Palestinians say amateur video backs claims of Israeli abuse

[7by7]

Touched a nerve there, didn't I!?

Truth always hurts.

(edited to remove comment added while post immediately below was being typed. That comment now added as a new post.)

Edited November 8, 2015 by 7by7

[Ulysses G.]

The truth? You seem to have no grasp of it. Dexterm is that you out there?

[7by7]

You are right about one thing; the Likud charter does not call for the destruction od the Palestinian state; iinstead, as it says in the quote I used, it calls for one never to be established!

Your comment about not wanting a sworn enemy living next door could equally be applied to the Palestinians; but they are prepared to talk to the Israeli government; even Hamas has been so prepared since at least 2006.

Why wont the Israeli government at least talk to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians, including Hamas, have stated that they will talk, and will accept an Israeli state based on the 1967 borders.

No other details, of course; that's why they're called negotiations rather than unconditional surrender!

Of course, unconditional surrender by the Palestinians and absorption of what remains of Palestine into a Greater Israel appears to be what Netanyahu wants.

Judging by your many ill informed rants; it's certainly what you want!

[Ulysses G.]

You are right about one thing; the Likud charter does not call for the destruction od the Palestinian state; iinstead, as it says in the quote I used, it calls for one never to be established!

Now you got it. Enough with the fake comparisons. Likud does not want their sworn enemies establishing a terrorist base right next door - what a surprise.

Huh? Israel has been talking to the Palestinians for almost 70 years and the Arabs have refused every comprehensive peace deal.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

You are right about one thing; the Likud charter does not call for the destruction od the Palestinian state; iinstead, as it says in the quote I used, it calls for one never to be established!

Now you got it. Enough with the fake comparisons. Likud does not want their sworn enemies establishing a terrorist base right next door - what a surprise.

Huh? Israel has been talking to the Palestinians for almost 70 years and the Arabs have refused every comprehensive peace deal.

Well if Israel does not want 2.5 million Palestinians living next door in a just 2 state solution, looks like they will end up living amongst them, absorbed along with their land into the state of Israel. And no doubt in time as Israel's racist marriage laws are repealed, they will invite their loved ones from the other 8 million in the greater Palestinian diaspora to join them. Excellent news.

Your so called comprehensive peace deals that Israel have offered have never included 100% of land (incl swaps in equal quality and area) occupied in 1967. Which is a huge compromise for Palestinians. Israel gets to keep the rest it occupied in 1948.

The Palestinians have said repeatedly they will accept this deal. It's up to Israel to offer it.Israel holds all the power.

Edited November 9, 2015 by dexterm

[7by7]

<snip>

The Hamas Charter calls for genocide against JEWS - not just Israelis- and the destruction of a living, breathing state. Wholesale murder.

As you often present yourself as an expert on the Hamas charter, maybe you should get round to reading it!

Yes, Article 7 does talk about fighting and killing Jews come the end of the world, but have you read Revelations about the punishment for unbelievers at that time? Not to mention similar sentiments expressed in some of the Epistles?

But coming back to the present; whilst Article 31 The Members of Other Religions The Hamas is a Humane Movement says that members of other religions should live under the sovereignty of Islam, it also says that the rights of members of those religions must be respected.

Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security.

Now, before I am accused otherwise, I am not saying that I agree with or support the charter; far from it. It contains much which I find reprehensible and abhorrent.

But it does not call for genocide of the Jews.

If you want to throw accusations of genocide about; how about commenting on this paragraph from Forget its Charter, Hamas has given de facto recognition to the State of Israel:

During Operation Protective Edge, Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Netanyahu's party, called for the use of concentration camps to deal with the Palestinian population, his parliamentary colleague Ayelet Shaked of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home Party called for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to "little snakes".

Hmmm... a Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem; wonder where they got that idea from!

Hamas may be branded terrorists by some, but it needs to be remembered that paramilitary groups like Lehi (or Stern Gang) Irgun and Haganah (which still exists, only now it's called the IDF) were all at one time considered terrorist organisations.

[Morch]

From May 2006: Hamas Officials Already Recognize Israel's Right to Exist, Apparently

It looks like the topelected officials in the Palestinian Hamas party are signaling that they accept Israel's right to exist. Last week the highest-ranking Hamas leader, Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, told Israel's most prestigious newspaper, Ha'aretz: "If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, peace will prevail and we will implement a cease-fire [hudna] for many years."

A hudna is more than just a "cease-fire." An erudite article in the Encyclopedia of Islam tells us that "hudna in Islamic law is equivalent to 'international treaty' in modern terminology. Its object is to suspend the legal effects of hostilities and to provide the prerequisite conditions of peace between Muslims and non-Muslims, without the latter's territory becoming part of dar al-Islam.'"

From November 2014: Hamas political leader to Amanpour on Israel's right to exist: "I need recognition, not the Israelis"

AMANPOUR: You say you would prefer the route that did not cause so much violence, so much death. And yet, you say that you would accept a two-state solution, but that you will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Is that still the case?

MESHAAL (through translator): First of all, the offer must come from the attacker, from Israel, which has the arsenal, not from the victim. Second, I say to you from 20 years ago and more, the Palestinians and Arabs are offering peace. But peace is destroying peace through aggression and war and killing.

This idea (ph), this touch failed experiences, we have two options. No other. Either there's an international will, led by the U.S. and Europe and the international community and force Israel to go through the way of peace and a Palestinian state, according to the border of 1967 with the right to return. And this is something we have agreed upon as Palestinians, as a common program.

But if Israel can continue to refuse this, either the - either we force them or resist to - resort to resistance. I accept a state of the 1967. How can I accept Israel? They have occupied my land. I need recognition, not the Israelis. This is a reversed question.

Dodging the issue?

I don't think so; he clearly states that he accepts the existence of the state of Israel within it's 1967 borders; but not within the occupied territories.

At this point people usually bring up the Hamas charter; but have you read Likud's?

The Hateful Likud Charter Calls for Destruction of Any Palestinian State

......from the Likud Platform of 1999:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.

The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.........

Some defenders of Israel become indignant at the mention of these realities as scurrilous and spurious because the Likud platform quoted above is just an “old” statement of principles not reflective of the Party’s actions in power. But by that logic, the Hamas Charter, written over 25 years ago, cannot be said to be the sole controlling document of that organization, since much more recent statements and actions by its leadership have, at least some times, included an expressed willingness to pursue a long-term agreement with Israel. Furthermore, Hamas also agreed to join the Palestinian Authority in a unity government that accepts all previous PA agreements with Israel.

Finally, recommended reading: hopefully it will give people some food for thought.

Two Views:

Acknowledging Israel’s “Right to Exist” A Moral Judgment By John V. Whitbeck

The Trap of Recognizing Israel By Jonathan Cook

Guess we're bound to spend more time on the same old nonsense.

As noted earlier, and routinely ignored, all of the Hamas quotes on this matter come with impossible conditions, there is always a political context which elicits the quote, and they will always stop short of going that extra step.

In the first quote, there is no outright recognition of Israel. Spin it as much as you like. It simply re-states one of the Hamas formulations - Israel fully retreats to the 1967 lines and the Hamas, in return, will agree to a Hudna. That is not quite a peace offer, nor an outright recognition of Israel's right to exist. The sole purpose of such statements is to let the Hamas off the hook with regard to troublesome political situations. Nothing more, nothing less.

The relevant troublesome political situations on that occasion were the elections (which Hamas won) and the so-called Prisoner's Document. Both put the Hamas in a situation where expressing its usual stance would have incurred a heave economic and political price (the inflow of aid funds from Western donors, and taking a domestic public opinion hit, respectively). It was not made as a result of Hamas changing its views, but rather as a required temporary adjustment, to fend off an immediate negative outcome. In this regard, it is no different than any of the related similar quotes.

The suggested interpretation of Hudna is more along the lines of wishful thinking, which is odd (or perhaps, not) considering the author. The very need to rely on an ancient religiously rooted construct when referring to a mechanism which is supposed to regulate relationship between two contemporary groups is absurd. This choice is not arbitrary - as subjecting the control over this mechanism to various future religious interpretations allows freedom to alter, break, contest or walk away from agreement, all with religious seal of approval. To the best of my knowledge, there is no practical precedent, nor religious provision for the statement that such a construct would be repeatedly automatically renewed. The interpretation presented ignores the validity of views considering such offers in the context of deceit or of securing a temporary reprieve, until circumstances allow the renewal of the struggle. It by no means implies a permanent recognition of Israel's right to exist.

Describing Haniyeh as the "highest ranking Hamas official", is misleading. Within Hamas's political wing he is second to Khaled Mashal, and the political wing itself is in a complicated balance of power with Hamas's military wing. The notion that the title conveys absolute authority is simply incorrect. The currently dodgy status of all previously elected Palestinian politicians, just goes to show how little meaning such titles hold.

Here is a link to the original article and quote, without the interpretation presented in the link above http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haniyeh-tells-haaretz-withdrawal-to-1967-borders-will-lead-to-peace-1.188410.

The Amanpour interview is more of the same. There is no recognition, only a constant attempt to dodge the issue. Here is the transcript, making it even clearer that nothing of the sort was said. If anything, the effort to avoid a direct answer is even more pronounced http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/21/ampr.01.html.

The Charlie Rose makes this even clearer - http://video.pbs.org/video/2365297457/. The transcript can be found here - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-july-27-2013-netanyahu-mashaal-klimkin-rogers-albright/.

I did not raise the issue of the Hamas Charter, The Likud Constitution of May 2014 is more vague and ambiguous. Though it contains commitments to the strengthening of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, it does not explicitly rule out the establishment of a Palestinian state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#Ideological_positions). If the criteria is to be based on actions - there were three Israeli Prime Ministers either of Likud or with their deep political roots there, which went against the grain of traditional party stance - Begin, Sharon and Olmert. Do tell which similar shifts in position and/or discernible actions attesting to such are evident with regard to Hamas leadership.

Hamas did not join the ill-fated Palestinian "unity" government, as much as it was press ganged into a grudging acceptance of the proposition. Again, one of them troublesome political occasions which led to pressure being applied by Abbas. There were no top tier Hamas leaders on said government, and most of the proclamations that it amounts to Hamas full acceptance of previous agreements were made by Abbas (at the inauguration ceremony), and the media. The Hamas leadership was, for the most part, its usual evading self when it came to committing to anything outright. If participation in a unity government is all it takes to convey change of positions, the Likud was already in similar situation on more than one occasion. Rather, the Hamas position remained ambiguous as ever - that they would accept agreements made by the PA if certain condition apply (the most common ones being implementation of the Right of Return, release of all Palestinian prisoners and agreements being approved by all Palestinians, including those not in the immediate area). The last bit, by the way, is related to the concept of Hudna - as the nature of the general acceptance implied means less than complete commitment.

So once again, no cigar.

The so-called recommended reading is depressingly telling. More a reflection of the poster's own bias than a useful presentation of related information.

Whitbeck, like some on this forum, essentially wishes Israel destroyed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whitbeck), while Cook prolifically berates Israel for being undemocratic, vile and repressive, all while residing in Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Cook). As a bonus, both share an interest in a certain brand of conspiracy theories. Lovely.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Morch

[Linky]

What are Israel's borders?

[Morch]

You are right about one thing; the Likud charter does not call for the destruction od the Palestinian state; iinstead, as it says in the quote I used, it calls for one never to be established!

Your comment about not wanting a sworn enemy living next door could equally be applied to the Palestinians; but they are prepared to talk to the Israeli government; even Hamas has been so prepared since at least 2006.

Why wont the Israeli government at least talk to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians, including Hamas, have stated that they will talk, and will accept an Israeli state based on the 1967 borders.

No other details, of course; that's why they're called negotiations rather than unconditional surrender!

Of course, unconditional surrender by the Palestinians and absorption of what remains of Palestine into a Greater Israel appears to be what Netanyahu wants.

Judging by your many ill informed rants; it's certainly what you want!

As per your first line, might be a good idea to get the argument straight then, rather than letting misreading shape one's arguments.

Hamas is not the "Palestinians". Hamas represents some of the Palestinians. What actual support it represents is unknown, given Palestinian domestic issues. Israel never took upon itself to officially deal or recognize with the Hamas. The acknowledged official representative of the Palestinians was the PLO. Acceptance of the PLO as such was conditioned to certain conditions, which amounted to a public change of stance vs. Israel. How much of this actually took root is a matter of some debate. Hamas chooses not to comply with these conditions, and therefore is not considered an acceptable alternative by the Israelis.

The claim that Israel does not talk to the Palestinians is bogus. There were many rounds of negotiations and there are ongoing dealings and coordination efforts with the PA. Talks not maturing to an agreement is not the sole responsibility of one side, unless we're doing fairy tales now. The Hamas did not state that it would accept an Israeli state based on the 1967 borders. What it says is that it would accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and a hudna (which is not a peace agreement, nor quite the Western notion of truce) - conditioned on other demands being granted. This is not a recognition of Israel as a permanent fixture or a concession that territory beyond the 1967 lines does not belong to the Palestinians.

[Morch]

<snip>

The Hamas Charter calls for genocide against JEWS - not just Israelis- and the destruction of a living, breathing state. Wholesale murder.

As you often present yourself as an expert on the Hamas charter, maybe you should get round to reading it!

Yes, Article 7 does talk about fighting and killing Jews come the end of the world, but have you read Revelations about the punishment for unbelievers at that time? Not to mention similar sentiments expressed in some of the Epistles?

But coming back to the present; whilst Article 31 The Members of Other Religions The Hamas is a Humane Movement says that members of other religions should live under the sovereignty of Islam, it also says that the rights of members of those religions must be respected.

Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security.

Now, before I am accused otherwise, I am not saying that I agree with or support the charter; far from it. It contains much which I find reprehensible and abhorrent.

But it does not call for genocide of the Jews.

If you want to throw accusations of genocide about; how about commenting on this paragraph from Forget its Charter, Hamas has given de facto recognition to the State of Israel:

During Operation Protective Edge, Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Netanyahu's party, called for the use of concentration camps to deal with the Palestinian population, his parliamentary colleague Ayelet Shaked of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home Party called for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to "little snakes".

Hmmm... a Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem; wonder where they got that idea from!

Hamas may be branded terrorists by some, but it needs to be remembered that paramilitary groups like Lehi (or Stern Gang) Irgun and Haganah (which still exists, only now it's called the IDF) were all at one time considered terrorist organisations.

You quote article 7 which clearly does speak about a genocide of the Jews (not, mind, Israelis), only to go on and claim that the Hamas Charter does not call for a genocide of the Jews. All in the same post.

Hamas is not, in fact, a humane movement. The provision for members of other religions is conditioned upon subjugation to Islamic rule. Disregarding certain posters views on so-called Golden Ages, there is not much in the application of present day Islam to inspire hope that this would work out for the best (especially when considering the Middle East).

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Period. The Lehi and the Irgun were terrorist organizations as well, with the difference that they did not constitute the Jewish leadership at the time. Defining the Haganah as a terrorist organization is a relatively tenuous argument (considering a certain level of cooperation with the Brits), as is the claim that it exists today, under the moniker of the IDF.

[Jingthing]

Yes, absolutely, Hamas IS a terrorist organization, and one with a genocidal to Jews charter.

[Ulysses G.]

Anyone who makes claims otherwise, is out and out lying.

[vogie]

What are Israel's borders?

Anywhere they want!

[Linky]

<snip>

The Hamas Charter calls for genocide against JEWS - not just Israelis- and the destruction of a living, breathing state. Wholesale murder.

As you often present yourself as an expert on the Hamas charter, maybe you should get round to reading it!

Yes, Article 7 does talk about fighting and killing Jews come the end of the world, but have you read Revelations about the punishment for unbelievers at that time? Not to mention similar sentiments expressed in some of the Epistles?

But coming back to the present; whilst Article 31 The Members of Other Religions The Hamas is a Humane Movement says that members of other religions should live under the sovereignty of Islam, it also says that the rights of members of those religions must be respected.

Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security.

Now, before I am accused otherwise, I am not saying that I agree with or support the charter; far from it. It contains much which I find reprehensible and abhorrent.

But it does not call for genocide of the Jews.

If you want to throw accusations of genocide about; how about commenting on this paragraph from Forget its Charter, Hamas has given de facto recognition to the State of Israel:

During Operation Protective Edge, Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Netanyahu's party, called for the use of concentration camps to deal with the Palestinian population, his parliamentary colleague Ayelet Shaked of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home Party called for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to "little snakes".

Hmmm... a Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem; wonder where they got that idea from!

Hamas may be branded terrorists by some, but it needs to be remembered that paramilitary groups like Lehi (or Stern Gang) Irgun and Haganah (which still exists, only now it's called the IDF) were all at one time considered terrorist organisations.

You quote article 7 which clearly does speak about a genocide of the Jews (not, mind, Israelis), only to go on and claim that the Hamas Charter does not call for a genocide of the Jews. All in the same post.

Hamas is not, in fact, a humane movement. The provision for members of other religions is conditioned upon subjugation to Islamic rule. Disregarding certain posters views on so-called Golden Ages, there is not much in the application of present day Islam to inspire hope that this would work out for the best (especially when considering the Middle East).

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Period. The Lehi and the Irgun were terrorist organizations as well, with the difference that they did not constitute the Jewish leadership at the time. Defining the Haganah as a terrorist organization is a relatively tenuous argument (considering a certain level of cooperation with the Brits), as is the claim that it exists today, under the moniker of the IDF.

Hamas is also not a leadership of Palestinians.

[7by7]

Morch,

Before attempting to destroy my arguments; don't misquote me in your text and don't ignore the qualifications etc. I placed in my original posts.

Because you did both those things, I simply refer readers back to my original posts as they already contain ripostes to every thing you have subsequently said.

[Morch]

Morch,

Before attempting to destroy my arguments; don't misquote me in your text and don't ignore the qualifications etc. I placed in my original posts.

Because you did both those things, I simply refer readers back to my original posts as they already contain ripostes to every thing you have subsequently said.

I don't think that I misquoted you, but kinda hard to tell which instance and which post are referred to. Same goes for the qualifications claim.

If I did somehow misquote your words, it wasn't intentional.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

You quote article 7 which clearly does speak about a genocide of the Jews (not, mind, Israelis), only to go on and claim that the Hamas Charter does not call for a genocide of the Jews. All in the same post.

Hamas is not, in fact, a humane movement. The provision for members of other religions is conditioned upon subjugation to Islamic rule. Disregarding certain posters views on so-called Golden Ages, there is not much in the application of present day Islam to inspire hope that this would work out for the best (especially when considering the Middle East).

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Period. The Lehi and the Irgun were terrorist organizations as well, with the difference that they did not constitute the Jewish leadership at the time. Defining the Haganah as a terrorist organization is a relatively tenuous argument (considering a certain level of cooperation with the Brits), as is the claim that it exists today, under the moniker of the IDF.

Hamas is also not a leadership of Palestinians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006

[Linky]

I prefer something more recent than a decade ago. From wiki

Since June 2007, the Fatah government has exercised authority in Ramallah, West Bank, and has been recognized as the official government of the Palestinian National Authority, while the Hamas administration took control in the Gaza Strip, and exercised control of that territory after it ousted Fatah PNA representatives in 2007.

As I said. Hamas is not a leadership of the palestinians. They are only a small part. Just like the Israeli terrorist organisations.

[Morch]

I prefer something more recent than a decade ago. From wiki

Since June 2007, the Fatah government has exercised authority in Ramallah, West Bank, and has been recognized as the official government of the Palestinian National Authority, while the Hamas administration took control in the Gaza Strip, and exercised control of that territory after it ousted Fatah PNA representatives in 2007.

As I said. Hamas is not a leadership of the palestinians. They are only a small part. Just like the Israeli terrorist organisations.

I prefer sticking with reality. Hamas could hardly win an election being a "small part", nor consistently score high on public approval polls. This support goes well beyond the Gaza Strip. Hamas leaders consistently get higher approval rating than Abbas, never mind his cronies or would be successors.

The reality is that the Palestinians are divided. While the Fatah pretty much controls the PA and the accompanying apparatus, it is neither popular nor all that willing to put public support to a test. In practical terms it means that the PA cannot commit to anything substantial.

DELETED

[Ulysses G.]

Stop being foolish. Morch is one of the only posters on the forum who actually knows what he is talking about.

[Ulysses G.]

<snip>

The Hamas Charter calls for genocide against JEWS - not just Israelis- and the destruction of a living, breathing state. Wholesale murder.

As you often present yourself as an expert on the Hamas charter, maybe you should get round to reading it!

...

But it does not call for genocide of the Jews.

I am no expert, but anyone can see what it says for themselves. Why would you try to deny a proven fact?

"Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan would not say whether or not Hamas would consider removing the part of its charter that calls for the killing of all Jews."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384562/hamas-spokesman-wont-say-whether-hamas-would-remove-call-killing-jews-its-charter

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

I refer you back to the post you partially quoted.

However, a bit of a redundant exercise.

It is obvious that you, along with others, are firmly in the "Israel can do no wrong" camp, and believe that the Palestinians should never have their own state. Meaning, of course, that you logically must also believe the land should be absorbed into a Greater Israel.

Maybe you even agree with Moshe Feiglin and Ayelet Shaked!?

[DeaconJohn]

Stop being foolish. Morch is one of the only posters on the forum who actually knows what he is talking about.

Not one of the Zionist supporters on this forum know what they are talking about.

It is the moderate Israelis who know what they are talking about and should be listened to.

A two-state solution and living within their 1967 borders is the only long-term hope for Israel.

The whole world is against them, just as it was against apartheid South Africa - and for many of the same reasons.

Israel and the territories that it illegally occupies has become such a rogue state that nobody even wants to touch its farm products.

[Jingthing]

Moderate Israelis aren't Zionists?

[Seastallion]

[snip]

The so-called recommended reading is depressingly telling. More a reflection of the poster's own bias than a useful presentation of related information.

Whitbeck, like some on this forum, essentially wishes Israel destroyed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whitbeck), while Cook prolifically berates Israel for being undemocratic, vile and repressive, all while residing in Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Cook). As a bonus, both share an interest in a certain brand of conspiracy theories. Lovely.

You (and others) often claim TVF members want Israel destroyed.

These mythical members are very hard to find. Please copy the next post you see calling for the destruction of Israel and PM me with it.

Until that day, stop playing another version of the Jewish victim card and besmirching the good reputation of TVF members.

[simple1]

I do not concur with the attacks on Morch's credibility & deep knowledge of the political history and current dialogue. Morch always seeks to provide content based upon reality and recognises failures by both the Israeli & Palestinian leadership.

Edited November 14, 2015 by simple1

[canthai55]

Karl Marx - "Religion is the Opiate of the People" How Very True.

Whether Islam, Judiasm, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism ... All are giving their Marching Orders from THEIR god, telling them THEY are the Chosen Ones and everybody else is beyond contempt.

Using things that happened 2000 years ago as a justification of what they do today, or plan to do tomorrow.

Yet, every religion preaches tolerance to their fellow man, teaches compassion, teaches equality.

I see none of it. Carrying a grudge for something that happens in the past.

And doing brutal, inhuman things - just like what was done to them.

Ïnsanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results"- Einstein

That is what the Middle East Conflict has become.

[seedy]

One Troll / Flaming post - and replies - removed

[Morch]

I refer you back to the post you partially quoted.

However, a bit of a redundant exercise.

It is obvious that you, along with others, are firmly in the "Israel can do no wrong" camp, and believe that the Palestinians should never have their own state. Meaning, of course, that you logically must also believe the land should be absorbed into a Greater Israel.

Maybe you even agree with Moshe Feiglin and Ayelet Shaked!?

Hard to tell whom you are replying to. So on the off-chance that this misguided post was directed at myself:

Still no idea which allegedly misquoted/partially quoted posts are referred to.

Have actually posted many times my views regarding the illegal Israeli settlements, the Palestinian's right for self-determination and the nonsense that of Greater Israel notions. I also believe that you could search for my exact comments on both Feiglin and Shaked, at the times their vile things were said

[Morch]

Not one of the Zionist supporters on this forum know what they are talking about.

It is the moderate Israelis who know what they are talking about and should be listened to.

A two-state solution and living within their 1967 borders is the only long-term hope for Israel.

The whole world is against them, just as it was against apartheid South Africa - and for many of the same reasons.

Israel and the territories that it illegally occupies has become such a rogue state that nobody even wants to touch its farm products.

I would suggest that your notion of "moderate" actually means "radical". The Israelis (or former Israelis) sometimes quoted on this forum as representative of a supposed "moderate" point of view can generally be defined as belonging to the extreme fringe left. Their views can be described as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, or as conforming with ultra liberal notions, etc. - but "moderate" does not come into it. Some would surly scoff at being tagged as such.

The standing issue with certain posters is that they insist on seeing Zionism as a monolithic fossilized construct. This leads to rejecting any "softer" versions of Zionism, and falsely asserting that its right wing religiously motivated version is the only valid one. Making this claim originates from either ignorance or from an adherence to extreme formulations (again, not exactly indicative of moderation). Taken a step further, the blanket rejection of Zionism, in any form, ultimately serves as grounds for denial of Israel's right to exist.

Off hand, there are at least two other regular posters with somewhat similar views to my own, who consistently express support for a two-state solution, do not deny the Palestinian's right to self-determination - without the hyperbole demonization of Israel. It would seem that not embracing the last bit is what irks some.

For those actually hoping for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through mutual compromise, it would be better to engage in moderate tones, down to earth factual discourse and avoid blanket statements. Declaring the view of fringe groups as representative of "moderate" positions is nothing but misleading and contributes little to a better understanding of the issues