Palestinians say amateur video backs claims of Israeli abuse

[Morch]

[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.

There are and were members openly and directly stating such views (not necessarily on the current topic).

What I sometimes refer to is more to do with a subtler version. This is often expressed as commenting favorably on Israel becoming a multicultural society, with its character as a home for the Jewish people diluted and eroded. The essential wished for outcome is for Israel (in the original sense under which it was founded and currently exists) to disappear, and a for a new construct to take its place. This is advocated in several ways, ranging from a one-state solution, supporting a full implementation of the Right of Return, or blanket rejection of Zionism (as opposed to opposing the Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank, for example).

In 2009, Whitbeck wrote that Western states should adopt a policy that he called "profoundly philo-Semitic, pro-Jewish and, yes, anti-Zionist" by encouraging Israeli Jews to "return[] to their countries of origin or emigrat[e] to other countries of their choice" while the state of Israel is replaced by a "unitary state in the land which, until 1948, was called Palestine."

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

Past experience of engaging you in PM discourages me from similar communications in the future. Seeing as you also denied the existence of overt anti-Semitic positing on this forums, the whole proposition seems like an exercise in futility. I'll pass.

Wouldn't know what "good reputation" is referred to, nor how it was besmirched - which part of my description is not in accordance with some of the views expressed?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Morch

[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.

There are and were members openly and directly stating such views (not necessarily on the current topic).

What I sometimes refer to is more to do with a subtler version. This is often expressed as commenting favorably on Israel becoming a multicultural society, with its character as a home for the Jewish people diluted and eroded. The essential wished for outcome is for Israel (in the original sense under which it was founded and currently exists) to disappear, and a for a new construct to take its place. This is advocated in several ways, ranging from a one-state solution, supporting a full implementation of the Right of Return, or blanket rejection of Zionism (as opposed to opposing the Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank, for example).

In 2009, Whitbeck wrote that Western states should adopt a policy that he called "profoundly philo-Semitic, pro-Jewish and, yes, anti-Zionist" by encouraging Israeli Jews to "return[] to their countries of origin or emigrat[e] to other countries of their choice" while the state of Israel is replaced by a "unitary state in the land which, until 1948, was called Palestine."

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

Past experience of engaging you in PM discourages me from similar communications in the future. Seeing as you also denied the existence of overt anti-Semitic positing on this forums, the whole proposition seems like an exercise in futility. I'll pass.

Wouldn't know what "good reputation" is referred to, nor how it was besmirched - which part of my description is not in accordance with some of the views expressed?

What a load of diverting, obfuscating and back-tracking waffle.

You can not refer me to any members here who openly call for the destruction of Israel. To spin it into "Oh, but I meant the virtual destruction of the Jewish state by dilution" is rubbish, and also implies a desire for racial social engineering.....a worriesome thing to have that proxy-alternate-genocide as an attitude amongst members here.

Besides...what is Israel doing to promote a 2-state solution? They are doing anything but, and appear to be intent on "the Zionist dream" that JT quoted for us recently. The alternative, and what will happen if Israel continues with it's aggression, is indeed a single state...that is reality. Wishing for a one-state solution is only a prod for Israel to get serious about peace and allowing the Palestinians their own self-determination.

Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

Try as you may to impugn me with childish JTesque hints of something, you fail. Sending me a PM of proof of your claim does not require dialogue or anything other than clicking "send"...but you can't do it so you give the members some mysterious allusion to something unsavoury..

You besmirch the good name of every member that you falsely claim are antisemitic or that want Israel destroyed.

Again, to be sure you didn't miss it: Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

[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!?

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

As that post was directly below one by UlyssesG and refers to comments he made in his post; I thought it was obvious that I was replying to him.

Sorry if this confused you; but I do try and avoid clogging up the forum with unnecessary nested quotes.

A practice followed by many others and recommended in Forum Netiquette.

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

Read my posts again and you will see the bits you missed.

No need for me to respond to the last part of your post as it refers to remarks which were not directed at you.

[Morch]

There are and were members openly and directly stating such views (not necessarily on the current topic).

What I sometimes refer to is more to do with a subtler version. This is often expressed as commenting favorably on Israel becoming a multicultural society, with its character as a home for the Jewish people diluted and eroded. The essential wished for outcome is for Israel (in the original sense under which it was founded and currently exists) to disappear, and a for a new construct to take its place. This is advocated in several ways, ranging from a one-state solution, supporting a full implementation of the Right of Return, or blanket rejection of Zionism (as opposed to opposing the Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank, for example).

In 2009, Whitbeck wrote that Western states should adopt a policy that he called "profoundly philo-Semitic, pro-Jewish and, yes, anti-Zionist" by encouraging Israeli Jews to "return[] to their countries of origin or emigrat[e] to other countries of their choice" while the state of Israel is replaced by a "unitary state in the land which, until 1948, was called Palestine."

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

Past experience of engaging you in PM discourages me from similar communications in the future. Seeing as you also denied the existence of overt anti-Semitic positing on this forums, the whole proposition seems like an exercise in futility. I'll pass.

Wouldn't know what "good reputation" is referred to, nor how it was besmirched - which part of my description is not in accordance with some of the views expressed?

What a load of diverting, obfuscating and back-tracking waffle.

You can not refer me to any members here who openly call for the destruction of Israel. To spin it into "Oh, but I meant the virtual destruction of the Jewish state by dilution" is rubbish, and also implies a desire for racial social engineering.....a worriesome thing to have that proxy-alternate-genocide as an attitude amongst members here.

Besides...what is Israel doing to promote a 2-state solution? They are doing anything but, and appear to be intent on "the Zionist dream" that JT quoted for us recently. The alternative, and what will happen if Israel continues with it's aggression, is indeed a single state...that is reality. Wishing for a one-state solution is only a prod for Israel to get serious about peace and allowing the Palestinians their own self-determination.

Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

Try as you may to impugn me with childish JTesque hints of something, you fail. Sending me a PM of proof of your claim does not require dialogue or anything other than clicking "send"...but you can't do it so you give the members some mysterious allusion to something unsavoury..

You besmirch the good name of every member that you falsely claim are antisemitic or that want Israel destroyed.

Again, to be sure you didn't miss it: Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

Can't figure why someone would be obsessed with denying that there were posts, in more than one topic and by more than one member, which called for the outright destruction of Israel. The same goes for posts with overt antisemitic content. Whether you choose to accept it or not, it matters naught - both kind of posts were made, at one point or another, and no doubt there will be others in the future.

I do not maintain an archive of all posts I may wish to reference at your whim, sorry. Didn't cross my mind that some would challenge the reality of words read by many members. Given the overwhelming scope of the denial, not feeling the need to accommodate your request for "proof". Childish actually defines previous correspondence, hence no wish to waste further time on that front. Save the self-aggrandizing moral chest-beating for someone who is impressed by such antics. No one appointed that you the Guardian of Members Good Name, nor the Authority of Proofs.

I did not "spin" anything, just another instance of failed comprehension. My opinion is that some of the resident posters on these topics would actually like nothing better than having Israel erased, one way or another. Saying it outright is harder to do while while attempting to keep a reasonable sounding approach. On the other hand, cheer-leading changes which would essentially make Israel's definition as a home for the Jewish people a hollow proposition, go down better with some, as they can be dished under the guise of a humanistic liberal agenda. Again, you may choose to reject this, of course, but do note that it is not implied that any criticism, or any such views are referred to, only some. This point of view was shaped by reading a host of posts by certain members, over a long period of time.

What the Israeli government does or does not do is not my responsibility, nor is it within my power to influence its course of action. The opinions posted here are my own, and they do not, for the most part, reflect the the Israeli government's positions. The one dimensional interpretation of Zionism often presented on these forums as fact, is anything but. Even the reference cited provides support for the opposite - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867488-clinton-encourages-israelis-to-carry-on-legacy-of-rabin-20-years-after-assassination/?p=10073803

As stated quite often, my outlook on reality got less to do with actually applying absolute notions of justice and morals. Other than these can usually be argued about, blind implementation of such principals can often be at odds with everyday life and practicalities. Less interested in non-realistic solutions based on such absolute ideas, more into pragmatic workable propositions which have more chance of materializing. Moral imperatives are a fine thing, but looking at the list of topics on this forum, they do not seem to always dictate how actual events could be addressed. It is perhaps this over-adherence to actual manifestation of ideologies, religions, and philosophical concepts, that is the bane of getting anything resembling a resolution for this conflict. As this will no doubt be regarded as "deflection", let me put in plain terms - I find the question is both over-simplistic, and not very interesting with regard to the topic at hand.

Back to the apparently knicker twisting original comment - the so-called recommended reading included an author which clearly holds views as described. Why would it be wrong to assume a poster recommending this author identifies with such views?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867995-palestinians-say-amateur-video-backs-claims-of-israeli-abuse/?p=10075922

[Morch]

<snip>

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

Read my posts again and you will see the bits you missed.

Guess it shall remain a mystery, then.

[7by7]

Only to others, perhaps.

Both you and I know the answer. My saying that I find most of what Hamas stands for both reprehensible and abhorrent, for example. A comment you completely ignored when you chose to take me to task.

BTW, recommending that people read something does not necessarily mean that one agrees with and supports all the views of the author.

Personally, I try to keep an open mind and so read opinions from all sides. I offered up that article because, as I said, the two opinions contained therein provide food for thought.

Finally, perhaps you can explain something you said which is troubling me

What I sometimes refer to is more to do with a subtler version. This is often expressed as commenting favorably on Israel becoming a multicultural society, with its character as a home for the Jewish people diluted and eroded.....

This sounds disturbingly like you are saying that Israel should be for Jewish people only, no others allowed in case they dilute the purity of the Jewish race.

Sounds horribly familiar, does it not?

Please tell me that you wrote that in haste without thinking it through!

[Ulysses G.]

You keep making claims for Hamas that Morch has proven untrue. They have NOT recognized Israel or rejected their genocidal charter, but you keep claiming that they have. No wonder he does not trust your latest comments.

You lost on this issue many months ago, but you keep bringing it up - over and over again - in hopes - I guess - that new readers will not have read Morch's educated rebuttal in the past. If they had, they would certainly reject 7x7's dishonest claims.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Only to others, perhaps.

Both you and I know the answer. My saying that I find most of what Hamas stands for both reprehensible and abhorrent, for example. A comment you completely ignored when you chose to take me to task.

BTW, recommending that people read something does not necessarily mean that one agrees with and supports all the views of the author.

Personally, I try to keep an open mind and so read opinions from all sides. I offered up that article because, as I said, the two opinions contained therein provide food for thought.

Finally, perhaps you can explain something you said which is troubling me

What I sometimes refer to is more to do with a subtler version. This is often expressed as commenting favorably on Israel becoming a multicultural society, with its character as a home for the Jewish people diluted and eroded.....

This sounds disturbingly like you are saying that Israel should be for Jewish people only, no others allowed in case they dilute the purity of the Jewish race.

Sounds horribly familiar, does it not?

Please tell me that you wrote that in haste without thinking it through!

Umm, no. I actually had no idea what you were on about. Now that you explained, I can see how this complaint fits with the usual pattern of the "debate". So, in truth, there was no "misquoting", but simply not addressing a line within one of the three posts I replied to. Touchy.

The qualification was not relevant to my reply. There was no comment, in that reply, on your personal stand with regard to the Hamas. Rather, my reply dealt with certain inconsistencies appearing in your post. The post replied to was fully quoted, and there is no requirement to address each and every line in replies, quite common on this forum and others. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867995-palestinians-say-amateur-video-backs-claims-of-israeli-abuse/?p=10070002

I replied to your post separately, in the order which they appeared. The one-liner qualification appeared in the third post, and was anyway specific to the Hamas Charter, the other two posts touching on a broader range of issues. The comment on your "recommended reading" was made in the first post, and, once more, not exactly the same issue.

Being familiar with some of Whitbeck's writings (dunno if that counts as having an open mind....) and some of the ideas they advocated, there was little reason to doubt where this was heading. Whitbeck is not exactly a no-name in certain circles. Cook is more of hypocritical right something-that-rhymes-with-banker, and not what I would call a very objective and informative author. Choosing these two of all the people who comment on these issues, without bothering to qualify their standing agendas can easily lead to the conclusion that their views are accepted.

Now that this is (hopefully) sorted...

Finding it kinda odd to answer your question following the inelegant deflection of three posts, but here goes.

No, I did not say anything that implies Israel should be for the Jewish people only. Merely that its character as a home for the Jewish people should be preserved. Essentially it comes down to maintaining a viable Jewish majority within Israeli territory. Hence, the main practical derivatives are rejecting full blown versions of the Right of Return, generally keeping current Israeli immigration laws as they are, and scaling down Israeli presence back to the 1967 lines (as far as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip go). There is no imperative or implication that Israel's existing non-Jewish minorities should not be part of it,

And, of course, I did not talk about "no others allowed in case they dilute the purity of the Jewish race" - the "diluted" and "eroded" were, again, in reference to the country's character, mainly relevant to maintaining a sizable Jewish majority. As is the case with many members, I am married to someone of a different race, so obviously no issues with how people choose their partners.

Now, the above obviously falls short of the multicultural open society which seems to be a Western ideal. This is were that pragmatic/realistic/practical part of me kicks in. It is not a perfect solution, nor ultimate equality and justice by Western standards, but a workable one within the Middle Eastern context. To be clear, I do not subscribe to the notion that there is a realistic one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to democracy and addressing certain dilemmas. Considering the current state of things, even less-than-perfect will do nicely.

I do not suggest that under this paradigm, anything drastic be done regarding naturally occurring demographic changes. If things hold long enough for the such changes to occur by their own volition, chances are some of the core elements of the conflict would have evolved as well. What I reject is agenda driven ushering in of conditions seemingly aimed at hastening such processes. Forcing Israel to become a fully multicultural open society will end in tears. Such experiments can be taken up with societies less torn apart and with lower levels on animosity. There is no viable way to achieve both peace and such a vision, at the same time, or even not within our lifetime. If countries facing less issues and possessing a richer background as a democratic society are having trouble pulling it through, what chance does such an experiment stand under current conditions in the Middle East?

Finally, similar issues exist with regard to the future Palestinian State. In the Palestinian Constitution of 2003, the nation is defined as Arab, the official religion to be Islam and legislation is to be based on the Shari'a. As far as I am aware, there is no clear provisions for Israelis currently residing in within its future territory, or for those who might wish to secure a Palestinian citizenship. Any Palestinian living outside of the Palestinian territory has the right of citizenship. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Palestine_%282003%29

Doubt that the Palestinians could accommodate a large Jewish minority in their midst, or that they should want to. From a realistic point of view, not too many issues with that, probably safer to all involved, and better chances a deal will hold. If going for ideal solutions, trickier to explain. But then again, no one asks this of the Palestinians anyway.

[bermondburi]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

[Jingthing]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

[bermondburi]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

Me, the UN, the ICJ, the EU and others. What would you call it?

Regardless, it would be a good start.

I think if you offered the Palestinians a return to pre 67 borders in return for Israel's security they would accept, as they were prepared to do before.

Under the Oslo accords there was mutual recognition on both sides of the other side's right to exist.

[Jingthing]

Hamas would accept? You do realize Hamas is the most popular political movement, by far, in both Gaza and Judea/Samaria!

Even the "moderates" ... come on now, not really moderate. Just recently Abbas refused to condemn Palestinians who murder innocent Jews just for being Jews.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Jingthing

[DaddyWarbucks]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

Me, the UN, the ICJ, the EU and others. What would you call it?

Regardless, it would be a good start.

I think if you offered the Palestinians a return to pre 67 borders in return for Israel's security they would accept, as they were prepared to do before.

Under the Oslo accords there was mutual recognition on both sides of the other side's right to exist.

That sums it up exactly.

The truth can very often be stated simply and concisely.

Propaganda, on the other hand requires a verbose sales pitch to deceive its listeners.

[dexterm]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

Me, the UN, the ICJ, the EU and others. What would you call it?

Regardless, it would be a good start.

I think if you offered the Palestinians a return to pre 67 borders in return for Israel's security they would accept, as they were prepared to do before.

Under the Oslo accords there was mutual recognition on both sides of the other side's right to exist.

In the Oslo Accords Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, but the Israelis have never reciprocated. All the Israelis agreed to was to recognize the PLO and work towards the spirit of UN Resolution 242 which calls for its withdrawal of troops from the Occupied Territories and refers to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,..a sort of tentative de facto recognition that perhaps a Palestinian state could exist in the land they withdraw from ...but even this the Israelis have manifestly failed to do. The Palestinians were cheated yet again.

I agree...a moratorium on setlement building would be an excellent goodwilll gesture to kick start peace talks, and would lesson the tensions displayed in the OP.

Empower the peacemakers. Show the voters there is a better way.

Edited November 15, 2015 by dexterm

[Morch]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

The thing is that you cannot have one set of conditions (or demands) as totally disconnected from another. Acknowledging that things are tied up, is a step in the right direction to addressing many of the issues. The egg and chicken arguments are of lesser importance, and often lead nowhere. It is just that as on this forum, the usual stance is that making concessions means losing. The general attitude being of winning, rather than solution by compromise. And yes, even those who talk about compromise often do so using the wrong tone.

[Seastallion]

There are and were members openly and directly stating such views (not necessarily on the current topic).

What I sometimes refer to is more to do with a subtler version. This is often expressed as commenting favorably on Israel becoming a multicultural society, with its character as a home for the Jewish people diluted and eroded. The essential wished for outcome is for Israel (in the original sense under which it was founded and currently exists) to disappear, and a for a new construct to take its place. This is advocated in several ways, ranging from a one-state solution, supporting a full implementation of the Right of Return, or blanket rejection of Zionism (as opposed to opposing the Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank, for example).

In 2009, Whitbeck wrote that Western states should adopt a policy that he called "profoundly philo-Semitic, pro-Jewish and, yes, anti-Zionist" by encouraging Israeli Jews to "return[] to their countries of origin or emigrat[e] to other countries of their choice" while the state of Israel is replaced by a "unitary state in the land which, until 1948, was called Palestine."

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

Past experience of engaging you in PM discourages me from similar communications in the future. Seeing as you also denied the existence of overt anti-Semitic positing on this forums, the whole proposition seems like an exercise in futility. I'll pass.

Wouldn't know what "good reputation" is referred to, nor how it was besmirched - which part of my description is not in accordance with some of the views expressed?

What a load of diverting, obfuscating and back-tracking waffle.

You can not refer me to any members here who openly call for the destruction of Israel. To spin it into "Oh, but I meant the virtual destruction of the Jewish state by dilution" is rubbish, and also implies a desire for racial social engineering.....a worriesome thing to have that proxy-alternate-genocide as an attitude amongst members here.

Besides...what is Israel doing to promote a 2-state solution? They are doing anything but, and appear to be intent on "the Zionist dream" that JT quoted for us recently. The alternative, and what will happen if Israel continues with it's aggression, is indeed a single state...that is reality. Wishing for a one-state solution is only a prod for Israel to get serious about peace and allowing the Palestinians their own self-determination.

Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

Try as you may to impugn me with childish JTesque hints of something, you fail. Sending me a PM of proof of your claim does not require dialogue or anything other than clicking "send"...but you can't do it so you give the members some mysterious allusion to something unsavoury..

You besmirch the good name of every member that you falsely claim are antisemitic or that want Israel destroyed.

Again, to be sure you didn't miss it: Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

Can't figure why someone would be obsessed with denying that there were posts, in more than one topic and by more than one member, which called for the outright destruction of Israel. The same goes for posts with overt antisemitic content. Whether you choose to accept it or not, it matters naught - both kind of posts were made, at one point or another, and no doubt there will be others in the future.

I do not maintain an archive of all posts I may wish to reference at your whim, sorry. Didn't cross my mind that some would challenge the reality of words read by many members. Given the overwhelming scope of the denial, not feeling the need to accommodate your request for "proof". Childish actually defines previous correspondence, hence no wish to waste further time on that front. Save the self-aggrandizing moral chest-beating for someone who is impressed by such antics. No one appointed that you the Guardian of Members Good Name, nor the Authority of Proofs.

I did not "spin" anything, just another instance of failed comprehension. My opinion is that some of the resident posters on these topics would actually like nothing better than having Israel erased, one way or another. Saying it outright is harder to do while while attempting to keep a reasonable sounding approach. On the other hand, cheer-leading changes which would essentially make Israel's definition as a home for the Jewish people a hollow proposition, go down better with some, as they can be dished under the guise of a humanistic liberal agenda. Again, you may choose to reject this, of course, but do note that it is not implied that any criticism, or any such views are referred to, only some. This point of view was shaped by reading a host of posts by certain members, over a long period of time.

What the Israeli government does or does not do is not my responsibility, nor is it within my power to influence its course of action. The opinions posted here are my own, and they do not, for the most part, reflect the the Israeli government's positions. The one dimensional interpretation of Zionism often presented on these forums as fact, is anything but. Even the reference cited provides support for the opposite - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867488-clinton-encourages-israelis-to-carry-on-legacy-of-rabin-20-years-after-assassination/?p=10073803

As stated quite often, my outlook on reality got less to do with actually applying absolute notions of justice and morals. Other than these can usually be argued about, blind implementation of such principals can often be at odds with everyday life and practicalities. Less interested in non-realistic solutions based on such absolute ideas, more into pragmatic workable propositions which have more chance of materializing. Moral imperatives are a fine thing, but looking at the list of topics on this forum, they do not seem to always dictate how actual events could be addressed. It is perhaps this over-adherence to actual manifestation of ideologies, religions, and philosophical concepts, that is the bane of getting anything resembling a resolution for this conflict. As this will no doubt be regarded as "deflection", let me put in plain terms - I find the question is both over-simplistic, and not very interesting with regard to the topic at hand.

Back to the apparently knicker twisting original comment - the so-called recommended reading included an author which clearly holds views as described. Why would it be wrong to assume a poster recommending this author identifies with such views?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867995-palestinians-say-amateur-video-backs-claims-of-israeli-abuse/?p=10075922

Now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel by falling behind " No one appointed that you the Guardian of Members Good Name, nor the Authority of Proofs." and "What the Israeli government does or does not do is not my responsibility".

Very JTesque.

[Seastallion]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

By, "what you call occupied land", you imply that you do not think it is occupied land. Amazing ignorance and an aggressive attitude towards the oppressed Palestinians..

It's exactly these attitudes, of eretz Israel, that perpetuate the violence.

[Morch]

Yes it's all true, stop knifing innocent kids and the elderly in towns in Israel where you were permitted to work

for a living, you want to knife a solder, go for it, you will be shot on the spot,

Stop peaching and teaching hatred in your schools and mosques, stop the inciting and misguided

propaganda and messages to young minds of day of anger and uprising,

stop ramming people sitting in bus stops to death, stop throwing stones and projectiles, stop throwing

incendiary devices in order to burn people driving their cars, stop the mayhem and hostility and you will

stop dying and being wounded, arrested, beaten and pepper spray, you will stop the day you will realized

that you can not win.....

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

Me, the UN, the ICJ, the EU and others. What would you call it?

Regardless, it would be a good start.

I think if you offered the Palestinians a return to pre 67 borders in return for Israel's security they would accept, as they were prepared to do before.

Under the Oslo accords there was mutual recognition on both sides of the other side's right to exist.

"I think if you offered the Palestinians a return to pre 67 borders in return for Israel's security they would accept, as they were prepared to do before".

What posters think the Palestinians would agree to, or uphold, is not necessarily reflect reality. Also, note that "return to pre 67 borders" is a concrete concept, while "Israel's security" can mean different things for either party. Considering the level of trust between sides, trading on less than clear terms is not a sound approach.

The Oslo Accords, did not include full mutual recognition as such. The PLO was recognized as the Palestinian representative, and as such it recognized Israel. The Oslo Accords being designed as an interim agreement, there was no formal recognition of a Palestinian state at the time. Not addressing core issues was both the reason that the Oslo Accords came to be and their undoing.

Regarding illegal settlements - most of the agreements referred to various bans and constraints over the construction of new settlements. Further development of existing settlements was allowed under certain conditions. The Israeli interpretation of such allowances and their implementation is often wider than intended, while the way things are presented to the Palestinian public by their leadership is often incorrect (as in claiming that any construction is against agreements).

I can understand why the Israelis insist on this point (domestic political considerations, not conceding issues prior to final agreement, setting conditions on the ground) - but hard to see how it actually helps their position. Then again, we're not necessarily dealing with well thought out rational positions here. It is agreed that banning further construction of new illegal settlements and stopping the over-expansion of existing ones could be a helpful step in moving things along.

[Morch]

No mention of stop building settlements on illegally occupied land then. LOL.

I support stopping building settlements too on what you call "occupied land" but doing so would not magically bring peace. The majority of Palestinians do not consider the state of Israel legitimate in ANY borders. The conflict is deeper and more complicated than any simplistic formula addresses.

Me, the UN, the ICJ, the EU and others. What would you call it?

Regardless, it would be a good start.

I think if you offered the Palestinians a return to pre 67 borders in return for Israel's security they would accept, as they were prepared to do before.

Under the Oslo accords there was mutual recognition on both sides of the other side's right to exist.

In the Oslo Accords Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, but the Israelis have never reciprocated. All the Israelis agreed to was to recognize the PLO and work towards the spirit of UN Resolution 242 which calls for its withdrawal of troops from the Occupied Territories and refers to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,..a sort of tentative de facto recognition that perhaps a Palestinian state could exist in the land they withdraw from ...but even this the Israelis have manifestly failed to do. The Palestinians were cheated yet again.

I agree...a moratorium on setlement building would be an excellent goodwilll gesture to kick start peace talks, and would lesson the tensions displayed in the OP.

Empower the peacemakers. Show the voters there is a better way.

The Palestinians were not "cheated", and certainly not "yet again". Were they forced to sign the Oslo Accords? Did they insist on other terms and were slipped another version which they signed? Nope. The agreements were simply not good enough, both in that they did not address core issues, and that they assumed too much goodwill on the part of both sides. The usual presentation of Israel as the only side not living up to its obligations is, as usually, intentionally misleading.

[Morch]

There are and were members openly and directly stating such views (not necessarily on the current topic).

What I sometimes refer to is more to do with a subtler version. This is often expressed as commenting favorably on Israel becoming a multicultural society, with its character as a home for the Jewish people diluted and eroded. The essential wished for outcome is for Israel (in the original sense under which it was founded and currently exists) to disappear, and a for a new construct to take its place. This is advocated in several ways, ranging from a one-state solution, supporting a full implementation of the Right of Return, or blanket rejection of Zionism (as opposed to opposing the Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank, for example).

"In 2009, Whitbeck wrote that Western states should adopt a policy that he called "profoundly philo-Semitic, pro-Jewish and, yes, anti-Zionist" by encouraging Israeli Jews to "return[] to their countries of origin or emigrat[e] to other countries of their choice" while the state of Israel is replaced by a "unitary state in the land which, until 1948, was called Palestine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whitbeck

Past experience of engaging you in PM discourages me from similar communications in the future. Seeing as you also denied the existence of overt anti-Semitic positing on this forums, the whole proposition seems like an exercise in futility. I'll pass.

Wouldn't know what "good reputation" is referred to, nor how it was besmirched - which part of my description is not in accordance with some of the views expressed?

What a load of diverting, obfuscating and back-tracking waffle.

You can not refer me to any members here who openly call for the destruction of Israel. To spin it into "Oh, but I meant the virtual destruction of the Jewish state by dilution" is rubbish, and also implies a desire for racial social engineering.....a worriesome thing to have that proxy-alternate-genocide as an attitude amongst members here.

Besides...what is Israel doing to promote a 2-state solution? They are doing anything but, and appear to be intent on "the Zionist dream" that JT quoted for us recently. The alternative, and what will happen if Israel continues with it's aggression, is indeed a single state...that is reality. Wishing for a one-state solution is only a prod for Israel to get serious about peace and allowing the Palestinians their own self-determination.

Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

Try as you may to impugn me with childish JTesque hints of something, you fail. Sending me a PM of proof of your claim does not require dialogue or anything other than clicking "send"...but you can't do it so you give the members some mysterious allusion to something unsavoury..

You besmirch the good name of every member that you falsely claim are antisemitic or that want Israel destroyed.

Again, to be sure you didn't miss it: Which has the greater moral imperative: A person's right to return to their actual home that they were driven from, OR a person's wish to live in secular isolation?

I side with the person with the right to return to their actual, real home. If the question was not framed with Jews and Palestinians in mind, which would you think has the higher moral imperative?

Can't figure why someone would be obsessed with denying that there were posts, in more than one topic and by more than one member, which called for the outright destruction of Israel. The same goes for posts with overt antisemitic content. Whether you choose to accept it or not, it matters naught - both kind of posts were made, at one point or another, and no doubt there will be others in the future.

I do not maintain an archive of all posts I may wish to reference at your whim, sorry. Didn't cross my mind that some would challenge the reality of words read by many members. Given the overwhelming scope of the denial, not feeling the need to accommodate your request for "proof". Childish actually defines previous correspondence, hence no wish to waste further time on that front. Save the self-aggrandizing moral chest-beating for someone who is impressed by such antics. No one appointed that you the Guardian of Members Good Name, nor the Authority of Proofs.

I did not "spin" anything, just another instance of failed comprehension. My opinion is that some of the resident posters on these topics would actually like nothing better than having Israel erased, one way or another. Saying it outright is harder to do while while attempting to keep a reasonable sounding approach. On the other hand, cheer-leading changes which would essentially make Israel's definition as a home for the Jewish people a hollow proposition, go down better with some, as they can be dished under the guise of a humanistic liberal agenda. Again, you may choose to reject this, of course, but do note that it is not implied that any criticism, or any such views are referred to, only some. This point of view was shaped by reading a host of posts by certain members, over a long period of time.

What the Israeli government does or does not do is not my responsibility, nor is it within my power to influence its course of action. The opinions posted here are my own, and they do not, for the most part, reflect the the Israeli government's positions. The one dimensional interpretation of Zionism often presented on these forums as fact, is anything but. Even the reference cited provides support for the opposite - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867488-clinton-encourages-israelis-to-carry-on-legacy-of-rabin-20-years-after-assassination/?p=10073803

As stated quite often, my outlook on reality got less to do with actually applying absolute notions of justice and morals. Other than these can usually be argued about, blind implementation of such principals can often be at odds with everyday life and practicalities. Less interested in non-realistic solutions based on such absolute ideas, more into pragmatic workable propositions which have more chance of materializing. Moral imperatives are a fine thing, but looking at the list of topics on this forum, they do not seem to always dictate how actual events could be addressed. It is perhaps this over-adherence to actual manifestation of ideologies, religions, and philosophical concepts, that is the bane of getting anything resembling a resolution for this conflict. As this will no doubt be regarded as "deflection", let me put in plain terms - I find the question is both over-simplistic, and not very interesting with regard to the topic at hand.

Back to the apparently knicker twisting original comment - the so-called recommended reading included an author which clearly holds views as described. Why would it be wrong to assume a poster recommending this author identifies with such views?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867995-palestinians-say-amateur-video-backs-claims-of-israeli-abuse/?p=10075922

Now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel by falling behind " No one appointed that you the Guardian of Members Good Name, nor the Authority of Proofs." and "What the Israeli government does or does not do is not my responsibility".

Very JTesque.

[HenryB]

People are forgetting people in Europe and America or Russia are worried the Muslims are going to kill them.

Now Israel shall step their activities again these Muslims.

I advise TV members to worried about their families not Muslims

Please read the Koran to read what All Muslims are Order to Do by Ali

At the end of day all groups of Muslims (except ex Muslims) whatever you them all fellow the Koran 100% per cent

Good Day

Edited November 15, 2015 by HenryB

[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.

Moderate Israelis aren't Zionists?

No, they're not because they've given up the Zionist dream of Eretz Israel and are trying to stop the war crimes and expansionist policies of the Likud Party.

They may have been Zionists at one time, but they see that if they don't find ways to coexist with the Palestinians they will be joined-at-the-hip with them in a single state.

That would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state sooner or later.

Edited November 15, 2015 by DeaconJohn

[dexterm]

Sorry, thread full.

Morch wrote...

The Palestinians were not "cheated", and certainly not "yet again". Were they forced to sign the Oslo Accords? Did they insist on other terms and were slipped another version which they signed? Nope. The agreements were simply not good enough, both in that they did not address core issues, and that they assumed too much goodwill on the part of both sides. The usual presentation of Israel as the only side not living up to its obligations is, as usually, intentionally misleading.

The PLO signed the Oslo Accords in good faith expecting the other side to do the same. They recognized Israel's right to exist, and still do. The Israelis promised to work towards the spirit of UN Resolution 242 which calls for its withdrawal of troops from the Occupied Territories and refers to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, which they haven't done.

That's cheating and reneging on a deal in my book.

The previous cheating I was referring to was UK's duplicitous contradictory promises to both the Palestinians and Jews in World War 1.

[7by7]

This topic has moved on considerably since my last visit; but just one point I'd like to make to Morch.

Umm, no. I actually had no idea what you were on about. Now that you explained, I can see how this complaint fits with the usual pattern of the "debate". So, in truth, there was no "misquoting", but simply not addressing a line within one of the three posts I replied to. Touchy.

What I actually said was

My saying that I find most of what Hamas stands for both reprehensible and abhorrent, for example.

So, you either lack the intelligence to understand what the phrase "for example" means or you are being deliberately underhand in your own debating tactics.

I don't think that you lack intelligence.

[Morch]

This topic has moved on considerably since my last visit; but just one point I'd like to make to Morch.

Umm, no. I actually had no idea what you were on about. Now that you explained, I can see how this complaint fits with the usual pattern of the "debate". So, in truth, there was no "misquoting", but simply not addressing a line within one of the three posts I replied to. Touchy.

What I actually said was

My saying that I find most of what Hamas stands for both reprehensible and abhorrent, for example.

So, you either lack the intelligence to understand what the phrase "for example" means or you are being deliberately underhand in your own debating tactics.

I don't think that you lack intelligence.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/867995-palestinians-say-amateur-video-backs-claims-of-israeli-abuse/?p=10078785

Pretty much according to the usual script, then. Makes an argument which cannot be defended, throws the toys out of the pram when this is pointed out.

[Morch]

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.

Moderate Israelis aren't Zionists?

No, they're not because they've given up the Zionist dream of Eretz Israel and are trying to stop the war crimes and expansionist policies of the Likud Party.

They may have been Zionists at one time, but they see that if they don't find ways to coexist with the Palestinians they will be joined-at-the-hip with them in a single state.

That would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state sooner or later.

So according to your learned opinion there are no Zionists who oppose the ongoing settlement effort in the West Bank? No Zionists supporting the two state solution? What would that make some of the Israeli parties currently in the opposition?

Notably, you do not name any such "moderate" Israelis.

[Morch]

Sorry, thread full.

Morch wrote...

The Palestinians were not "cheated", and certainly not "yet again". Were they forced to sign the Oslo Accords? Did they insist on other terms and were slipped another version which they signed? Nope. The agreements were simply not good enough, both in that they did not address core issues, and that they assumed too much goodwill on the part of both sides. The usual presentation of Israel as the only side not living up to its obligations is, as usually, intentionally misleading.

The PLO signed the Oslo Accords in good faith expecting the other side to do the same. They recognized Israel's right to exist, and still do. The Israelis promised to work towards the spirit of UN Resolution 242 which calls for its withdrawal of troops from the Occupied Territories and refers to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, which they haven't done.

That's cheating and reneging on a deal in my book.

The previous cheating I was referring to was UK's duplicitous contradictory promises to both the Palestinians and Jews in World War 1.

You have no idea if the PLO signed the Oslo Accords in good faith, it is merely your opinion. There are opposing views, supported by quotes and actions by the Palestinian leadership. A summary could be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_views_on_the_peace_process

As pointed out on many occasions, signing a piece of paper and living up to the agreed upon words are two different matters. This holds true for Israel as it does for the Palestinians. Unless the next nonsense claim is that the Palestinians upheld all of their obligations, I think we can safely say that implementation of agreed upon commitments by both sides fell short of optimist projections. You do not mention ongoing terrorist attacks, incitement, and the fact that it took years for the Palestinian Covenant to be changed (a murky issue even nowadays, which was discussed in length on previous topics).

Being an interim agreement, the Oslo I Accords did not include provisions for an immediate or full Israeli military withdrawal. Rather, it was agreed that after the PA will be set up, Israel will militarily withdraw from Jericho, and a partial withdrawal from Gaza. The details were finalized the following year. Further details can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord#Annex_2:_Withdrawal_of_Israeli_forces and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Jericho_Agreement

The British crossed and double-crossed more than one party while carving up the Middle East according to their interests. What direct promises were made to the Palestinians by the Brits during WW1?

Your "book", other than being consistently nonobjective, does not mean much with regard to facts. Also, for someone proclaiming to support the Palestinian cause, it seems you do not have a very high regard for their bargaining and diplomatic prowess. Are you actually trying to portray Arafat as an honest but naive leader who got tricked into signing the Accords? Don't think most Palestinians would agree.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Morch