues, nothing of substance on regional affairs, and not even a new soap box to stand on.

 

Countries are not obligated to support the Palestinians no matter what. Countries are not obligated to put Palestinian interests before their own. Countries are not obligated to your personal set of priorities, or to your uninformed view of the returns involved.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Again with the la la fantasies. There aren't all that many countries in the world "banning" Israel. And like the UAE, some that do carry on relations unofficially. This comment is even more ridiculous considering you just poured scorn on the UAE for being a vile dictatorship. Many of the other countries on that list are not much different, some worse.

 

It would be very nice if you could acknowledge that peace involves at least two sides, and that with the Palestinian divide, it's a already a three-way thing. It would also be very nice if you could acknowledge that not all Palestinians, or even most, subscribe to your fantasies, and will conduct peaceful visit to Israel. The bits tossed in about title deeds (forgot the keys one?) etc. are fluff. 

 

Once more you fail to address other posters' points, just the usual diatribes, rants and ravings about Israel bad. You do not bring anything else to such discussions. No critical or objective take on Palestinian issues, nothing of substance on regional affairs, and not even a new soap box to stand on.

 

Countries are not obligated to support the Palestinians no matter what. Countries are not obligated to put Palestinian interests before their own. Countries are not obligated to your personal set of priorities, or to your uninformed view of the returns involved.

I think there are about 15 countries than ban Israelis from entering. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Israel and Kushner trying to build relationships with other countries that do quite rightly ban Israelis, when on their own doorstep Israelis ban Palestinians from visiting their own properties for which they still have the title deeds and keys. UAE is now endorsing Israel's war crime that Palestinians are not allowed to return to their confiscated homes in Israel simply because they are not Jewish. Pure racism!

 

The Palestinians have been trying to make peace for the last 30 years. Israel could have peace whenever they want, if they simply adhered to international law.

 

Yasser Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist as far back as 1988, and repeated it in writing in 1993 at the Oslo Accords.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

"How Many Times Must the Palestinians Recognize Israel?
Netanyahu’s new 'Jewish state' mantra negates the fact that Palestinians recognized Israel more than twenty years ago. They’re still waiting for Israel to recognize Palestine."
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701
 
The whole Arab world plus Iran have agreed to full relations with Israel if it will cease its illegal occupation. The brick wall in peace negotiations is Israel. They want their cake and eat it too. They want the land but not the indigenous Palestinian population that lives there. The UAE has now lost any leverage in making peace in return for nothing.

 

I will certainly reply to members' posts. Did on this thread until the member started inane troll baiting. Best not to feed them.

 

I wonder if you subscribe to the same non obligatory interference policy with regards to some of the darker episodes of the 20th Century? 

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
 

[Orton Rd]

23 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Palestinians never miss an opportunity...to miss an opportunity. Nothing but 70 years of inept and failed military and political leadership.

Absolutely, they are their own worst enemy and could have had their own state several times and originally far larger than Israel. Unfortunately their hatred of Jews stopped them, they have never been interested in a 2 state solution only one- their own. The only thing they have succeeded at is fooling many that they are the victims.

[Dumbastheycome]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You are the one going on about "colonial" and such. I'm pointing out that reading references to Israel not grounded in the sort of extreme politics you're into doesn't actually see a whole lot of that. Not familiar with governments making this point much or going on about it. So no, nothing quite on par with your decisive extreme views. Might be different in your echo chamber.

 

You could replay your usual vehement, and tunnel-visioned version of events, history and political labels. Or copy/paste from a previous rant, it's all the same. That's what you do at times when unable to actually address the topic at hand, or when the Palestinians suffer a setback, or when unwilling to comment about any factual objective criticism raised vs. the Palestinian side and their leaderships.

 

Israel could not have "peace tomorrow" even if it somehow agreed to what you specified. Ignoring Hamas and Islamic Jihad positions on this is a choice. That wasn't even a lame deflection, try to address what I actually posted and the proper context.

 

How did the UAE "sold out" the Palestinians? Were they eternally obligated to support the Palestinians no matter what? Put Palestinian interests before their own? Ignore that Abbas pretty much cut ties with the UAE a while back? Or maybe they should support the Hamas and Islamic Jihad then? I'm not expecting a coherent, to the point and reasonable response to that.

 

As for "dictators" - I doubt this would have bothered you much had the UAE rejected the agreement, or renounced Israel. The faux outrage is more to do with the political position taken, rather than the nature of the regime in question. It is doubtful that the UAE rulers are not aware of trends and views among their people. It is rather unlikely they would go for such a move had they thought it might put their positions at risk.

 

Other than that, you've dodged two related points on the "dictators" thing - one, considering that there is very little on offer by way of democratic regimes in the ME, does it follow no peace agreements until the situation changes? And, two, given that the "dictators" pretty much applies to both Palestinian leadership, how come the same grievances (voice of the people and all that) do not feature in your rants?

 

As an aside, and probably more on topic - at least as far as related things Palestinian go, I would pay close attention to this guy - Mohammed Dahlan.

Dahlan will also be seen to feature when Egypt raises it's hand in acknowledgement of Kushner's sly  funded initiative is my bet !

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I think there are about 15 countries than ban Israelis from entering. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Israel and Kushner trying to build relationships with other countries that do quite rightly ban Israelis, when on their own doorstep Israelis ban Palestinians from visiting their own properties for which they still have the title deeds and keys. UAE is now endorsing Israel's war crime that Palestinians are not allowed to return to their confiscated homes in Israel simply because they are not Jewish. Pure racism!

 

The Palestinians have been trying to make peace for the last 30 years. Israel could have peace whenever they want, if they simply adhered to international law.

 

Yasser Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist as far back as 1988, and repeated it in writing in 1993 at the Oslo Accords.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

"How Many Times Must the Palestinians Recognize Israel?
Netanyahu’s new 'Jewish state' mantra negates the fact that Palestinians recognized Israel more than twenty years ago. They’re still waiting for Israel to recognize Palestine."
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701
 
The whole Arab world plus Iran have agreed to full relations with Israel if it will cease its illegal occupation. The brick wall in peace negotiations is Israel. They want their cake and eat it too. They want the land but not the indigenous Palestinian population that lives there. The UAE has now lost any leverage in making peace in return for nothing.

 

I will certainly reply to members' posts. Did on this thread until the member started inane troll baiting. Best not to feed them.

 

I wonder if you subscribe to the same non obligatory interference policy with regards to some of the darker episodes of the 20th Century? 

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
 

 

The Israelis and the Palestinians are not on terms which allow for such "visits" as you fantasize about I am not aware of anyone but yourself (and perhaps others in your echo chamber) actually subscribing to such nonsense construct. Countries are not obliged to have similar relations with everyone. Palestinians not being allowed into Israel directly relates to Palestinian positions and the situation between the two sides. You want to paint it as a one way street? Good luck with that. Hypocrisy would be ignoring the Palestinian side's contribution to the state of things.

 

The UAE, same as Egypt, Jordan and the many other countries Israel have relations with does not really "endorse" Israel's positions toward and treatment of the Palestinians. That you, from your extreme perch expect all government to fully align with your agenda, carries little weight and bound to leave you a bit frustrated.

 

As for your portrayal of the Palestinian side as one striving for peace, again - either knowingly dishonest and disingenuous, or another echo chamber product. There is no such general view of the Palestinian side other than in your posts.

 

Repeating the same half truth and lies will not change reality. You keep bringing up the same bogus points for, literately, years now. Somehow managing to completely ignore or even coherently respond to facts not aligned with your agenda:

 

- Arafat signed a paper, and there was even a vote, after pressure was applied. In reality, the changes were neither fully implemented, and various officials and politicians stated things contradicting agreements. On top of that, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, representing a large segment of the Palestinian people, hold very different views.

 

- Your references to the Arab Peace Initiative routinely include mention of Iran, whereas you also routinely fail to supply support for this assertion. Similarly, as above, your routinely ignore Hamas and Islamic Jihad not being much impressed or accepting of the Arab Peace Initiative. Many of the past signatories are in no position to uphold anything signed (examples - Syria, Lebanon).

 

You do not respond to points made. You simply rehash your worn creed pretty much regardless of what's posted:

 

- Why and how is the UAE obligated to put the Palestinians first, before its own interests?
- Why bash UAE rulers for being dictators, but not do so with similar (and worse) regimes more supportive of the Palestinians? Why ignore the Palestinians' own leaders being pretty much "dictators" themselves?

- Why ignore Hamas/Islamic Jihad?

- Pick another, futile anyway.

 

I wonder if you'd go any lower than dragging "darker episodes of the 20th century" into this. Guess it all depends on how desperate you are. To quote one of your words, "shameful".

 

 

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Dahlan will also be seen to feature when Egypt raises it's hand in acknowledgement of Kushner's sly  funded initiative is my bet !

 

Maybe. Dahlan has/had good connection with Egypt. And at one point, there was an attempt to reinstall him in the Gaza Strip, which did not turn out so well. On the other hand, almost all the Arab players vie for the top man status with regard to the Palestinians. Egypt and the UAE competing, with Dahlan caught between them is a possibility.

 

The thing is, he's not very popular, his power base probably eroded some, and he's got many enemies. Don't think he'll be able to assume power very easily, even with backing, but stranger things happened.

 

[Redline]

On 9/2/2020 at 8:42 PM, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Israelis could wipe out the entire Saudi airforce in an afternoon...any concerns they have expressed are for public consumption or negotiating leverage with Washington for new arms sales.

True, but they do want the greatest technical advantage possible as well

[dexterm]

11 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Absolutely, they are their own worst enemy and could have had their own state several times and originally far larger than Israel. Unfortunately their hatred of Jews stopped them, they have never been interested in a 2 state solution only one- their own. The only thing they have succeeded at is fooling many that they are the victims.

>>they have never been interested in a 2 state solution only one- their own. 

Complete baloney...
Yasser Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist as far back as 1988, and repeated it in writing in 1993 at the Oslo Accords. Palestinians are still waiting for Israel to reciprocate.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

 

And if Palestinians, as you claim, want a one state solution, Israel is doing its darndest to make it happen, which is wonderful news.

 

Israelis may now be able to fly to Bangkok with Emirates, but they won't be seeing me on board. Support BDS.

 

This may help Trump win the election, but I doubt most Trump supporters could even find the Middle East on a map let alone UAE. And if he does win, he will help Israel dig a bigger one state solution hole for itself, which is also good news.

[dexterm]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The Israelis and the Palestinians are not on terms which allow for such "visits" as you fantasize about I am not aware of anyone but yourself (and perhaps others in your echo chamber) actually subscribing to such nonsense construct. Countries are not obliged to have similar relations with everyone. Palestinians not being allowed into Israel directly relates to Palestinian positions and the situation between the two sides. You want to paint it as a one way street? Good luck with that. Hypocrisy would be ignoring the Palestinian side's contribution to the state of things.

 

The UAE, same as Egypt, Jordan and the many other countries Israel have relations with does not really "endorse" Israel's positions toward and treatment of the Palestinians. That you, from your extreme perch expect all government to fully align with your agenda, carries little weight and bound to leave you a bit frustrated.

 

As for your portrayal of the Palestinian side as one striving for peace, again - either knowingly dishonest and disingenuous, or another echo chamber product. There is no such general view of the Palestinian side other than in your posts.

 

Repeating the same half truth and lies will not change reality. You keep bringing up the same bogus points for, literately, years now. Somehow managing to completely ignore or even coherently respond to facts not aligned with your agenda:

 

- Arafat signed a paper, and there was even a vote, after pressure was applied. In reality, the changes were neither fully implemented, and various officials and politicians stated things contradicting agreements. On top of that, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, representing a large segment of the Palestinian people, hold very different views.

 

- Your references to the Arab Peace Initiative routinely include mention of Iran, whereas you also routinely fail to supply support for this assertion. Similarly, as above, your routinely ignore Hamas and Islamic Jihad not being much impressed or accepting of the Arab Peace Initiative. Many of the past signatories are in no position to uphold anything signed (examples - Syria, Lebanon).

 

You do not respond to points made. You simply rehash your worn creed pretty much regardless of what's posted:

 

- Why and how is the UAE obligated to put the Palestinians first, before its own interests?
- Why bash UAE rulers for being dictators, but not do so with similar (and worse) regimes more supportive of the Palestinians? Why ignore the Palestinians' own leaders being pretty much "dictators" themselves?

- Why ignore Hamas/Islamic Jihad?

- Pick another, futile anyway.

 

I wonder if you'd go any lower than dragging "darker episodes of the 20th century" into this. Guess it all depends on how desperate you are. To quote one of your words, "shameful".

 

 

>>- Why and how is the UAE obligated to put the Palestinians first, before its own interests?

"its own interests"..You mean the authoritarian unelected aristocrats' own interests. I wonder if the dictators would allow a "Support Palestinian Rights" demonstration in the streets of Dubai or Abu Dhabi. Or pre-empt any such dissent using Israeli surveillance technology to round up, torture and imprison anyone expressing freedom of speech.

 

>>- Why bash UAE rulers for being dictators, but not do so with similar (and worse) regimes more supportive of the Palestinians? Why ignore the Palestinians' own leaders being pretty much "dictators" themselves?

.. your usual attempt to deflect. Two wrongs don't make a right. I also would like to see free and fair Palestinian elections with new leadership and parties, and a push for Two States along UN Resolutiion/Arab Peace Initiative lines or a Single State and an end to apartheid with equal rights for all. 

 

>>- Why ignore Hamas/Islamic Jihad?
..funnily enough Hamas was elected freely and fairly, but Israel and their lapdogs didn't like the result, so they labelled them terrorists.
With the advent of peace, Hamas and IJ would be sidelined anyway, hopefully along with fanatical violent Jewish settlers.

There's nothing shameful about intervention to prevent other countries committing atrocities. The world would be a better place if more countries did interfere when they see injustice and abuse of human rights, rather than putting their trades interests and money before principles.
 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

>>they have never been interested in a 2 state solution only one- their own. 

Complete baloney...
Yasser Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist as far back as 1988, and repeated it in writing in 1993 at the Oslo Accords. Palestinians are still waiting for Israel to reciprocate.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

 

And if Palestinians, as you claim, want a one state solution, Israel is doing its darndest to make it happen, which is wonderful news.

 

Israelis may now be able to fly to Bangkok with Emirates, but they won't be seeing me on board. Support BDS.

 

This may help Trump win the election, but I doubt most Trump supporters could even find the Middle East on a map let alone UAE. And if he does win, he will help Israel dig a bigger one state solution hole for itself, which is also good news.

 

You keep posting this bit of half truth as if it is completely correct. While I understand the propaganda value, it is both dishonest and getting old.

 

Arafat wrote a letter, made promises and there was even (finally, under pressure) the required vote. Even during all that time (and surly, later on) him and other Palestinian leaders/officials made contradictory comments. The end result was what happened in other instances as well - there was a proclamation, but without actually cancelling the older version. This allows Palestinians take either position, according to need and circumstance.

 

We have engaged on this particular point numerous times in the past. Links and references (obviously, harder to come by) were provided. That you simply plod on ignoring that is an indication that you are not here to discuss anything, but to push an agenda and it's accompanying propaganda, no matter what.

 

 

The bizarre personal boycott thing again? Still waiting for an answer on whether you boycott all airlines flying to Israel, and all products from countries having relations with Israel. I don't believe that you do.

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>- Why and how is the UAE obligated to put the Palestinians first, before its own interests?

"its own interests"..You mean the authoritarian unelected aristocrats' own interests. I wonder if the dictators would allow a "Support Palestinian Rights" demonstration in the streets of Dubai or Abu Dhabi. Or pre-empt any such dissent using Israeli surveillance technology to round up, torture and imprison anyone expressing freedom of speech.

 

>>- Why bash UAE rulers for being dictators, but not do so with similar (and worse) regimes more supportive of the Palestinians? Why ignore the Palestinians' own leaders being pretty much "dictators" themselves?

.. your usual attempt to deflect. Two wrongs don't make a right. I also would like to see free and fair Palestinian elections with new leadership and parties, and a push for Two States along UN Resolutiion/Arab Peace Initiative lines or a Single State and an end to apartheid with equal rights for all. 

 

>>- Why ignore Hamas/Islamic Jihad?
..funnily enough Hamas was elected freely and fairly, but Israel and their lapdogs didn't like the result, so they labelled them terrorists.
With the advent of peace, Hamas and IJ would be sidelined anyway, hopefully along with fanatical violent Jewish settlers.

There's nothing shameful about intervention to prevent other countries committing atrocities. The world would be a better place if more countries did interfere when they see injustice and abuse of human rights, rather than putting their trades interests and money before principles.
 

 

If your criteria for citing "interests" being a legitimate position is the measure of democracy involved, or how authoritative leadership is, then you would will run into the same issue going on about Palestinian interests. Neither Palestinian leadership is democratic, and both are rather oppressive. There is no real process in which the people are asked for their opinion and views, nor is criticism of their regimes much of an option. All of what you've wrote regarding allowing protests, torture, imprisonment and freedom of speech apply. Not much said about all that from you in your many posts.

 

And obviously, you've dodged the question. That you think the UAE's best interests are to support the Palestinians no matter what carries little weight, and is not (apparently) based on any in-depth knowledge or informed analysis. I would venture that the rulers of the UAE are better positioned to assess this, and would not risk the country's stability (or their rule) on a whim. So again, how does unconditional support for the Palestinian amount to an overriding interest as far as the UAE goes?

 

And no, it is not a deflection to point out the blatant double standard applied in your posts regarding the nature of Palestinian and Arab regimes. You do not regularly, or even often, comment about that - nor do you offer much criticism. But if a similar regime goes against your agenda? Tantrum time. If they tow the line? Not much of a problem. Seems like the "dictators" bit takes the back seat, when support for the Palestinians is involved (and even more thoroughly applied with regard to the Palestinians themselves).

 

More half truths offered regarding Hamas/Islamic Jihad. Hamas won the elections, how many years ago?

How many elections were held since? Does the Hamas hold primaries? Do people get to vote again or express their dissatisfaction? Or perhaps, maybe you'd like to ignore the aftermath of said elections - losing side's people slaughtered, thrown off buildings etc.

 

Spin it as you like, Hamas was a terrorist organization before that. What followed the elections just made for a wider recognition of that.

 

Your rosy assertion that Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be "sidelined anyway", in the advent of piece is not supported by anything much, and dodges the here and now, or even their potential of disrupting any peace from emerging. When you raise bogus points like why-Israel-doesn't-let-Palestinians-in, and then provide similarly bogus comments as this, no wonder you're not taken seriously.

 

Great show of "replying", but in essence all you posted is a bunch of deflections and nonsense.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If your criteria for citing "interests" being a legitimate position is the measure of democracy involved, or how authoritative leadership is, then you would will run into the same issue going on about Palestinian interests. Neither Palestinian leadership is democratic, and both are rather oppressive. There is no real process in which the people are asked for their opinion and views, nor is criticism of their regimes much of an option. All of what you've wrote regarding allowing protests, torture, imprisonment and freedom of speech apply. Not much said about all that from you in your many posts.

 

And obviously, you've dodged the question. That you think the UAE's best interests are to support the Palestinians no matter what carries little weight, and is not (apparently) based on any in-depth knowledge or informed analysis. I would venture that the rulers of the UAE are better positioned to assess this, and would not risk the country's stability (or their rule) on a whim. So again, how does unconditional support for the Palestinian amount to an overriding interest as far as the UAE goes?

 

And no, it is not a deflection to point out the blatant double standard applied in your posts regarding the nature of Palestinian and Arab regimes. You do not regularly, or even often, comment about that - nor do you offer much criticism. But if a similar regime goes against your agenda? Tantrum time. If they tow the line? Not much of a problem. Seems like the "dictators" bit takes the back seat, when support for the Palestinians is involved (and even more thoroughly applied with regard to the Palestinians themselves).

 

More half truths offered regarding Hamas/Islamic Jihad. Hamas won the elections, how many years ago?

How many elections were held since? Does the Hamas hold primaries? Do people get to vote again or express their dissatisfaction? Or perhaps, maybe you'd like to ignore the aftermath of said elections - losing side's people slaughtered, thrown off buildings etc.

 

Spin it as you like, Hamas was a terrorist organization before that. What followed the elections just made for a wider recognition of that.

 

Your rosy assertion that Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be "sidelined anyway", in the advent of piece is not supported by anything much, and dodges the here and now, or even their potential of disrupting any peace from emerging. When you raise bogus points like why-Israel-doesn't-let-Palestinians-in, and then provide similarly bogus comments as this, no wonder you're not taken seriously.

 

Great show of "replying", but in essence all you posted is a bunch of deflections and nonsense.

Your patronising pontifications and fantasies that you have dealt with an issue do not make it fact.

If the PLO recognised Israel and in writing, then the sensible thing to do (if you genuinely want permanent peace) is to snatch their hand off in shaking it in agreement.
The fact that Israel did not and then for the next 30 years hid behind the charade of Oslo Accords as though negotiating a two state solution while all the time expanding settlements making that solution impossible. Disingenuous... as is your obfuscation that Palestinians offered recognition and peace but somehow maybe had their fingers crossed behind their backs. Baloney.  

 

You keep referring to the interests of "the UAE", but what you mean are the interests of the corrupt aristocratic regime that runs the UAE. The people have no say in what UAE dictatorial royal families may want.

 

I answered your deflection question about Palestinian leadership and elections. Learn to read more carefully.

 

I have condemned some of the actions of Hamas as terrorism  as I have those of the IDF, except the IDF have managed to murder far more innocent civilians.

 

No hypocrisy re boycotting airlines because of their direct flights to Israel. Looking at the list of some 48 airlines that fly direct I can honestly say I have flown on only 4 of them prior to BDS: BA, Lufthansa, Air India, Latam. I will now add Emirates and Etihad to my boycott list.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Your patronising pontifications and fantasies that you have dealt with an issue do not make it fact.

If the PLO recognised Israel and in writing, then the sensible thing to do (if you genuinely want permanent peace) is to snatch their hand off in shaking it in agreement.
The fact that Israel did not and then for the next 30 years hid behind the charade of Oslo Accords as though negotiating a two state solution while all the time expanding settlements making that solution impossible. Disingenuous... as is your obfuscation that Palestinians offered recognition and peace but somehow maybe had their fingers crossed behind their backs. Baloney.  

 

You keep referring to the interests of "the UAE", but what you mean are the interests of the corrupt aristocratic regime that runs the UAE. The people have no say in what UAE dictatorial royal families may want.

 

I answered your deflection question about Palestinian leadership and elections. Learn to read more carefully.

 

I have condemned some of the actions of Hamas as terrorism  as I have those of the IDF, except the IDF have managed to murder far more innocent civilians.

 

No hypocrisy re boycotting airlines because of their direct flights to Israel. Looking at the list of some 48 airlines that fly direct I can honestly say I have flown on only 4 of them prior to BDS: BA, Lufthansa, Air India, Latam. I will now add Emirates and Etihad to my boycott list.

 

Coming from someone who patronizes and pontificates not only poster, but governments and world leaders, that's quite amusing.

 

You are, as usual, twisting historical fact to service your narrative. Arafat's letter was a condition to even begin talks, but did not place constraints on Israel to reciprocate in a similar way. It was a stepping stone to the Oslo Accords which you habitually deride, not an all out peace agreement - which was the most sides could agree on at the time. That you think otherwise is not supported by fact or account related to the talks back then. Do go on about fantasies, by all means.

 

What I have posted about Palestinians and the recognition thing, is factual and correct. The Palestinians did not fully and officially revoke old versions of charters and such going against the spirit of the letter, but declared so. You want to deny this, up to you. Also, I never denied (or defended) that Israel too, went into these negotiations and agreements with less than good faith. Or that it's practices afterwards were not always in accord with them. Both sides were (and are) at it to this day. Your insistence that only the Israelis violated agreements, or that Palestinian violations are justifiable is nonsense.

 

When I say interest of the UAE, I mean interests of the UAE. You want to dodge this by going on about elites running things for the masses, you'll eventually have to address that the same applies with regard to the Palestinians. Same goes for "having no say". This lame spin aside, it doesn't actually matter - the same argument could be made referencing either elites or the general public - how does unconditional support for the Palestinian people represent a major national interest? How does it override stronger connections with anti-Iran allies? What economic benefits do choices represent? 

 

And no, you have deflected and dodged points made regarding Palestinian leadership. At most, paying lip service, whereas in other cases you issue fiery tirades and condemnations. As for condemning Hamas on terrorism issues, you're actually very picky, and always careful to "balance" it with Israel-does-it-to - the usual waffle about two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right doesn't apply there, apparently. You do not have a lot to say about oppression by Palestinian leaderships, about Palestinian people not being asked for their own views, or about pretty much anything that doesn't fit into your narrative.

 

As for your boycotting fantasies, here's this - I don't believe you. And even if I did, it still wouldn't make sense. It would imply some serious travel constraints, if including all airlines from countries having relations with Israel, never mind trade etc.

[Morch]

Back on topic, which is the UAE-Israel normalizing relations, rather than a poster's crusade for this or that cause.

 

As mentioned earlier, there's apparently a rather largish arms deal in the works. Lots of goodies there. What's more interesting is Netanyahu witholding previous objections to such. Maybe the electoral value of diplomatic success, outweighs security considerations. While it can be said the UAE is not a threat and all that, sure. But it basically places a price tag on future agreements - and that might imply a whole lot of new quality weapon systems in the region.

 

Netanyahu Privately Condoned U.S. Plan to Sell Arms to U.A.E., Officials Say

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/politics/israel-uae-weapons.html

 

Article also highlights some major issues with foreign (in this case both Israel's and the UAE) influence on USA decision making processes.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Morch

[Nout]

On 9/2/2020 at 11:46 PM, Morch said:

 

You are the one going on about "colonial" and such. I'm pointing out that reading references to Israel not grounded in the sort of extreme politics you're into doesn't actually see a whole lot of that. Not familiar with governments making this point much or going on about it. So no, nothing quite on par with your decisive extreme views. Might be different in your echo chamber.

 

You could replay your usual vehement, and tunnel-visioned version of events, history and political labels. Or copy/paste from a previous rant, it's all the same. That's what you do at times when unable to actually address the topic at hand, or when the Palestinians suffer a setback, or when unwilling to comment about any factual objective criticism raised vs. the Palestinian side and their leaderships.

 

Israel could not have "peace tomorrow" even if it somehow agreed to what you specified. Ignoring Hamas and Islamic Jihad positions on this is a choice. That wasn't even a lame deflection, try to address what I actually posted and the proper context.

 

How did the UAE "sold out" the Palestinians? Were they eternally obligated to support the Palestinians no matter what? Put Palestinian interests before their own? Ignore that Abbas pretty much cut ties with the UAE a while back? Or maybe they should support the Hamas and Islamic Jihad then? I'm not expecting a coherent, to the point and reasonable response to that.

 

As for "dictators" - I doubt this would have bothered you much had the UAE rejected the agreement, or renounced Israel. The faux outrage is more to do with the political position taken, rather than the nature of the regime in question. It is doubtful that the UAE rulers are not aware of trends and views among their people. It is rather unlikely they would go for such a move had they thought it might put their positions at risk.

 

Other than that, you've dodged two related points on the "dictators" thing - one, considering that there is very little on offer by way of democratic regimes in the ME, does it follow no peace agreements until the situation changes? And, two, given that the "dictators" pretty much applies to both Palestinian leadership, how come the same grievances (voice of the people and all that) do not feature in your rants?

 

As an aside, and probably more on topic - at least as far as related things Palestinian go, I would pay close attention to this guy - Mohammed Dahlan.

Well said. You are correct.

[dexterm]

@Morch

 

The usual disinformation. Do learn to read more carefully. 

I did not write "including all airlines from countries having relations with Israel"

 

I wrote:

"No hypocrisy re boycotting airlines because of their direct flights to Israel. Looking at the list of some 48 airlines that fly direct I can honestly say I have flown on only 4 of them prior to BDS: BA, Lufthansa, Air India, Latam. I will now add Emirates and Etihad to my boycott list."

 

None of them since BDS.

 

Airlines aren't governments. Although in the case of Emirates and Etihad they put money in the coffers of the dictators who own them, and now endorse Israel's apartheid regime...but not my money any more!

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, dexterm said:

@Morch

 

The usual disinformation. Do learn to read more carefully. 

I did not write "including all airlines from countries having relations with Israel"

 

I wrote:

"No hypocrisy re boycotting airlines because of their direct flights to Israel. Looking at the list of some 48 airlines that fly direct I can honestly say I have flown on only 4 of them prior to BDS: BA, Lufthansa, Air India, Latam. I will now add Emirates and Etihad to my boycott list."

 

None of them since BDS.

 

Airlines aren't governments. Although in the case of Emirates and Etihad they put money in the coffers of the dictators who own them, and now endorse Israel's apartheid regime...but not my money any more!

 

 

 

No "disinformation" (how does this even apply?), just unclear as to how far this imaginary boycott of yours goes and how ridiculous it is.

[Sujo]

On 9/2/2020 at 9:57 PM, Pattaya Spotter said:

"Mindless trope,"...seems spot on to me.

 

As for Israel, its a modern state with a high tech economy, strong governing institutions, and a flourishing cultural life, which supports the best equipped and trained armed forces in the Middle East. While the Palestinians are living in bombed-out huts and scrub farms in the West Bank and abject filth and squalor in Gaza. As the past decade has shown, even the Arabs barely give lip service to the Palestinian cause anymore and the security of the Jewish state no longer relies on the cooperation of the Palestinians or their corrupt leadership.

How people chose to live is not the concern of other countries.

 

Not everyone wants mcmansions and things that go with western values.