Bahrain follows Emirates in normalizing ties with Israel

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

And you obfuscate by focusing not on the letter but cherrypick on the follow up when Israel did nothing to reciprocate the olive branch gesture. The Palestinian letter of recognition came first. Why did Israel do nothing about it?

 

>>that the Hamas does not recognize Israel with all that this implies.
..all that implies is that if anyone, Hamas or fanatical Jewish settlers, make trouble after a majority accepted peace agreement, let the law deal with them.

The IRA dont accept UK sovereignty over Northern Ireland, but they can live in peace and respect the Good Friday Agreement. All is possible if you try.

 

>>And the opposite is true for the Palestinian side.
...what's the Israeli issue???...they want more land? They don't want non Jewish immigrants? They want to remain a Jewish state...that's easy...two states.

>>You did not have much issues with the UAE and Bahrain being oppressive dictatorships, so long as they towed the line.
...wrong! I have criticized Dubai's treatment of foreign workers, and Bahrain's human rights record. Can only address what topics the selectors include.
 

 

It is no obfuscation. You insist on simplistic, partial take on events, presenting them as a full account. I am correcting your misleading narrative. It is not true that Israel did not "do anything" in response - it did the thing it committed to doing, begin negotiations. That was the framework. You're unhappy that it was not different? Alright. But there was no requirement, obligation or anything of the sort you imply. Other than saying it was, in your opinion, unfair, what is your point?

 

As for the Hamas your comments are not based on fact, or reality. For starters, the "majority" you are on about is unclear, undecided and shall remain so until the Palestinians manage to bridge their divide. Even then, accepting democratic results in a peaceful manner and coming to terms with political rivals are not the hallmark of Palestinian politics. Let the "law" deal with them? What "law"? Are you ignorant of Hamas being armed and unwilling to surrender weapons or transfer control of such? Are you suggesting that the PA can take on the Hamas? Or that such a civil war would do a service to either the Palestinians or the prospects of peace? 

 

Both sides have issues. That you recognize only one side's claims and wishes as legitimate is immaterial and unhelpful. Disregarding religious nutters and their agenda (both sides got them), then Israel's issues can be roughly reduced to those related to security and demographics. The latter would require a rather elaborate system of controls and safeguards - doable, though fragile, and probably be an obstacle to the development of the Palestinian state for years to come. The latter would require the Palestinians to drop the Right of Return thing and officially, publicly renounce claims regarding the land. Given the Palestinian narrative and rhetoric, plus religious implications, and the way such things were (mis)handled in the past (re recognition), it's going to be hard to accomplish, IMO. Of course, if it comes to this, Israel will have to overcome political opposition, and deal with the more extreme elements of the illegal settler population. Same as it was on past occasions, but on steroids. All this was covered on past topics.

 

You did not and do not express much issues with oppressive regimes, so long as they tow the line and support the Palestinians in a manner you approve of. These last few topics are a fine example of this, if such were needed. The objections only come up when the diplomatic position shifts. And, of course, not  much said about oppression carried out by the PA and the Hamas vs. Palestinians.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

You need to read more widely - such as:  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-palestinian-letters-of-mutual-recognition-september-1993

 

You also need to get a grip and slow down - there has been bad things done by both sides - but far more done by the PLO/PLA/Hamas - they are terrorists.

Terrorists plant bombs on buses, shoot roickets into civilian areas, kill people at Munich Olympics, and on and on and on.

 

By the way - hate to burst your bubble - but there are no 'palestinian people' - they are/were Jordanians. They are displaced after the 1967 war and Jordan refused to take their radical islamic terrorists back into their country after the war.  The bulldust rubbish UN anti-Israel resolutions that decided that there is am 'entity' called Palestine that encompasses the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem as its capital, is a total fabrication of appeasement. Seriously - are you saying that Israel must give up all that to obtain peace with terrorists?  Do you possibly think that Israel will ever give up Jerusalem and all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and allow all of its Jewish heritage to be destroyed by the radical islamists?  Mate - the radical islamists should have left Israel alone in 1967 - they were sytamatically destroying all Jewish heritage on 'their' side of the 1949 borders - despite the UN denouncing and demanding they stop. If you think that all borders should go back to some point in time, when will you stop - WW2? WW1? Napolean? Sorry - but the norders are were they are now - end of story - Jerusalem is part of Israel (again) and it always will be in our lifetime.  

 

>>You need to read more widely - such as: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-palestinian-letters-of-mutual-recognition-september-1993
..I did. Virtually exact replica of letter on the Israeli Government site. What's your point? 

 

You do realise that more innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed by fanatical Jewish terrorist settlers than Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets?

 

The rest just lame memes out of the Zionist apologist play book...debunked many times. 

Very handy when Europeans are colonising to claim the indigenous people are invisible. Australia was once called Terra Nullius (Nobody's Land).

Re the population figures for Palestine, try your favourite source.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html

 

Other than ethnic cleansing Vers 3.0 the 4.5 million indigenous Palestinians is an issue Israel must address to have permanent peace. Not sure that the Emirati and Bahraini dictators are now worried too much about that...too busy counting the $$ from their new trade deals with Israel.

Edited September 13, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

You need to read more widely - such as:  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-palestinian-letters-of-mutual-recognition-september-1993

 

You also need to get a grip and slow down - there has been bad things done by both sides - but far more done by the PLO/PLA/Hamas - they are terrorists.

Terrorists plant bombs on buses, shoot roickets into civilian areas, kill people at Munich Olympics, and on and on and on.

 

By the way - hate to burst your bubble - but there are no 'palestinian people' - they are/were Jordanians. They are displaced after the 1967 war and Jordan refused to take their radical islamic terrorists back into their country after the war.  The bulldust rubbish UN anti-Israel resolutions that decided that there is am 'entity' called Palestine that encompasses the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem as its capital, is a total fabrication of appeasement. Seriously - are you saying that Israel must give up all that to obtain peace with terrorists?  Do you possibly think that Israel will ever give up Jerusalem and all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and allow all of its Jewish heritage to be destroyed by the radical islamists?  Mate - the radical islamists should have left Israel alone in 1967 - they were sytamatically destroying all Jewish heritage on 'their' side of the 1949 borders - despite the UN denouncing and demanding they stop. If you think that all borders should go back to some point in time, when will you stop - WW2? WW1? Napolean? Sorry - but the norders are were they are now - end of story - Jerusalem is part of Israel (again) and it always will be in our lifetime.  

 

 

Let me burst your bubble - you do not get to decide if the Palestinians are a People. That's up to them. It can be claimed that asserting such a sentiment is a relatively new development, or that it was in a large part a reaction to Zionism (and later, Israel). For all intents and purposes, the Palestinians are recognized as a people. Don't see the point of arguing otherwise.

 

Your account of the Palestinians' relations with Jordan is (again) messed up. It serves to highlight that the national sense was not all that strong back then, but things have changed since. Jordan's issues were less to do with radical Islam, and more with the danger of secular political violence.

 

Radical Islam was not really a thing in the time and context you refer to.

 

The PA is not considered as "terrorist" by anyone. Up until a short time ago it carried out tight security cooperation with Israel. Like it or not, Israel have negotiated with them, with the premise of control (even if not full) transferred to the Palestinians.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

Well said.  There is fault on both sides opf this issue.  How anyone can take the view that palestininas have not been undertaking acts of terrorism over many decades, is beyond me.  Until PLA/PLO/Ham,as all denounce violence and then stop committing vioolence - for at least 5 years or more - then there is no point in talking to them and I support Israel 100% in that approach.   

 

The PA (and the PLO, obviously) have officially renounced terrorism and violence. Nowadays they are mostly focused on diplomacy. Hamas is a different kettle of fish, and conflating between them or lumping them together is uninformed and unhelpful. I do not wish to paint the PA (PLO) as a bunch of saints. They aren't. But as far as direct involvement in acts of violence and terrorism, it's not on for some time now.

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It is no obfuscation. You insist on simplistic, partial take on events, presenting them as a full account. I am correcting your misleading narrative. It is not true that Israel did not "do anything" in response - it did the thing it committed to doing, begin negotiations. That was the framework. You're unhappy that it was not different? Alright. But there was no requirement, obligation or anything of the sort you imply. Other than saying it was, in your opinion, unfair, what is your point?

 

As for the Hamas your comments are not based on fact, or reality. For starters, the "majority" you are on about is unclear, undecided and shall remain so until the Palestinians manage to bridge their divide. Even then, accepting democratic results in a peaceful manner and coming to terms with political rivals are not the hallmark of Palestinian politics. Let the "law" deal with them? What "law"? Are you ignorant of Hamas being armed and unwilling to surrender weapons or transfer control of such? Are you suggesting that the PA can take on the Hamas? Or that such a civil war would do a service to either the Palestinians or the prospects of peace? 

 

Both sides have issues. That you recognize only one side's claims and wishes as legitimate is immaterial and unhelpful. Disregarding religious nutters and their agenda (both sides got them), then Israel's issues can be roughly reduced to those related to security and demographics. The latter would require a rather elaborate system of controls and safeguards - doable, though fragile, and probably be an obstacle to the development of the Palestinian state for years to come. The latter would require the Palestinians to drop the Right of Return thing and officially, publicly renounce claims regarding the land. Given the Palestinian narrative and rhetoric, plus religious implications, and the way such things were (mis)handled in the past (re recognition), it's going to be hard to accomplish, IMO. Of course, if it comes to this, Israel will have to overcome political opposition, and deal with the more extreme elements of the illegal settler population. Same as it was on past occasions, but on steroids. All this was covered on past topics.

 

You did not and do not express much issues with oppressive regimes, so long as they tow the line and support the Palestinians in a manner you approve of. These last few topics are a fine example of this, if such were needed. The objections only come up when the diplomatic position shifts. And, of course, not  much said about oppression carried out by the PA and the Hamas vs. Palestinians.

The 67 borders negotiable but make them fair land swaps, East Jerusalem capital of a two state Palestine non negotiable, right return of Palestinian refugees has to be acknowledged.

 

Of course if Israel says all these things are non negotiable, then share the land, and work out out some modus of living together. I can offer many ways if the topic ever comes up again.

 

In the meantime all Palestinians need do is stay put. Its their land. 

 

If the topic selectors presented as a subject human rights abuses in Bahrain, UAE, Saudi, Syria, Iran, Cambodia, China and many other places, just watch me post. But the fare usually on offer is Brexit, Trump, and opportunities for redneck and Islamophobic hatefests

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Trouble is, in the 21st century you can't conquer land, take it as your own, and transfer your population there...it is against the Geneva Convention and international law, whoever you think started it...and I disagree with you there, but that's not for this discussion.  If it were allowed, every powerful nation would be at it. Law of the jungle. Chaos.

Your ancestors and probably some of mine too did it and got away with it, because it was centuries ago. Zionist European colonialists left their run on empire about 100 years too late (1897 first Zionist Congress).

If Indonesia invaded and occupied Northern Australia, I expect a condition of permanent peace with them, might be that they give back the land first, then talk about any other issues.

 

You ignore that post 1967, the Arab World and the Palestinians adopted a rejectionist approach - refusing recognition, normalization or compromise with Israel. That was how things stood for a long while, and the setup which allowed for things to get out of hand. There was no such general willingness to talk peace regardless of the conquered territories being handed back.

 

You also ignore that nobody expected or expects Israel to simply hand over such territories without, at the very least, having a reasonable answer for related security issues.

 

Make up all the imaginary scenarios you like, doesn't change facts or reality.

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

The 67 borders negotiable but make them fair land swaps, East Jerusalem capital of a two state Palestine non negotiable, right return of Palestinian refugees has to be acknowledged.

 

Of course if Israel says all these things are non negotiable, then share the land, and work out out some modus of living together. I can offer many ways if the topic ever comes up again.

 

In the meantime all Palestinians need do is stay put. Its their land. 

 

If the topic selectors presented as a subject human rights abuses in Bahrain, UAE, Saudi, Syria, Iran, Cambodia, China and many other places, just watch me post. But the fare usually on offer is Brexit, Trump, and opportunities for redneck and Islamophobic hatefests

 

As said on many occasions, you can't even make a simple statement without taking a swipe at Israel. That's hardly the sort of rhetoric to promote anything resembling peace.

 

Security issues, by themselves, can be addressed in many ways. However their implications are almost certain to cause problems negatively effecting relations. Freedom of movement, transport, broadcast, speech and so on are bound to be effected. Mostly on the Palestinian side, that is.

 

Dropping the Right of Return claim, renouncing further territorial claims and officially burying the hatchet - all these will be 100% required for an agreement to materialize. Any of these left in place could serve as the basis for resurgence of the conflict. Each represents a tough, momentous decision to take.

 

Your various "offers" as to how to do things rarely bear much relation to facts on the ground, or exhibit experience and familiarity with either people. Kinda doubt your input would be helpful.

 

The view that the Palestinians need to do nothing is, partially, what brought them to the sad state they are in. That you refuse to acknowledge this fact won't make it go away. That you have no issue recommending people will simply go on like this is sad as well. Leading from behind the keyboard is easy enough, I guess. 

 

The deflection regarding human rights is pathetic. All the recent topics discussed are not focused on the human rights situation in relevant countries - and yet you go on and on about them. All of these countries and others were discussed on past topics - where you did not have much to say about human rights and such, as they towed the line. The point with regard to violations of human rights by Palestinian leaderships stands as well. The topic not being about Zionism, rehashing bits of largely unrelated historical detail, and whatnot doesn't stop you from going there - same on any past topic. No reason why human rights issues would be different.

 

 

 

[onebir]

Surprised folks aren't complaining that discussion of Israel is occupying Thaivisa...

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

There has been some crafty rewording in Trump's Plan to alter the status quo of Haram al-Sharif, not the mosque itself Al Aqsa, but now access to allow Jews to pray on Haram al-Sharif itself also.
Full discussion here https://www.972mag.com/temple-mount-jerusalem-uae-israel/ 

 

Maybe the UAE and Bahraini dictators don't read the fine print, but some jihadist may regard them as giving the green light for the encroachment of the Temple Mount Movement, now supported by Likud. Didn't the 9/11 terrorists mention something about one of their motives being the desecration of holy places, simply by the very presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. I don't think its too far removed to surmise some fanatic may decide to hit a soft target.

All too crazy for me, but maybe not for a crazed religious fanatic who most certainly won't be me, and nor would I ever meet the nutjob whatever nationality because I won't be on any of their flights in future.

 

Are you quite serious? Having accused my of "nitpicking", "cherry-picking" you bring up an opinion peace that's goes to a level of detail hanging on a couple of words? Are the analysis and interpretation widely supported?

 

Do you somehow imagine that the agreement with the UAE takes precedence to all other agreements signed by Israel? As in peace agreements with much nearer and more consequential Egypt and Jordan (with the latter directly involved in managing the site). Even by your standards, that's quite a fantastic story - that an interpretation of a clause in a normalization agreement with a country not even directly involved in the conflict or managing the site would change everything.

 

I seriously doubt the UAE rulers and their representatives do not know what they sign. That you routinely present Arab negotiators (Palestinians, usually) as clueless, careless and over-trusting, while accusing me of bigotry and racism is amusing.

 

Your "security" rational would apply to many airlines, not necessarily even those flying to Israel. That you refuse that Palestinians might become involved is cute.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

The 67 borders negotiable but make them fair land swaps, East Jerusalem capital of a two state Palestine non negotiable, right return of Palestinian refugees has to be acknowledged.

 

Of course if Israel says all these things are non negotiable, then share the land, and work out out some modus of living together. I can offer many ways if the topic ever comes up again.

 

In the meantime all Palestinians need do is stay put. Its their land. 

 

If the topic selectors presented as a subject human rights abuses in Bahrain, UAE, Saudi, Syria, Iran, Cambodia, China and many other places, just watch me post. But the fare usually on offer is Brexit, Trump, and opportunities for redneck and Islamophobic hatefests

 

"But the fare usually on offer is Brexit, Trump, and opportunities for redneck and Islamophobic hatefests"

 

Said the poster who's every post is a hatefest.....

 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  Let's stick a little closer to the topic.  

 

[AussieBob18]

19 hours ago, dexterm said:

Trouble is, in the 21st century you can't conquer land, take it as your own, and transfer your population there...it is against the Geneva Convention and international law, whoever you think started it...and I disagree with you there, but that's not for this discussion.  If it were allowed, every powerful nation would be at it. Law of the jungle. Chaos.

Your ancestors and probably some of mine too did it and got away with it, because it was centuries ago. Zionist European colonialists left their run on empire about 100 years too late (1897 first Zionist Congress).

If Indonesia invaded and occupied Northern Australia, I expect a condition of permanent peace with them, might be that they give back the land first, then talk about any other issues.

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

 

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

 

[AussieBob18]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The "ample evidence" you allude to is mostly a thing of the past. The last major instance in which the PA was involved in was during the Second Intifada, and even then it wasn't a full on effort. Since then the security cooperation between Israel and the PA has been one of the cornerstone fighting terrorism by Palestinians in the West Bank.

 

The two points mentioned (return to 1967 lines and the status of Jerusalem) were not, as far as I'm aware a pre-condition for the recognition. I think your timeline is a bit messed up.

 

I am very sure that PLO/PLA has for many years demanded Jerusalem to be given back to them, as well as all the lands taken by Israel during the 1967 war that were not given back to Arab control - even though it was not theirs at anytime.  The UN idiots that decided after WW2 to annex land and form Israel in 1949, thought that handing over part of Jerusalem to Jordan would encourage peace and cooperation. Wrong. There is nothing that PLO/PLA has done that substantially indicates that if they were given land/statehood they seek, that they would accept Israel and cease all terrorist attacks. In fact - everything indicates they would do worse attacks because they would be much closer.

  

 

 

[AussieBob18]

17 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>You need to read more widely - such as: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-palestinian-letters-of-mutual-recognition-september-1993
..I did. Virtually exact replica of letter on the Israeli Government site. What's your point? 

 

You do realise that more innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed by fanatical Jewish terrorist settlers than Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets?

 

The rest just lame memes out of the Zionist apologist play book...debunked many times. 

Very handy when Europeans are colonising to claim the indigenous people are invisible. Australia was once called Terra Nullius (Nobody's Land).

Re the population figures for Palestine, try your favourite source.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html

 

Other than ethnic cleansing Vers 3.0 the 4.5 million indigenous Palestinians is an issue Israel must address to have permanent peace. Not sure that the Emirati and Bahraini dictators are now worried too much about that...too busy counting the $$ from their new trade deals with Israel.

I see you have nothng more to offer than compete biased rubbish.

May I suggest you look into the history of the Temple Mount in detail - both sides of the dispute.

 

 

[AussieBob18]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

Let me burst your bubble - you do not get to decide if the Palestinians are a People. That's up to them. It can be claimed that asserting such a sentiment is a relatively new development, or that it was in a large part a reaction to Zionism (and later, Israel). For all intents and purposes, the Palestinians are recognized as a people. Don't see the point of arguing otherwise.

Your account of the Palestinians' relations with Jordan is (again) messed up. It serves to highlight that the national sense was not all that strong back then, but things have changed since. Jordan's issues were less to do with radical Islam, and mre with the danger of secular political violence.

Radical Islam was not really a thing in the time and context you refer to.

The PA is not considered as "terrorist" by anyone. Up until a short time ago it carried out tight security cooperation with Israel. Like it or not, Israel have negotiated with them, with the premise of control (even if not full) transferred to the Palestinians.

Look around you at the real world. There are 'separatists' everywhere demanding autonomy and control because they are somewhow 'different'. As with all other such disputes, it will be up to the main country involved as to how far they allow 'independence'.  People can call themselves whatever they want - that does not automatically equate to being granted land and statehood from another country.  Will Israel ever support a Palestinian State - maybe - but never while they fear the terrorist attacks that occur all too frequently.  Perhaps you should look at this site to see how radical islamic terroism is a real thing worldwide, and why Israel very much refuses to facilitate a terrorist State on their border.  If you understand Israel's fears that another Iran State would be on their borders - then you can start to understand why they have refused to concede anything much.

As I said before to another - read up on the Temple Mount.  Both Jews and Muslims claim it is theirs - and Muslims have a history of violence when they dont get what they want.  You will learn that the Temple Mount is where the first 2 main Jewish Temples were built - Islamics built their Mosque etc. right on top of that.  Islam took that site off the Jews and had that site for a long time - now it is back in Jews hands and they refuse to ever give it back again.

 

[AussieBob18]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The PA (and the PLO, obviously) have officially renounced terrorism and violence. Nowadays they are mostly focused on diplomacy. Hamas is a different kettle of fish, and conflating between them or lumping them together is uninformed and unhelpful. I do not wish to paint the PA (PLO) as a bunch of saints. They aren't. But as far as direct involvement in acts of violence and terrorism, it's not on for some time now.

Total rubbish. PLA is the 'PR' group for the Islamic Terrorists.  You cannot expect Israel to accept that the PLA will control Hamas or Hezbolla etc. if they got want they wanted.  Until PLA disbands and gets control over their terrorist brothers, there will never be peace with Israel.  

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

I am very sure that PLO/PLA has for many years demanded Jerusalem to be given back to them, as well as all the lands taken by Israel during the 1967 war that were not given back to Arab control - even though it was not theirs at anytime.  The UN idiots that decided after WW2 to annex land and form Israel in 1949, thought that handing over part of Jerusalem to Jordan would encourage peace and cooperation. Wrong. There is nothing that PLO/PLA has done that substantially indicates that if they were given land/statehood they seek, that they would accept Israel and cease all terrorist attacks. In fact - everything indicates they would do worse attacks because they would be much closer.

  

 

 

 

You may be very sure, but your information is surely messed up.

 

It is true that up until the early 90's the PLO's (and sponsor Arab countries') position was a rejectionist, all of nothing one. Since then, the PLO (and following that, the PA's) position changed - accepting the premise of negotiation and compromise. That sides have differing views regarding what's on the table and what is non-negotiable, is another matter.

 

You keep insisting on painting the PLO and the PA as being terrorists. This doesn't conform to present day facts, and been that way for years now.

 

There are several UN resolutions addressing outlines for an agreement between the sides, and these are generally well known. These are not necessarily written in stone edicts on how things will be addressed, but provide a framework and define the core issues. A return to 1967 lines, with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip comprising the Palestinian territory. Power/territorial sharing regarding Jerusalem (this actually refers more to East Jerusalem). A solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees.

 

These core issues are hard to tackle even without complicating factors. But regardless of what you think of them, they constitute the recognized framework for a peace agreement between the sides.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

Look around you at the real world. There are 'separatists' everywhere demanding autonomy and control because they are somewhow 'different'. As with all other such disputes, it will be up to the main country involved as to how far they allow 'independence'.  People can call themselves whatever they want - that does not automatically equate to being granted land and statehood from another country.  Will Israel ever support a Palestinian State - maybe - but never while they fear the terrorist attacks that occur all too frequently.  Perhaps you should look at this site to see how radical islamic terroism is a real thing worldwide, and why Israel very much refuses to facilitate a terrorist State on their border.  If you understand Israel's fears that another Iran State would be on their borders - then you can start to understand why they have refused to concede anything much.

As I said before to another - read up on the Temple Mount.  Both Jews and Muslims claim it is theirs - and Muslims have a history of violence when they dont get what they want.  You will learn that the Temple Mount is where the first 2 main Jewish Temples were built - Islamics built their Mosque etc. right on top of that.  Islam took that site off the Jews and had that site for a long time - now it is back in Jews hands and they refuse to ever give it back again.

 

 

Palestinians asserting their identity as a people is long past the phase where "separatism" can be brought to play as a valid argument.

 

Unless you missed it, there is no "main country". Israel did not annex the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip, so they essentially remain non-Israeli territory. There is no way to make such an annexation happen without further oppression of the Palestinians, and granting them citizenship with associated rights. 

 

Israel routinely conditions any agreement on acceptable security arrangements, and rightly so. That's the sort of thing which applies to the PA - and why they are not considered a terrorists. Obviously, things are different vs. Hamas. I'm not entirely sure what your point was - security arrangements are a given with regard to any agreement anyway.

 

Not being a religious fanatic, or even a religious person, allow me not to get worked up over the holy sites.

I will correct you by pointing out that Israel's 'control' of these sites is more nuanced than you portray, and that the Temple Mount being in "Jews hands" is similarly not quite how things are.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

Total rubbish. PLA is the 'PR' group for the Islamic Terrorists.  You cannot expect Israel to accept that the PLA will control Hamas or Hezbolla etc. if they got want they wanted.  Until PLA disbands and gets control over their terrorist brothers, there will never be peace with Israel.  

 

 

The Palestinian Authority is at odds with the Hamas. That's a fact. In what way they are a "'PR' group for the Islamic Terrorists." is unclear, and no explanation/support are provided.

 

Nothing in my posts saying I expect what you relay, or even that Israel expects it. Barking up the wrong tree. That's the basis for one of my standing comments, regarding Palestinian reconciliation, and unified position denouncing violence and terrorism being essential for things to move forward. Hezbollah, by the way, has little to do with either PA or Hamas if referencing 'control'.

 

The PA disbanding? What are you on about? Seems like your narrative got stuck in the 70's or 80's. Much happened and changed since then.

[AussieBob18]

On 9/14/2020 at 2:53 PM, Morch said:

 

The Palestinian Authority is at odds with the Hamas. That's a fact. In what way they are a "'PR' group for the Islamic Terrorists." is unclear, and no explanation/support are provided.

 

Nothing in my posts saying I expect what you relay, or even that Israel expects it. Barking up the wrong tree. That's the basis for one of my standing comments, regarding Palestinian reconciliation, and unified position denouncing violence and terrorism being essential for things to move forward. Hezbollah, by the way, has little to do with either PA or Hamas if referencing 'control'.

 

The PA disbanding? What are you on about? Seems like your narrative got stuck in the 70's or 80's. Much happened and changed since then.

I will respond to your last 3 replies in 1 - and we shall agree to disagree I think.  This is from a website that is linked:

 

In 2006, a Sunni Islamist militant group called Hamas won the majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

Conflict between the ruling Fatah and Hamas led to violence in 2007, when Hamas defeated Fatah in a battle for Gaza. The two PA areas were run by separate factions, with Fatah ruling the West Bank and Hamas ruling Gaza.

In 2014, Hamas and Fatah agreed to a deal that would form a unified national Palestinian government.

Hamas has a reputation of carrying out terrorist acts. In fact, many countries consider the group to be a terrorist organization, while others regard them as a political party.

Hamas has been on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations since 1997.

 

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/plo

 

May I suggest that instead of only reading/seeing the issue from the liberal and Arab view (and their media outlets), that you also read/see things from the Jewish view (and take a look at their media outlets).  Once you start to really openly honestly see things from both sides, then 2 things will become clear to you:

1. Both sides are at fault and have done the wrong things, but PLO/PLA has done much much worse;

2. The core of the dispute is intractible and goes back thousands of years.

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

I will respond to your last 3 replies in 1 - and we shall agree to disagree I think.  This is from a website that is linked:

 

In 2006, a Sunni Islamist militant group called Hamas won the majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

Conflict between the ruling Fatah and Hamas led to violence in 2007, when Hamas defeated Fatah in a battle for Gaza. The two PA areas were run by separate factions, with Fatah ruling the West Bank and Hamas ruling Gaza.

In 2014, Hamas and Fatah agreed to a deal that would form a unified national Palestinian government.

Hamas has a reputation of carrying out terrorist acts. In fact, many countries consider the group to be a terrorist organization, while others regard them as a political party.

Hamas has been on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations since 1997.

 

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/plo

 

May I suggest that instead of only reading/seeing the issue from the liberal and Arab view (and their media outlets), that you also read/see things from the Jewish view (and take a look at their media outlets).  Once you start to really openly honestly see things from both sides, then 2 things will become clear to you:

1. Both sides are at fault and have done the wrong things, but PLO/PLA has done much much worse;

2. The core of the dispute is intractible and goes back thousands of years.

 

 

You are barking up the wrong tree again. Try and find a single post of mine supportive of Hamas or trying to whitewash it's actions and policies. With all due respect to your link, the 2014 unification effort failed (like all others).

 

May I suggest that you either read posts more carefully, or familiarize yourself with posters' position before making nonsense claims? My comments are not solely based on a liberal or Arab point of view, nor are they solely dependent on such media venues.

 

Once you get a clue, you might realize that claiming both sides are at fault is something often repeated in my posts, even if the who's more at fault bit plays a lesser role. Also, hyperbole aside, the conflict has not been around for thousands of years.

[AussieBob18]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

You are barking up the wrong tree again. Try and find a single post of mine supportive of Hamas or trying to whitewash it's actions and policies. With all due respect to your link, the 2014 unification effort failed (like all others).

May I suggest that you either read posts more carefully, or familiarize yourself with posters' position before making nonsense claims? My comments are not solely based on a liberal or Arab point of view, nor are they solely dependent on such media venues.

Once you get a clue, you might realize that claiming both sides are at fault is something often repeated in my posts, even if the who's more at fault bit plays a lesser role. Also, hyperbole aside, the conflict has not been around for thousands of years.

You are the one that needs a clue buddy. 

If things are like you say/think then there would not be such a problem.

There is a huge problem because things are not what you say/think.

Either way - lets agree to disagree and move on.

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

You are the one that needs a clue buddy. 

If things are like you say/think then there would not be such a problem.

There is a huge problem because things are not what you say/think.

Either way - lets agree to disagree and move on.

 

Waffle.

You haven't even made it clear what things aren't like what I say/thing. Not surprising, as you seem to reply to views I do not even hold.

[AussieBob18]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Waffle.

You haven't even made it clear what things aren't like what I say/thing. Not surprising, as you seem to reply to views I do not even hold.

I have moved on - please do the same. 

[AussieBob18]

 

 

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

 

 

 

 

Maybe so, but doubt the Arab signatories are thrilled. More than likely that the agreements signed uphold the usual framework about Jerusalem's final status being agreed on through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Making such gestures is fine, but doing it on the walls of Jerusalem's old city is not very diplomatic, to put it mildly.