Saudi King Salman tells Trump no Israeli normalisation without Palestinian statehood

[dexterm]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Getting a grip would be accepting that, currently, the Palestinians are a divided people/nation. And that they do not all support the PA or subscribe to the political positions you claim. The situation is made even more complicated by both leaderships being essentially unelected. The Hamas, by the way, is recognized as a terrorist organization by quite a few countries, especially those bearing more relevance to the conflict.

Any divisions within Palestinian leadership are the result of an illegal occupation. Israel loves it that way, and fosters the division.

 

Labels are easy. Yesterday's terrorist is tomorrow's political leader. Consider Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Menachem Begin, to name but a very few.

 

If the killing of innocent civilians is the touchstone for terrorism IMO. Then the IDF more than qualifies.

 

[Eric Loh]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You must have missed the part where the Palestinians are divided among themselves, and effectively have two competing leaderships. The Hamas does not seek what you claim, while having issues with Israel's existence. That you and @dexterm wish to ignore this doesn't change facts and reality.

It’s the government of Abbas that the UN recognized not Hamas. You may have missed the current Hamas’s position in that they have abandon the ideology of Israel destruction but will accept a Palestine state in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fatah and Hamas in an internal political struggle and trying to form a unity government. 

[Eric Loh]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Getting a grip would be accepting that, currently, the Palestinians are a divided people/nation. And that they do not all support the PA or subscribe to the political positions you claim. The situation is made even more complicated by both leaderships being essentially unelected. The Hamas, by the way, is recognized as a terrorist organization by quite a few countries, especially those bearing more relevance to the conflict.

Get a grip will mean we have to go back in history to 1948 and the Zionist mission of acquiring Palestine’s land without its native population. In the following 72 years of Israel’s existence, that aim never wavered. They did mass expulsions in 1947-1949 and in 1967 and on-going campaign of ethnic cleansing. 
 

Getting a grip will also meant that it’s an existential moment in Palestine history that confronts Palestinians with hard choices and little time. US as Israel backer is encouraging annexation and is alarming to cause reaction for resumption on armed struggle. The political discourse is all about Palestine statehood for the 5 million stateless with no rights Palestinians. 

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Let's check again - your points, such as they - addressed. Questions and points raised in my previous posts ignored.
..the usual arrogant nonsense. You ignore the fact that Israel is already a de facto single state. Has been for the last 53 years.

 

Might be a good idea to keep some of them terrorist fanatical Jewish settlers the other side of the green line too, the ones that firebomb Palestinian homes and mosques, throw rocks at honest Palestinian farmers, poison wells and livestock, cut down olive trees. Cowards because they have the guns, and that goes for the IDF too, who simply turn a blind eye to these thugs. 

 

I am all in favour of a peace conference on the basis of the OP King Salman Peace Initiative but with honest brokers mediating, cajoling and banging both heads together. Trump and Kushner have clearly shown they don't fit that bill. Their deal of the century is a just a Netanyahu wishlist.  Maybe after the November election in the hope there's a fresh team.

 

If not, mai ben rai, Trump will help Israel dig a deeper hole for itself.

 

That you claim some extreme view or position is "fact", doesn't make it into such. Hence, there's is nothing to "ignore". Same goes for the rest of them facts-which-are-really-opinions peppering your tirades.

 

I've no idea why you imagine it would be a good idea for the illegal settlers to remain in place, or how it relates to anything I've posted. Guess it's just another deflection offered as a way of not addressing the points made in my posts.

 

As opposed to your "current" (actually more like ad hoc, one topic) position, you have stated numerous times on past topics that you do not believe in the two-state solution, that it is dead, that it is "unjust". Now, when it suits, you're all for it. Other than the dishonesty on display, yet another cop out failing to address points made, or even back up what you previously posted. As for the last bit - it is doubtful a Biden administration would make dramatic shifts in the USA's position. All the more likely you'll be here pouring scorn on them for failing to embrace your views and act upon them.

 

Deflections, disregard for facts and reality, focusing solely on one side, refusing to address points - that's not a discussion, and one should hope that negotiations (if and when) won't showcase such practices.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Any divisions within Palestinian leadership are the result of an illegal occupation. Israel loves it that way, and fosters the division.

 

Labels are easy. Yesterday's terrorist is tomorrow's political leader. Consider Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Menachem Begin, to name but a very few.

 

If the killing of innocent civilians is the touchstone for terrorism IMO. Then the IDF more than qualifies.

 

 

Again making bogus claims, not even bothering to substantiate them. If one was to accept your premise, could it be assumed that the various factions represented in Palestinian politics and society were always united, prior to the occupation? Or do you actually imagine that the occupation gone, Palestinian politics will experience instant harmony? What, exactly, prevents the PA and the Hamas from coming to terms among themselves?

 

Israel may or may not foster the division. And the case for it being useful or damaging can be made in equal measures. Again, not a fact as presented, but your own biased opinion.

 

labels apply until the path of terrorism and violence is rejected. The Hamas is not there yet. If and when, then it will probably be an acceptable partner for negotiations. Not too complicated. I seriously doubt you can equate Hamas with MLK, or Gandhi. It is not the killing of innocents that determines the label of terrorist, but  the intent, and/or the efforts to avoid such casualties.

 

All of this was covered on past topics numerous times. And it still doesn't change the fact of Palestinian schism, Hamas not subscribing to such negotiations, or it being regarded as a terrorist organization. You are welcome to continue deflecting.

 

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It’s the government of Abbas that the UN recognized not Hamas. You may have missed the current Hamas’s position in that they have abandon the ideology of Israel destruction but will accept a Palestine state in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fatah and Hamas in an internal political struggle and trying to form a unity government. 

 

You may want to check which side won the last elections (quite a while back), and how that panned out. Claiming recognition is all very fine, but what meaning does it hold when the government in question does not enjoy popular support, and cannot commit on behalf of its people?

 

You misrepresent Hamas ideology, even factoring the "changes" made a few years ago. For starters, Hamas adopted a new set of resolutions, but did not cancel the previous ones. This offers a fall back option at any given time. Also, what you claim they would "accept" is incorrect - that is framed as a temporary state of things, there was no abandonment of the getting-it-all-back notion, and there was no recognition of Israel or its right to exist. The rhetoric expressed day in, day out, remains the same.

 

As for the unity government efforts - such "efforts" been going on, mostly for show, for years now. Most of the time no side budges much, and when some headway is made, it holds for a only a short while. That you wish to paint it as a serious endeavor is understandable, but simply at a disconnect with fact and reality.

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Get a grip will mean we have to go back in history to 1948 and the Zionist mission of acquiring Palestine’s land without its native population. In the following 72 years of Israel’s existence, that aim never wavered. They did mass expulsions in 1947-1949 and in 1967 and on-going campaign of ethnic cleansing. 
 

Getting a grip will also meant that it’s an existential moment in Palestine history that confronts Palestinians with hard choices and little time. US as Israel backer is encouraging annexation and is alarming to cause reaction for resumption on armed struggle. The political discourse is all about Palestine statehood for the 5 million stateless with no rights Palestinians. 

 

What you've posted have little to do with my post, or even the original post in this mini-exchange. How does the above relate to the Palestinian schism? To Hamas not subscribing to the politics alluded to on the OP and comments? What does it have to do with the two Palestinian leaderships being essentially unelected? Or with the Hamas being regarded as a terrorist organization?

 

Spin things as you like, but the fact is that Israel's politics (and indeed, Zionism) is hardly as monolithic as you and other posters present. There are significant forces within Israel who do not subscribe to the sort of politics and positions you describe. As opposed to your claim, the USA did not actually encourage the annexation move, to the extent that some of the people involved were acting or speaking against it.

 

Interesting to note that like other Palestinian "supporters" on here, there's very little by way of accepting any criticism whatsoever, even if it's firmly grounded by fact or even represents Palestinian views. Seems like for some posters, Palestinians are somehow exempt from being held accountable and responsible for choices made, actions taken and the like. That's not much of basis for discussion, let alone negotiations.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

That you claim some extreme view or position is "fact", doesn't make it into such. Hence, there's is nothing to "ignore". Same goes for the rest of them facts-which-are-really-opinions peppering your tirades.

 

I've no idea why you imagine it would be a good idea for the illegal settlers to remain in place, or how it relates to anything I've posted. Guess it's just another deflection offered as a way of not addressing the points made in my posts.

 

As opposed to your "current" (actually more like ad hoc, one topic) position, you have stated numerous times on past topics that you do not believe in the two-state solution, that it is dead, that it is "unjust". Now, when it suits, you're all for it. Other than the dishonesty on display, yet another cop out failing to address points made, or even back up what you previously posted. As for the last bit - it is doubtful a Biden administration would make dramatic shifts in the USA's position. All the more likely you'll be here pouring scorn on them for failing to embrace your views and act upon them.

 

Deflections, disregard for facts and reality, focusing solely on one side, refusing to address points - that's not a discussion, and one should hope that negotiations (if and when) won't showcase such practices.

Illegally occupied for 53 years, Palestinian lives controlled 100% by Israel right down to birth registries, 750,000 Israeli settlers allowed to build all over the West Bank, annexation only temporarily on hold according to Israel's PM. Sounds pretty much like a de facto single state to me. But if you say it isn't, then of course it must be so.

 

Learn to read. The usual disinformation. I did not say it would be a good idea for illegal settlers to remain... just the opposite in fact. I wrote post #60  "Might be a good idea to keep some of them terrorist fanatical Jewish settlers the other side of the green line too" i.e. within Israel's recognised borders.

 

More disinformation. Learn to read. I did not say I was opposed to a two state solution. I wrote within this very thread at post #52 "My preference is for a single democratic state which it will be ultimately because Palestinians and Israelis are geographical neighbors for eternity.
I don't care if it gets there via King Salman's Peace Initiative for a two state solution, which later melds into a EU or US style Confederation."

 

I am not expecting an apology for your disinformation. There never is.

Edited September 8, 2020 by dexterm

[dexterm]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What you've posted have little to do with my post, or even the original post in this mini-exchange. How does the above relate to the Palestinian schism? To Hamas not subscribing to the politics alluded to on the OP and comments? What does it have to do with the two Palestinian leaderships being essentially unelected? Or with the Hamas being regarded as a terrorist organization?

 

Spin things as you like, but the fact is that Israel's politics (and indeed, Zionism) is hardly as monolithic as you and other posters present. There are significant forces within Israel who do not subscribe to the sort of politics and positions you describe. As opposed to your claim, the USA did not actually encourage the annexation move, to the extent that some of the people involved were acting or speaking against it.

 

Interesting to note that like other Palestinian "supporters" on here, there's very little by way of accepting any criticism whatsoever, even if it's firmly grounded by fact or even represents Palestinian views. Seems like for some posters, Palestinians are somehow exempt from being held accountable and responsible for choices made, actions taken and the like. That's not much of basis for discussion, let alone negotiations.

Why doesn't Israel or 3rd party countries moderating possible negotiations make free and fair elections in the West Bank a precondition of such negotiations. Israel controls every other aspect of Palestinian lives. I'm sure it could be arranged through UN observers. At least they'd all be on the same page.

[Eric Loh]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You may want to check which side won the last elections (quite a while back), and how that panned out. Claiming recognition is all very fine, but what meaning does it hold when the government in question does not enjoy popular support, and cannot commit on behalf of its people?

 

You misrepresent Hamas ideology, even factoring the "changes" made a few years ago. For starters, Hamas adopted a new set of resolutions, but did not cancel the previous ones. This offers a fall back option at any given time. Also, what you claim they would "accept" is incorrect - that is framed as a temporary state of things, there was no abandonment of the getting-it-all-back notion, and there was no recognition of Israel or its right to exist. The rhetoric expressed day in, day out, remains the same.

 

As for the unity government efforts - such "efforts" been going on, mostly for show, for years now. Most of the time no side budges much, and when some headway is made, it holds for a only a short while. That you wish to paint it as a serious endeavor is understandable, but simply at a disconnect with fact and reality.

Hamas won and their term under the constitution has expired in 2010. What that got to do with the present under Abbas. He has been the president chosen by the PLO Central Council and internationally recognized; not Hamas. That’s their political system that we have to accept. We might get an inclusive election soon if Hamas or even Israel will agree to participate. Palestine is much fractured with many as much as 8 different factions including Hamas. They have their own power struggle like other countries. 
 

Hamas’s ideology has shifted but you see different. That’s your opinion. However that shift has been enable Israel to negotiate a peace plan with Hamas. Yes negotiating other the terrorists. 
 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Illegally occupied for 53 years, Palestinian lives controlled 100% by Israel right down to birth registries, 750,000 Israeli settlers allowed to build all over the West Bank, annexation only temporarily on hold according to Israel's PM. Sounds pretty much like a de facto single state to me. But if you say it isn't, then of course it must be so.

 

Learn to read. The usual disinformation. I did not say it would be a good idea for illegal settlers to remain... just the opposite in fact. I wrote post #60  "Might be a good idea to keep some of them terrorist fanatical Jewish settlers the other side of the green line too" i.e. within Israel's recognised borders.

 

More disinformation. Learn to read. I did not say I was opposed to a two state solution. I wrote within this very thread at post #52 "My preference is for a single democratic state which it will be ultimately because Palestinians and Israelis are geographical neighbors for eternity.
I don't care if it gets there via King Salman's Peace Initiative for a two state solution, which later melds into a EU or US style Confederation."

 

I am not expecting an apology for your disinformation. There never is.

 

That you choose to label Israel as something conforming to your agenda doesn't mean a whole lot. And the liberties you take with facts continue - not all the Palestinians live 100% under Israel's control. The ones in the Gaza Strip, for example. Spin away. It's easy enough to criticize Israel's policies and actions without going over the top as you do, can't see the attraction of frothing.

 

Yes, sorry, sometimes not fully following your incoherent rants and mistakes made. So now...what was the point you tried to make? Regarding having Israeli extremists within Israel borders, that is? You somehow imagine there aren't any? That they are all concentrated in the West Bank? What are you on about? What are you muddled posts based on? Spin it, but it's still a nothing comment.

 

Oh, there is no disinformation. You have clearly expressed disdain for the two-state solution on more than one past topic. You have declared the two-state solution dead. You going to try and deny this?  That on this topic you claim a different view is, as pointed out, more to do with political opportunism. Other than in your posts, the end-result of a two-state solution is neither a one-state solution nor a confederacy. That you keep ignoring the wishes of the people involved in favor of your own views is quite telling.

 

No disinformation in my post, no apology required. Now, how about actually addressing points made rather than focusing solely on your own narrative?

 

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

51 minutes ago, Morch said:

Interesting to note that like other Palestinian "supporters" on here, there's very little by way of accepting any criticism whatsoever, even if it's firmly grounded by fact or even represents Palestinian views. Seems like for some posters, Palestinians are somehow exempt from being held accountable and responsible for choices made, actions taken and the like. That's not much of basis for discussion, let alone negotiations.

Stop taking cheap shots at those who have their opinion. I support a peaceful settlement and sick to death with the continuing carnage. No way I support the Palestine nor Israel. Both have done immeasurable griefs and have contributed in uncertain measures to the world instability. I am advocating an inclusive peace negotiation along the lines of Camp David. 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Why doesn't Israel or 3rd party countries moderating possible negotiations make free and fair elections in the West Bank a precondition of such negotiations. Israel controls every other aspect of Palestinian lives. I'm sure it could be arranged through UN observers. At least they'd all be on the same page.

 

I'm not sure what are you on about. The Palestinians carried out their last elections without any assistance from Israel, and with the presence of international observers. That the Palestinians need to mend things between the divided factions, and that this is essential for negotiations to be meaningful is neither a new idea or notion. It's been discussed on these topics previously - with your "input" often being dismissive or disconnected from the reality of Palestinian politics (as seen above).

 

Palestinians are unlikely to welcome direct Israeli involvement in their elections, and the results of such are bound to be contested. Doubt you didn't think about that.

 

Attempts by third parties to mediate between the PA and the Hamas, went nowhere, to date. Egypt is one of the major players, Qatar too. The UN is involved on other levels, mostly trying to keep some basic semblance of cooperation on humanitarian issues between the factions.

 

Still trying to figure why would you expect others (Israel, the UN) to handle both Palestinian elections and healing their national divide. How come this isn't the Palestinians' responsibility?

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Hamas won and their term under the constitution has expired in 2010. What that got to do with the present under Abbas. He has been the president chosen by the PLO Central Council and internationally recognized; not Hamas. That’s their political system that we have to accept. We might get an inclusive election soon if Hamas or even Israel will agree to participate. Palestine is much fractured with many as much as 8 different factions including Hamas. They have their own power struggle like other countries. 
 

Hamas’s ideology has shifted but you see different. That’s your opinion. However that shift has been enable Israel to negotiate a peace plan with Hamas. Yes negotiating other the terrorists. 
 

 

And Abbas was elected/chosen by who's votes? Did Hamas representatives participate? Vote for him? Does it sink in that Hamas is not some fringe movement, but represents a significant portion of the Palestinians? (possibly even a majority). You can talk all you like about "political system", but what I mention is not alien to Palestinian's own criticism. That Abbas enjoys international recognition is not the issue. That he does not necessarily represent his people, their wishes, or have firm popular support is.

 

If you think that sticking with formality or ignoring reality are good recipes for things not going pear shaped, guess we'll have to disagree.

 

Not sure how you meant "even Israel will agree to participate". And yes, many countries got issues with political struggles. In most countries these do not descend into open armed hostilities, territorial splits and the like. When that's the case, the usual international focus would be to first mediate between the two factions. Trying to tie it to sorting out a long standing conflict with a third party seems a bit much.

 

No, Hamas ideology did not shift. The main reason for the changes made was political necessity - had to distance themselves from some of the tenets of the Islamic Brotherhood, for example, in order for some backers to maintain support and relations. Other than cosmetic changes, there is no real "shift" as you claim. This too was thoroughly discussed on many a past topic, and claims such as yours debunked. If that's not enough for you, just consult the usual fare from Hamas spokespersons and leaders - preferably the Arab version, often differing from the outside consumption English statements. 

 

Israel does not negotiate "peace" with Hamas. There are various talks and negotiations, through third parties, which revolve around local issues associated with the Gaza Strip. Nothing on par comprehensive peace agreements and the like.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Stop taking cheap shots at those who have their opinion. I support a peaceful settlement and sick to death with the continuing carnage. No way I support the Palestine nor Israel. Both have done immeasurable griefs and have contributed in uncertain measures to the world instability. I am advocating an inclusive peace negotiation along the lines of Camp David. 

 

Stop mutilating my posts - the reasoning for my comment could be figured from the part you cut off. You may claim impartiality or whatever. Your posts tell a different story - you criticize one of the sides almost exclusively, you support hyperbole one-sided posts, you air statements which are not grounded in fact or reality, but in wishful thinking.

 

Peace negotiations would require both sides to own up, be accountable, and responsible for many things. Some members, though, post as if it's a one way street. Kinda hard taking posters claims to objectivity and impartiality seriously when their comments are peppered with over emotive baggage or sneaky biased bits.

[bermondburi]

On 9/7/2020 at 3:06 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

^^ The crown doesn't rule Saudi, the religious do, but they allow the crown to think they do, IMO.

 

I don't often support anything Saudi, but I hope they stay the course.

Not these days. 

[polpott]

6 minutes ago, bermondburi said:

Not these days. 

The Wahhabi have a veto over anything the Saudi government decide to do.

[bermondburi]

On 9/7/2020 at 10:04 AM, Thorgal said:

It’s actually the Saudi royal dynasty that controls the holy cities of Islam nowadays.

 

They’ve ousted the Jordanian guards out of Mekkah and Medina since the 3rd Kingdom of Al Saud. Historically, those Jordanian religious guards have protected religious cities like Jerusalem, Mekkah and Medina.

Those Jordanian guards in Islam had the same religious status like the Swiss guards in Catholic Vatican.

 

Royal Saudi family originates from tribes coming from norther region close to Kuwait and Qatar.

     

US, Israel and KSA are nations created by illegal conquest.

They should not dictate the Palestinians.

House of Saudi has its origins in Central region. The first Saudi state was the Emirate of Diriyah, just outside where modern day Riyadh is today. 

Also, Qatar is to the East, not the North. 

 

[bermondburi]

On 9/7/2020 at 10:46 AM, Morch said:

 

Yes, once the old king is out, and the new guy is in, there may be some changes. But until that happens, he's been effectively reprimanded by this statement. As for "no fan of the Palestinians", maybe so, but that does not imply his a fan of Israel, either. He does what he thinks best for his country and himself, not necessarily in that order. A very modern thinker? There were some reforms, there is an acknowledgement that KSA must change. But at the same time, still a very authoritative leader, without certain inhibitions regarding what is acceptable and what not.

Been in saudi 8 years now. The changes over the past couple of years have been amazing. I don't just mean the actual laws, but also the actions of the people themselves. What previously I would never have believed possible has become so commonplace to not even deserve mention. Even in the provincial city I live in, which is in one of the most conservative areas of the country. 

[bermondburi]

7 minutes ago, polpott said:

The Wahhabi have a veto over anything the Saudi government decide to do.

I repeat. Not these days. Clerics not toeing the party line have been jailed. 

[Thorgal]

5 hours ago, bermondburi said:

House of Saudi has its origins in Central region. The first Saudi state was the Emirate of Diriyah, just outside where modern day Riyadh is today. 

Also, Qatar is to the East, not the North. 

 

House of Saud descendants originated all from tribal Bedouins living and migrating in tents.

They stayed for a longer time around Riyadh (Neyd) because they had to reign and deal with other tribes that supported their kingdom after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Mekkah and Medina were part of Hejaz (Hashemites) , controlled under the Ottoman Empire.

Nejd, the other region of KSA was never under Ottoman Empire.

Nejd and Hijaz came under British protectorate after WW1. This protectorate also included a large part of Iraq, Jordan and Palestine.

Creation of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE and Oman (all part from Nejd) happened thanks to the British governance in that time.

The British empire arranged that Nejd and Hijaz were given to the House of Sauds.

Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, Iraq and Jordan were also given autonomy by the British empire.

 

Those were countries that the House of Saud had always difficulties to control in terms of independence.

Also Yemen.

 

Ethnic roots of the House of Saud, as I said, can be found in the north of KSA (close to Iraq) , Qatar and Kuwait.

They migrated/fled to the south for religious, economic reasons, but also due to the influence of the Ottoman Empire.

 

 

 

[bermondburi]

I prefer to start with physical roots. How far back do you want to go, to Ishmael? 

 

Anyways.... From Wikipedia.... 

 

Saud ibn Muhammad ibn Muqrin (died 1725).^[1] Ibn Saud's family (then known as the Al Muqrin) traced its descent to the tribe of Banu Audi and Hanifa tribes but, despite popular misconceptions, Muhammad ibn Saud was neither a nomadic bedouin nor was he a tribal leader. Rather, he was the chief (emir) of an agricultural settlement near modern-day Riyadh, called Diriyah

 

[Morch]

Quote

Palestinians set to soften stance on UAE-Israel normalisation: draft statement

 

A draft resolution presented by the Palestinian envoy, a copy of which was seen by Reuters, does not include a call to condemn, or act against, the Emirates over the U.S.-brokered deal.

 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also issued instructions on Tuesday banning any offensive statements or actions towards Arab leaders, including UAE rulers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/palestinians-set-soften-stance-uae-152221259.html

 

Now, compare the above with the vehemence on offer in many of the posts above. It's not so important whether Abbas was pressured into changing his stance or whether he figured it wasn't doing his people any good. The bottom line is, that at least on some level, reality's constraints must be addressed. In this case, the Palestinians got another wake up call as to their current place in the greater scheme of things. Basically, it says support is still there, but not at any price and not subject to approval by the Palestinians either.

 

It doesn't imply that the Palestinian issue is off the table. It simply recognizes that countries involve have other issues to contend with, and different priorities.

 

I fully expect that Abbas will be condemned for this change of stance, by the likes of Hamas, and wannabee activists invested in the "struggle" and "cause". It is also expected that comments about the Palestinian people not being consulted, or references to Abbas's rule being authoritative, undemocratic and whatnot will now be "legit", regardless of such rejected a few days back.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/7/2020 at 5:27 PM, melvinmelvin said:

the US has since quite long used/spent all her chips in the middle east, (so has UK),

and they (the chips) will never come back

The current disaster, IMO, is entirely of Britain's making. When they ran away and left Palestine to the UN it laid the foundations for all the bad things that have happened in Palestine since.

 

NB the terrorists that frightened Britain were not Arabs, but Zionists, including a future PM. IMO pathetic that a few terrorists could make a country that used to rule a large part of the world run away.

[spiekerjozef]

No picknick table without a cloth.

[simple1]

On 9/10/2020 at 9:53 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

The current disaster, IMO, is entirely of Britain's making. When they ran away and left Palestine to the UN it laid the foundations for all the bad things that have happened in Palestine since.

 

NB the terrorists that frightened Britain were not Arabs, but Zionists, including a future PM. IMO pathetic that a few terrorists could make a country that used to rule a large part of the world run away.

Many issues you haven't taken into consideration.

 

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