King Abdullah: give Palestinians their rights

[dexterm]

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

That is a blatant lie. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel or renounce their genocidal charter and they rule much of what may someday be Palestine. There can be no permanent peace treaty without them. Why do you have to constantly rely on dishonest statements to make your point?

This is your old chestnut debunked many times before that you usually resurrect to deflect from the topic which is the denial of Palestinian human ,civil, and economic rights under occupation.

Do a search if you are interested in replies to your red herring.

The topic is not "the denial of Palestinian human ,civil, and economic rights under occupation". Rather, it deals with a part of King Abdullah''s address at a regional convention. This is an editorial choice, and it ignores both the broader scope of the speech and the motivations for bringing up the Palestinians in this context. Similarly, it seems that any deviation from the OP, or even the topic at hand is alright, as long as it allows promotion of your pet agenda.

If you choose to stray into the recognition debate, don't be surprised if posters comment on the usual inaccuracies.

Precisely ....and that is the part of the OP we are currently discussing.

I have told you what Palestinian human, civil and economic rights Israeli is denying them. You tell us what other Palestinian rights King Abdullah was talking about.

[dexterm]

@ Dexterm

Re-mandatory propaganda clip:

The OP is a contrived editor choice to highlight one part of King Abdullah's speech.

Your post is a contrived attempt to crusade for your usual agenda.

Presenting Anna Baltzer (or whatever is her surname on any given day) as less than heavily biased, or as supporting non-violence is, again, contrived.

OP...

"He also called for more rights for Palestinians.

“Today is International Human Rights Day, but until the Palestinians achieve their rights, millions of people around the world will be cynical about the reality of global justice. Now terror propaganda and recruitment thrive on this conflict.”"

Forum readers may not be aware of exactly how the Palestinian rights that King Abdullah in the OP mentions are denied.. checkpoints designed solely to humiliate and inconvenience them and to undermine the Palestinian economy.In many cases causing needless death where a woman's twin babies died because she was not allowed to cross a checkpoint between 7pm and 7am, because the soldiers were only following orders. The Wall ..denying farmers and families the right to visit their own land. Land thefts. Homes and farms destroyed to build Israeli colonies. Extremist violent Jewish colonists beating Palestinian and Jewish peace activists; poisoning Palestinian water supplies and pastures.

The Jewish American girl presents her eye witness accounts in a very calm way with photographic evidence. It is the fact that her tesimony is so powerful that you want to silence and besmirch her.

I thought you were a great believer in the truth. Which part of her presentation of the way Palestinian human, civil and economic rights are denied to them is untrue.

Of course she is biased, just as you are. Because she has witnessed Israeli injustices first hand. Not sure what your motives are in trying to besmirch her.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full

Morch wrote

The USA is not the whole of "the West", and using a veto right is anything but turning a blind eye - it actually draws more attention to whatever is being vetoed. The "West" (not quite clear now what that signifies in this context) did also fail to intervene when the Arabs rejected the UN Partition plan and resolution, same goes for the plight of Jews living in Arab countries.

You often "disagree", what of it? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict being related to Western involvement in the Middle East is not debated, but that does not quite make the argument that the conflict fuels Daesh, or plays a major role in motivating recruitment. Parroting King Abdullah without supplying any basis for the assertions made, while ignoring (talk about turning a blind eye...) his own interests and agenda is not very convincing.

The "observers" are "all of the above"? And they all share the same vision, reservations and conclusions? Lumping everyone together does not strike me as very insightful or correct,

Until you can actually demonstrate these assumptions, how's about treating them as such, rather than serving them as belonging to reality?

In your first paragraph, you are playing with semantics over the term "turn a blind eye" in order to obfuscate.

In your second paragraph, I disgree. I do make the argument.

"but that does not quite make the argument that the conflict fuels Daesh"...just as King Abdullah in the OP indicated.

I never said "plays a major role in motivating recruitment" ...your words not mine.

3rd paragraph. Everyone is different. People react in a variety of ways when they see Israeli injustices. Can't give you a psychoanalytical profile of every one. There are too many.

[Morch]

It is a geographic inevitability that Israel will eventually be forced to absorb their Palestinian population.

This nothing but wishful thinking by supporters of Islamic terrorism.

One day it will happen.

In the long term, it's a geographic inevitability when two neighboring peoples's lives are so intertwined for eternity.

In the short term, Israel will be shamed into ending its denial of Palestinian human rights. Unless some wiser israeli heads prevail that will be in a one state solution, which I am favoring more and more.

I do not support islamic terrorism. Straw man and ad hominem fallacies.

Not an inevitability. The short term is here, and despite all your fantasies, there is no massive international pressure applied currently, there are no credible signs that this will change in any dramatic way in the near future. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality.

The implied insistence that it is all up to Israel and the international community (or, sometimes "the West"), while the Palestinians are basically playing a passive role in this, is laughable.

You do no support "Islamic terrorism", you simply re-define what constitutes Islamic terrorism, thus making it possible to ignore some of the related aspects in Palestinian violence.

[Morch]

sorry thread full.

Morch wrote...

"It's no one's "business plan", in the same way that there are no sanctions.

Them 2% wouldn't have mattered anyway. There was no public support for the relevant plans on both sides. Leaders could not have surmounted this reality. Turning it into yet another one of your rosy instant peace that was missed is disconnected from facts, and does not even correspond to any halfway serious analysis of possible outcomes.

It is an inevitability only if one assumes current condition persist. Soon it ain't going be."

SD bought up the Olmert Plan not I.

Surely there was a point to the above line? I responded separately to both your post and to SD's.

[Morch]

That is a blatant lie. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel or renounce their genocidal charter and they rule much of what may someday be Palestine. There can be no permanent peace treaty without them. Why do you have to constantly rely on dishonest statements to make your point?

This is your old chestnut debunked many times before that you usually resurrect to deflect from the topic which is the denial of Palestinian human ,civil, and economic rights under occupation.

Do a search if you are interested in replies to your red herring.

The topic is not "the denial of Palestinian human ,civil, and economic rights under occupation". Rather, it deals with a part of King Abdullah''s address at a regional convention. This is an editorial choice, and it ignores both the broader scope of the speech and the motivations for bringing up the Palestinians in this context. Similarly, it seems that any deviation from the OP, or even the topic at hand is alright, as long as it allows promotion of your pet agenda.

If you choose to stray into the recognition debate, don't be surprised if posters comment on the usual inaccuracies.

Precisely ....and that is the part of the OP we are currently discussing.

I have told you what Palestinian human, civil and economic rights Israeli is denying them. You tell us what other Palestinian rights King Abdullah was talking about.

If you had an even marginal interest in what the full speech included, you could have searched for it. Obviously, this does not matter much, as long as you can use the OP as a platform to air your pet agenda. The OP itself is pretty brief and condensed, and it surely does not include all the things you allude to in your posts.

[Morch]

@ Dexterm

Re-mandatory propaganda clip:

The OP is a contrived editor choice to highlight one part of King Abdullah's speech.

Your post is a contrived attempt to crusade for your usual agenda.

Presenting Anna Baltzer (or whatever is her surname on any given day) as less than heavily biased, or as supporting non-violence is, again, contrived.

OP...

"He also called for more rights for Palestinians.

“Today is International Human Rights Day, but until the Palestinians achieve their rights, millions of people around the world will be cynical about the reality of global justice. Now terror propaganda and recruitment thrive on this conflict.”"

Forum readers may not be aware of exactly how the Palestinian rights that King Abdullah in the OP mentions are denied.. checkpoints designed solely to humiliate and inconvenience them and to undermine the Palestinian economy.In many cases causing needless death where a woman's twin babies died because she was not allowed to cross a checkpoint between 7pm and 7am, because the soldiers were only following orders. The Wall ..denying farmers and families the right to visit their own land. Land thefts. Homes and farms destroyed to build Israeli colonies. Extremist violent Jewish colonists beating Palestinian and Jewish peace activists; poisoning Palestinian water supplies and pastures.

The Jewish American girl presents her eye witness accounts in a very calm way with photographic evidence. It is the fact that her tesimony is so powerful that you want to silence and besmirch her.

I thought you were a great believer in the truth. Which part of her presentation of the way Palestinian human, civil and economic rights are denied to them is untrue.

Of course she is biased, just as you are. Because she has witnessed Israeli injustices first hand. Not sure what your motives are in trying to besmirch her.

Forum readers who follow these topics no doubt read your detailed accounts of the hardships inflicted on the Palestinians. Do you know which rights King Abdullah was referring to? Or do you simply load your usual wares on a rather slim OP? How would YOU know that this or that was "designed solely to humiliate and inconvenience" etc.? Would non of these things have ANYTHING to do with the Palestinians?

Anna Baltzer is many things, but credible and unbiased she is not. I want to silence her? Where did you get that one? Perhaps from the hyperbolic title of that clip? Powerful testimony? Anna Baltzer? No one needs to besmirch her, she does a pretty good job at it herself.

What she presents is her version of the truth, a one sided view which pretty much conform with yours. There is no room, in either, to the possibility of alternate takes on reality, events and interpretations. Drawing on my own experience, analysis and sources - not much impressed

And no, her bias several degrees to the side of reasonable. Me, I'm not ignoring the complexity of situations, don't see them as black and white, and do not deny the legitimate issues both Israelis and Palestinians raised. My only "motive" here, is that I resent spreading of one-sided propaganda in guise of objective reports.

Tend to have some reservation with regard to people making a career out of human right causes, while at the same time displaying totally one-sided views. More acceptable, perhaps, when locals do it. With Westerners it seems more like jumping on the bandwagon.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote

If you had an even marginal interest in what the full speech included, you could have searched for it. Obviously, this does not matter much, as long as you can use the OP as a platform to air your pet agenda. The OP itself is pretty brief and condensed, and it surely does not include all the things you allude to in your posts.

I am responding to the OP. Not sure what you are doing. Now you complain that I didn't research other parts of Abdullah's speech which per se would be off topic because they are not in the OP. Give us a break!

[Morch]

Sorry thread full

Morch wrote

The USA is not the whole of "the West", and using a veto right is anything but turning a blind eye - it actually draws more attention to whatever is being vetoed. The "West" (not quite clear now what that signifies in this context) did also fail to intervene when the Arabs rejected the UN Partition plan and resolution, same goes for the plight of Jews living in Arab countries.

You often "disagree", what of it? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict being related to Western involvement in the Middle East is not debated, but that does not quite make the argument that the conflict fuels Daesh, or plays a major role in motivating recruitment. Parroting King Abdullah without supplying any basis for the assertions made, while ignoring (talk about turning a blind eye...) his own interests and agenda is not very convincing.

The "observers" are "all of the above"? And they all share the same vision, reservations and conclusions? Lumping everyone together does not strike me as very insightful or correct,

Until you can actually demonstrate these assumptions, how's about treating them as such, rather than serving them as belonging to reality?

In your first paragraph, you are playing with semantics over the term "turn a blind eye" in order to obfuscate.

In your second paragraph, I disgree. I do make the argument.

"but that does not quite make the argument that the conflict fuels Daesh"...just as King Abdullah in the OP indicated.

I never said "plays a major role in motivating recruitment" ...your words not mine.

3rd paragraph. Everyone is different. People react in a variety of ways when they see Israeli injustices. Can't give you a psychoanalytical profile of every one. There are too many.

No, I'm not. Turning a blind eye would be no public condemnation of Israel by Western countries, no official recognition of Palestinian rights by Western countries, and no media attention to every incident related to the conflict. Now compare these to the reality, and come back tell us more about "obfuscate".

No, you did not make the argument. You simply parroted something mentioned in the OP and did not provide anything of substance to indicate that the connection exits. Which if pretty much the case with King Abdullah's statement as well. Saying something is not quite the same as arguing it successfully. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not play a major role for Daesh with regard to motivation and recruitment, then maybe there are worthier avenues of action to explore in order to counter them? Didn't you say resolving the conflict would take the wind out their sails?

If everyone is different, and the whole is too varied for accounting, how is it that you make general claims concerning reaction, takes and positions?

[Morch]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote

If you had an even marginal interest in what the full speech included, you could have searched for it. Obviously, this does not matter much, as long as you can use the OP as a platform to air your pet agenda. The OP itself is pretty brief and condensed, and it surely does not include all the things you allude to in your posts.

I am responding to the OP. Not sure what you are doing. Now you complain that I didn't research other parts of Abdullah's speech which per se would be off topic because they are not in the OP. Give us a break!

This "thread full" thing is getting old. We CAN delete previous messages in thread and quote just the last one. Of course, doing so does not quite lend itself to taking things out of context.

[dexterm]

It is a geographic inevitability that Israel will eventually be forced to absorb their Palestinian population.

This nothing but wishful thinking by supporters of Islamic terrorism.

One day it will happen.

In the long term, it's a geographic inevitability when two neighboring peoples's lives are so intertwined for eternity.

In the short term, Israel will be shamed into ending its denial of Palestinian human rights. Unless some wiser israeli heads prevail that will be in a one state solution, which I am favoring more and more.

I do not support islamic terrorism. Straw man and ad hominem fallacies.

Not an inevitability. The short term is here, and despite all your fantasies, there is no massive international pressure applied currently, there are no credible signs that this will change in any dramatic way in the near future. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality.

The implied insistence that it is all up to Israel and the international community (or, sometimes "the West"), while the Palestinians are basically playing a passive role in this, is laughable.

You do no support "Islamic terrorism", you simply re-define what constitutes Islamic terrorism, thus making it possible to ignore some of the related aspects in Palestinian violence.

ou yourself

So now you define the short term as the present...more meaningless nitpicking semantic juggling. Then y have the chutzpah in the same sentence to talk about the near future.

70% of the world's countries now recognize the state of Palestine, more people are becomig aware of BDS, and choosing to boycott Israeli goods until Palestinians are given their human rights. Just last month, the EU has banned mislabeled goods from the illegal Israeli colonies on the West bank. All a step in the right direction.

Israel is the occupier and aggressor, not the other way around. They hold all the power. What do you suggest occupied Palestinians should do to win back their land and human rights?

I didnt redefine Islamic terrorism at all..again your words not mine. I don't support terror in the name of ANY religion. How about you?

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote

If you had an even marginal interest in what the full speech included, you could have searched for it. Obviously, this does not matter much, as long as you can use the OP as a platform to air your pet agenda. The OP itself is pretty brief and condensed, and it surely does not include all the things you allude to in your posts.

I am responding to the OP. Not sure what you are doing. Now you complain that I didn't research other parts of Abdullah's speech which per se would be off topic because they are not in the OP. Give us a break!

This "thread full" thing is getting old. We CAN delete previous messages in thread and quote just the last one. Of course, doing so does not quite lend itself to taking things out of context.

Twice when I have done so I have had carefully thought out replles deleted as out of context. Now I prefer to to quote your post in full without any alterations.

[dexterm]

@ Dexterm

Re-mandatory propaganda clip:

The OP is a contrived editor choice to highlight one part of King Abdullah's speech.

Your post is a contrived attempt to crusade for your usual agenda.

Presenting Anna Baltzer (or whatever is her surname on any given day) as less than heavily biased, or as supporting non-violence is, again, contrived.

OP...

"He also called for more rights for Palestinians.

“Today is International Human Rights Day, but until the Palestinians achieve their rights, millions of people around the world will be cynical about the reality of global justice. Now terror propaganda and recruitment thrive on this conflict.”"

Forum readers may not be aware of exactly how the Palestinian rights that King Abdullah in the OP mentions are denied.. checkpoints designed solely to humiliate and inconvenience them and to undermine the Palestinian economy.In many cases causing needless death where a woman's twin babies died because she was not allowed to cross a checkpoint between 7pm and 7am, because the soldiers were only following orders. The Wall ..denying farmers and families the right to visit their own land. Land thefts. Homes and farms destroyed to build Israeli colonies. Extremist violent Jewish colonists beating Palestinian and Jewish peace activists; poisoning Palestinian water supplies and pastures.

The Jewish American girl presents her eye witness accounts in a very calm way with photographic evidence. It is the fact that her tesimony is so powerful that you want to silence and besmirch her.

I thought you were a great believer in the truth. Which part of her presentation of the way Palestinian human, civil and economic rights are denied to them is untrue.

Of course she is biased, just as you are. Because she has witnessed Israeli injustices first hand. Not sure what your motives are in trying to besmirch her.

Forum readers who follow these topics no doubt read your detailed accounts of the hardships inflicted on the Palestinians. Do you know which rights King Abdullah was referring to? Or do you simply load your usual wares on a rather slim OP? How would YOU know that this or that was "designed solely to humiliate and inconvenience" etc.? Would non of these things have ANYTHING to do with the Palestinians?

Anna Baltzer is many things, but credible and unbiased she is not. I want to silence her? Where did you get that one? Perhaps from the hyperbolic title of that clip? Powerful testimony? Anna Baltzer? No one needs to besmirch her, she does a pretty good job at it herself.

What she presents is her version of the truth, a one sided view which pretty much conform with yours. There is no room, in either, to the possibility of alternate takes on reality, events and interpretations. Drawing on my own experience, analysis and sources - not much impressed

And no, her bias several degrees to the side of reasonable. Me, I'm not ignoring the complexity of situations, don't see them as black and white, and do not deny the legitimate issues both Israelis and Palestinians raised. My only "motive" here, is that I resent spreading of one-sided propaganda in guise of objective reports.

Tend to have some reservation with regard to people making a career out of human right causes, while at the same time displaying totally one-sided views. More acceptable, perhaps, when locals do it. With Westerners it seems more like jumping on the bandwagon.

If you see a bully mugging and beating someone up, it is not bias to report what you see. It is plain wrong and evil. It is black and white.

I notice you have not refuted a single one of the human rights abuses against Palestinians perpetrated by the Israeli government, the IDF and fanatical colonists that I pointed out as did the courageous Jewish American girl in her video.

But conveniently sweep the abuses and denial of rights under the carpet with turgid euphemisms

"Me, I'm not ignoring the complexity of situations, don't see them as black and white, and do not deny the legitimate issues both Israelis and Palestinians raised."

That is exactly what you are doing..denying legitimate issues. If you think something is wrong, a denial of human rights, such as making a Palestinian woman wait hours at a futile checkpoint in the middle of the night causing the deaths of her twins, or that gun toting Zionist colonists poison wells, pasture land, or that the israeli government steals Palestinian land then sells it subsidize to newly arrived Jewish immigrants, then for crying out loud, say so! Don't hide behind a series of balanced clauses.

Edited December 13, 2015 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

The poster who "hates" bullies but supports Islamic terrorism and obsessively posts dishonest

propaganda on their behalf. What hypocrisy.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't support terror in the name of ANY religion. How about you?

How stupid do you think people are? That is EXACTLY what you do on this forum every single day. We all know that it is permissible for Muslims to lie in order to promote their religion or Islamic Jihad, but why not try to at least make it believable?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

The poster who "hates" bullies but supports Islamic terrorism and obsessively posts dishonest

propaganda on their behalf. What hypocrisy.

Quote a single post where I have supported Islamic terrorism.

[Ulysses G.]

Every single post that makes excuses or justifications for Hamas just for starters. There are too many to count.

[uptheos]

Abdulla talking about 'rights'

[dexterm]

The poster who "hates" bullies but supports Islamic terrorism and obsessively posts dishonest

propaganda on their behalf. What hypocrisy.

Quote a single post where I have supported Islamic terrorism.

Hmm..the silence is deafening.

Don't Israeli apologists realize you don't have to be pro this religion or anti that religion to hold Israel to account on its human rights record to the same standards as any other country that wants to regard itself as a modern civilized democracy.

Edited December 14, 2015 by dexterm

[Scott]

Please keep the discussion civil and stay on topic. The topic is not about any particular poster. Bickering will result in suspensions.

[dexterm]

Abdulla talking about 'rights'

On the whole I am not in favor of hereditary monarchies as heads of state, holding power based purely on an accident of birth.

Looking at King Abdullah's record in wikipedia he does not seem to be doing such a bad job

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II_of_Jordan#King_of_Jordan

But I am genuinely prepared to be educated. Please could you replace your emoticon with a list of his human rights failings.

[dexterm]

Do the Palestinians have full rights in Jordan?

Last time I checked, they didn't

..and they are 60% or more of the population.

http://bostonreview.net/world/whitman-jordan-citizenship

Another arab tyrant talkin out of his backside

Perhaps you should check your stats again...

"Today, most Palestinians and their descendants in Jordan are fully naturalized, making Jordan the only Arab country to fully integrate the Palestinian refugees of 1948.

In Jordan, there is no official census data for how many inhabitants are Palestinians"

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

Thanks for your post though. Food for research. Not that I am that much interested in King Abdullah. I wouldn't exactly call him a tyrant, but as I said above I prefer democratically elected rather than hereditary heads of state.

[Morch]

One day it will happen.

In the long term, it's a geographic inevitability when two neighboring peoples's lives are so intertwined for eternity.

In the short term, Israel will be shamed into ending its denial of Palestinian human rights. Unless some wiser israeli heads prevail that will be in a one state solution, which I am favoring more and more.

I do not support islamic terrorism. Straw man and ad hominem fallacies.

Not an inevitability. The short term is here, and despite all your fantasies, there is no massive international pressure applied currently, there are no credible signs that this will change in any dramatic way in the near future. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality.

The implied insistence that it is all up to Israel and the international community (or, sometimes "the West"), while the Palestinians are basically playing a passive role in this, is laughable.

You do no support "Islamic terrorism", you simply re-define what constitutes Islamic terrorism, thus making it possible to ignore some of the related aspects in Palestinian violence.

So now you define the short term as the present...more meaningless nitpicking semantic juggling. Then y have the chutzpah in the same sentence to talk about the near future.

70% of the world's countries now recognize the state of Palestine, more people are becomig aware of BDS, and choosing to boycott Israeli goods until Palestinians are given their human rights. Just last month, the EU has banned mislabeled goods from the illegal Israeli colonies on the West bank. All a step in the right direction.

Israel is the occupier and aggressor, not the other way around. They hold all the power. What do you suggest occupied Palestinians should do to win back their land and human rights?

I didnt redefine Islamic terrorism at all..again your words not mine. I don't support terror in the name of ANY religion. How about you?

Read your first paragraph, then read your second paragraph. Now go back to your previous post, and reference the part about "shaming" Israel. The way I understand your drift is that some of this is already happening today, and more of the same (maybe an intensified form) will be evident in the short term. If you are done playing with semantics - let us advance.

The usual canard that Israel "holds all the power" is just a poor attempt to make the divert attention from any wrongdoing, mistakes and unpleasantness carried out by the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are not accountable for anything, are not responsible for anything - it follows that there could be legitimate doubts as to how obligated they would be to keep future agreements. If the Palestinians are assigned an essentially passive role in achieving their own self-determination, it might be asked how things are to be handled once they get a state of their own. Doubt that such passiveness will be swiftly replaced by a proactive and responsible approach.

There are many ways to oppose a conquest and occupation, not all have to be violent or based on total rejection of the other side. To date, violence, rejectionism and insistence on unrealistic goals failed to make meaningful headway for the Palestinian cause. The only times when things happened for them were related to diplomatic efforts, compromise and adopting a realistic approach.

The way I see it, many Westerners expressing avid support for the Palestinian cause, do not actually give much thought to these issues, nor are they really well acquainted with issues pertaining to Palestinian politics and Palestinian society. The general idea seems to be give the Palestinians independence, and assume this will result in a functioning Western style democracy. And if it doesn't....well, can always blame Israel, The West or whomever.

Like I said, you do not support Islamic terrorism, but then you do not define Hamas as an Islamic movement, nor see its actions as being terrorism. The current riots making full use of Islamic references, and you insist on ignoring them. Any terrorist attack reported - first line of defense is not-sure-if-Muslim, next up not-sure-attack-was-Islamic motivated, and finally, it-does-not-represent-Islam/all-Muslims. Facts come out, and then its blame Israel, The West....Rinse,repeat.

[Morch]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote

If you had an even marginal interest in what the full speech included, you could have searched for it. Obviously, this does not matter much, as long as you can use the OP as a platform to air your pet agenda. The OP itself is pretty brief and condensed, and it surely does not include all the things you allude to in your posts.

I am responding to the OP. Not sure what you are doing. Now you complain that I didn't research other parts of Abdullah's speech which per se would be off topic because they are not in the OP. Give us a break!

This "thread full" thing is getting old. We CAN delete previous messages in thread and quote just the last one. Of course, doing so does not quite lend itself to taking things out of context.

Twice when I have done so I have had carefully thought out replles deleted as out of context. Now I prefer to to quote your post in full without any alterations.

What do alterations have to do with it? This is not about editing or partial quoting of someone posts.

Most posters seem to get the hang of deleting previous nested posts, it ain't that complicated.

[Morch]

Forum readers who follow these topics no doubt read your detailed accounts of the hardships inflicted on the Palestinians. Do you know which rights King Abdullah was referring to? Or do you simply load your usual wares on a rather slim OP? How would YOU know that this or that was "designed solely to humiliate and inconvenience" etc.? Would non of these things have ANYTHING to do with the Palestinians?

Anna Baltzer is many things, but credible and unbiased she is not. I want to silence her? Where did you get that one? Perhaps from the hyperbolic title of that clip? Powerful testimony? Anna Baltzer? No one needs to besmirch her, she does a pretty good job at it herself.

What she presents is her version of the truth, a one sided view which pretty much conform with yours. There is no room, in either, to the possibility of alternate takes on reality, events and interpretations. Drawing on my own experience, analysis and sources - not much impressed

And no, her bias several degrees to the side of reasonable. Me, I'm not ignoring the complexity of situations, don't see them as black and white, and do not deny the legitimate issues both Israelis and Palestinians raised. My only "motive" here, is that I resent spreading of one-sided propaganda in guise of objective reports.

Tend to have some reservation with regard to people making a career out of human right causes, while at the same time displaying totally one-sided views. More acceptable, perhaps, when locals do it. With Westerners it seems more like jumping on the bandwagon.

If you see a bully mugging and beating someone up, it is not bias to report what you see. It is plain wrong and evil. It is black and white.

I notice you have not refuted a single one of the human rights abuses against Palestinians perpetrated by the Israeli government, the IDF and fanatical colonists that I pointed out as did the courageous Jewish American girl in her video.

But conveniently sweep the abuses and denial of rights under the carpet with turgid euphemisms

"Me, I'm not ignoring the complexity of situations, don't see them as black and white, and do not deny the legitimate issues both Israelis and Palestinians raised."

That is exactly what you are doing..denying legitimate issues. If you think something is wrong, a denial of human rights, such as making a Palestinian woman wait hours at a futile checkpoint in the middle of the night causing the deaths of her twins, or that gun toting Zionist colonists poison wells, pasture land, or that the israeli government steals Palestinian land then sells it subsidize to newly arrived Jewish immigrants, then for crying out loud, say so! Don't hide behind a series of balanced clauses.

Ages ago, as I was heading home for the evening, ran into a couple on the street. The guy was slapping the girl around, she crying and hysterical, bleeding from her mouth. I stepped in, pulled the guy off and got into a fight. Just as I was thinking I had him, he smiles over my shoulder and the next thing I know, his girl slams a block on my back. They then proceeded to try and divest me of my wallet. Not quite a parallel example but goes to show that sometimes, not all is as it seems.

Automatically treating only one side, on all occasions, as innocent, justifying any action taken - is not "reporting". It is heavily biased partisan position. When this meets media it is may be called propaganda. Further, investing descriptions of actions and situations with emotive judgmental qualities is not reporting. At least not as it relates to any objective meaning. Once again, more in line with propaganda. It is even more obvious when these emotive terms are used by posters who lack in first hand experience with the things they post about.

Twist my words as much as you like, but your claim was that I am biased just as your pet talking head is. The reply "Me, I'm not ignoring the complexity of situations, don't see them as black and white, and do not deny the legitimate issues both Israelis and Palestinians raised." was a direct reference to how my views are not nearly as one sided and biased. I do not deny any legitimate issues, as you claim, but that goes back to anyone not completely identifying with your extreme position being regarded as being in the wrong. The Palestinians will need some serious good luck finding partners for dialogue as long as such attitudes prevail.

[Morch]

Abdulla talking about 'rights'

On the whole I am not in favor of hereditary monarchies as heads of state, holding power based purely on an accident of birth.

Looking at King Abdullah's record in wikipedia he does not seem to be doing such a bad job

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II_of_Jordan#King_of_Jordan

But I am genuinely prepared to be educated. Please could you replace your emoticon with a list of his human rights failings.

Seems like Jordan's and King Abdullah's human rights record are dependent on which part of the ongoing narrative is presented.

A bit earlier in the topic it was even referenced as a "corrupt regime".

There's the "Good" King Abdullah - bringing up the Palestinian cause, favorable quotes from Wikipedia.

And then there's the "Bad" King Abdullah - cooperating with Israel, some discrimination evident against Palestinians in Jordan.

As is often the case, the details are not important, as long as they provide a platform and an opportunity to advance the usual agenda.

[Steely Dan]

One day it will happen.

In the long term, it's a geographic inevitability when two neighboring peoples's lives are so intertwined for eternity.

In the short term, Israel will be shamed into ending its denial of Palestinian human rights. Unless some wiser israeli heads prevail that will be in a one state solution, which I am favoring more and more.

I do not support islamic terrorism. Straw man and ad hominem fallacies.

Not an inevitability. The short term is here, and despite all your fantasies, there is no massive international pressure applied currently, there are no credible signs that this will change in any dramatic way in the near future. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality.

The implied insistence that it is all up to Israel and the international community (or, sometimes "the West"), while the Palestinians are basically playing a passive role in this, is laughable.

You do no support "Islamic terrorism", you simply re-define what constitutes Islamic terrorism, thus making it possible to ignore some of the related aspects in Palestinian violence.

So now you define the short term as the present...more meaningless nitpicking semantic juggling. Then y have the chutzpah in the same sentence to talk about the near future.

70% of the world's countries now recognize the state of Palestine, more people are becomig aware of BDS, and choosing to boycott Israeli goods until Palestinians are given their human rights. Just last month, the EU has banned mislabeled goods from the illegal Israeli colonies on the West bank. All a step in the right direction.

Israel is the occupier and aggressor, not the other way around. They hold all the power. What do you suggest occupied Palestinians should do to win back their land and human rights?

I didnt redefine Islamic terrorism at all..again your words not mine. I don't support terror in the name of ANY religion. How about you?

Read your first paragraph, then read your second paragraph. Now go back to your previous post, and reference the part about "shaming" Israel. The way I understand your drift is that some of this is already happening today, and more of the same (maybe an intensified form) will be evident in the short term. If you are done playing with semantics - let us advance.

The usual canard that Israel "holds all the power" is just a poor attempt to make the divert attention from any wrongdoing, mistakes and unpleasantness carried out by the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are not accountable for anything, are not responsible for anything - it follows that there could be legitimate doubts as to how obligated they would be to keep future agreements. If the Palestinians are assigned an essentially passive role in achieving their own self-determination, it might be asked how things are to be handled once they get a state of their own. Doubt that such passiveness will be swiftly replaced by a proactive and responsible approach.

There are many ways to oppose a conquest and occupation, not all have to be violent or based on total rejection of the other side. To date, violence, rejectionism and insistence on unrealistic goals failed to make meaningful headway for the Palestinian cause. The only times when things happened for them were related to diplomatic efforts, compromise and adopting a realistic approach.

The way I see it, many Westerners expressing avid support for the Palestinian cause, do not actually give much thought to these issues, nor are they really well acquainted with issues pertaining to Palestinian politics and Palestinian society. The general idea seems to be give the Palestinians independence, and assume this will result in a functioning Western style democracy. And if it doesn't....well, can always blame Israel, The West or whomever.

Like I said, you do not support Islamic terrorism, but then you do not define Hamas as an Islamic movement, nor see its actions as being terrorism. The current riots making full use of Islamic references, and you insist on ignoring them. Any terrorist attack reported - first line of defense is not-sure-if-Muslim, next up not-sure-attack-was-Islamic motivated, and finally, it-does-not-represent-Islam/all-Muslims. Facts come out, and then its blame Israel, The West....Rinse,repeat.

Regarding "shaming" it's a shame other Countries in the Middle East are not shamed in the same way as they have far more to be ashamed about.

P.s Even Erdogan of Turkey is talking about closer relations with Israel, wait to see Hamas dropped as a result. And finally as an aside in case we get no thread to discuss it a group of NATO military experts concluded Israel exceeded all norms in safeguarding the lives of civilians during their last campaign in Gaza, in spite of the attempts of Hamas to maximize civilian casualties.