Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election

[Jingthing]

 

I think Israel's right of return law for global Jews is a wonderful thing.

You can't ignore the history of the Jewish people. Thousands of years in the diaspora, so often discriminated against and persecuted, including cyclical waves of expulsions and genocide. 

That was the point of creating Israel ... the homeland for the Jewish people, because the political ideology posited that because of the clear history of  what this specific people (Jews) had experienced, a nation state that would have the power of a nation state (which the Jews never had in the diaspora) was NEEDED for SURVIVAL of this people. 

In the fullness of history, we don't know whether that turns out to be correct, but it was certainly a rational and reasonable political ideology.

I reckon the Zionist founders never imagined that Israel would be the military power it has become, but I reckon also they would be sad that that level of power is needed for continued existence of the state. 

There are arguments it was a mistake. For the usual suspects that have always wanted to kill Jews ... well, now they know where to easily find the majority of them, in one place, in an actually very small place. 

Problem free? Of course not.

Controversial? Sure thing. 

If some people find it racist, too bad.

Do they find Italian immigration laws favoring people with Italian ancestors racist? Perhaps. But silly if they do. 

Which is a way of saying, of course there are plenty of things to criticize about Israeli government policies, just as of any government.

But those obsessed with calling Israel's right of return for Jews racist, I consider that the noxious POV and not a REASONABLE criticism ... that's the point of Israel, homeland for Jews, why shouldn't Jews be allowed a homeland? If you're against Israel's right of return for Jews, you're against the right of Israel to exist as state with a majority Jewish character, which was the POINT of Israel. I think that's an antisemitic POV ... the same agenda that thinks Israel didn't have a right to exist in the first place. The game players who say I'm for Israel existing, but not for Israel to preserve a Jewish character, don't be deceived. That's a tricky way of saying Israel should have never existed and shouldn't continue to exist. At least be honest about it!

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

 

I think Israel's right of return law for global Jews is a wonderful thing.

You can't ignore the history of the Jewish people. Thousands of years in the diaspora, so often discriminated against and persecuted, including cyclical waves of expulsions and genocide. 

That was the point of creating Israel ... the homeland for the Jewish people, because the political ideology posited that because of the clear history of  what this specific people (Jews) had experienced, a nation state that would have the power of a nation state (which the Jews never had in the diaspora) was NEEDED for SURVIVAL of this people. 

In the fullness of history, we don't know whether that turns out to be correct, but it was certainly a rational and reasonable political ideology.

I reckon the Zionist founders never imagined that Israel would be the military power it has become, but I reckon also they would be sad that that level of power is needed for continued existence of the state. 

There are arguments it was a mistake. For the usual suspects that have always wanted to kill Jews ... well, now they know where to easily find the majority of them, in one place, in an actually very small place. 

Problem free? Of course not.

Controversial? Sure thing. 

If some people find it racist, too bad.

Do they find Italian immigration laws favoring people with Italian ancestors racist? Perhaps. But silly if they do. 

Which is a way of saying, of course there are plenty of things to criticize about Israeli government policies, just as of any government.

But those obsessed with calling Israel's right of return for Jews racist, I consider that the noxious POV and not a REASONABLE criticism ... that's the point of Israel, homeland for Jews, why shouldn't Jews be allowed a homeland? If you're against Israel's right of return for Jews, you're against the right of Israel to exist as state with a majority Jewish character, which was the POINT of Israel. I think that's an antisemitic POV ... the same agenda that thinks Israel didn't have a right to exist in the first place. The game players who say I'm for Israel existing, but not for Israel to preserve a Jewish character, don't be deceived. That's a tricky way of saying Israel should have never existed and shouldn't continue to exist. At least be honest about it!

 

This right of return nonsense is pure baloney, when you can't even define what a Jew is after so many years of intermarriage and conversion. 

 

Buddhists have a religious connectiion to Nepal and India where Lord Buddha lived. Should Buddhists world wide be granted automatic Indian and Nepalese citizenship, while native Hindus are herded into refugee camps and their homes confiscated to be made available to Buddhist immigrants? Should Christians get automatic Israeli citizenship because Christ lived there? Religion is a totally ridiculous criterion for immigration. Race as a criterion is even worse.

 

No objection at all to Israel granting immigration visas to Jews (or any other religion/race) on the grounds of marriage, family reunion, work if they have the appropriate skills, study, retirement, or refugees from persecution. Just like any other modern secular democracy. And if that means Israel ceases being a majority Jewish state, so be it. Israel can simply learn to be like every other modern democracy, treating all its citizens equally.

 

Of course yours, Israel's and the US administration's total hypocrisy is you dont extend any right of return to the ethnically cleansed Palestinian refugees that Israel actually created when they attempted to maintain a Jewish majority.

 

Most of world Jewry have voted with their feet anyway, and choose not to live in Israel. There is no longer a need for a haven for persecuted Jews. The irony is that Israel is a danger to its own people and to Jews world wide, since world Jewry is now responsible for Israeli security through its US political influence and donations , not the other way around. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by dexterm

[Pimay1]

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

This right of return?? nonsense is pure baloney, when you can't even define what a Jew is after so many years of intermarriage and conversion. 

 

Buddhists have a religious connectiion to Nepal and India where Lord Buddha lived. Should Buddhists world wide be granted automatic Indian and Nepalese citizenship, while native Hindus are herded into refugee camps and their homes confiscated to be made available to Buddhist immigrants? Should Christians get automatic Israeli citizenship because Christ lived there? Religion is a totally ridiculous criterion for immigration. Race as a criterion is even worse.

 

No objection at all to Israel granting immigration visas to Jews (or any other religion/race) on the grounds of marriage, family reunion, work if they have the appropriate skills, study, retirement, or refugees from persecution. Just like any other modern secular democracy. And if that means Israel ceases being a majority Jewish state, so be it. Israel can simply learn to be like every other modern democracy, treating all its citizens equally.

 

Of course yours, Israel's and the US administration's total hypocrisy is you dont extend any right of return to the ethnically cleansed Palestinian refugees that Israel actually created when they attempted to maintain a Jewish majority.

 

Most of world Jewry have voted with their feet anyway, and choose not to live in Israel. There is no longer a need for a haven for persecuted Jews. The irony is that Israel is a danger to its own people and to Jews world wide, since world Jewry is now responsible for Israeli security through its US political influence and donations , not the other way around. 

Would you say Israel has the right to exist or not?

[dexterm]

13 minutes ago, Pimay1 said:

Would you say Israel has the right to exist or not?

 

If you have read the entire thread, you would know that I have already answered that question.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/942673-harder-times-for-palestine-if-clinton-wins-us-election/?page=3#comment-11150706

The racist supremacist Jewish state of Israel does not deserve to exist,  no racist supremacist state does.

 

The state of secular democractic Israel or whatever it likes to call itself in the future has the right to exist if it grants equal human and civil rights to all its citizens, and ceases its occupation of 4.5 million Palestinians.

Edited September 19, 2016 by dexterm

[HenryB]

On 9/13/2016 at 2:36 PM, teacherofwoe said:

Rothschild Zionism is devastating to Palestine, Jews everywhere, and the entire population of the planet. The world needs to wake up and see who is controlling them, and funding people like the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, etc. to do their bidding. Please, don't let your cognitive dissidence rule you and research the facts for yourself. 

Wow you have to be careful if I was you read what you wrote since they control everything hope they do not want to find you

Move give away you computer or they may get you

Be careful

[Johpa]

9 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

We are now getting into a very complicated and arguable question - what its Judaism, a religion or an ethnicity. If the latter is the case, then there must be Christian or Muslim, or Buddhist Jews. The same as there are Koreans and Japanese of many religions, which I believe is not the case in Israel. Or is it?

 

No, the underlying question is what is ethnicity, how is it established, and how does it change.  For an academic perusal of the topic I suggest tracking down a copy of, perhaps now dated a bit but still illuminating,  noted Thai scholar Charles Keyes book "Ethnic Change".

[abrahamzvi]

13 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

No, the underlying question is what is ethnicity, how is it established, and how does it change.  For an academic perusal of the topic I suggest tracking down a copy of, perhaps now dated a bit but still illuminating,  noted Thai scholar Charles Keyes book "Ethnic Change".

Thanks. I do know the book referred to, but this still doesn't answer my question. Does it???

[Johpa]

9 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

Thanks. I do know the book referred to, but this still doesn't answer my question. Does it???

 

Of course not because your question is subsumed under the larger question of what is ethnicity.  Clearly referring to oneself as a Jew can have both religious and ethnic meaning.  I find the question of what is ethnicity and how it is created to be the more interesting question and the required question to be considered before delving into the specifics of any one ethnicity.  And to borrow some language from my former academic area, religion is but one distinctive feature of many that can be used to create a sense of ethnic identity.  What is clear to me is that ethnicity is created and it is fluid and people do not ask for approbation from others when an ethnic identity is created. Your approval is not required.

[Morch]

On 9/18/2016 at 5:56 PM, dexterm said:

>> The "global community" which you seem to have appointed yourself a spokesman of, could do with some history lessons.

 

The global community I refer to is the 70% of UN member states (with more to follow) who have already recognized the Palestinian State. My opinions are my opinions...no-one else's.

 

My motivation is basically that the injustice Israel has done and continues to perpetrate upon the Palestinians is wrong, exactly the same way that European colonialists treated the resident populations in other colonial enterprises...N America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa. Global awareness of the indigenous plight in those instances came much too late, and attempts to redress those injustices are finally now being attempted. Zionists left their colonialist run about 100 years too late to get away with it, and they are still in a state of denial that they are behaving exactly the same way that other European colonialists have done before, albeit dressed up in all this right of return baloney and David and Goliath revisionist history perfect narrative nonsense, that Israeli apologists on this forum continually push.

 

When I see those images especially of Palestinian kids killed, I know in my heart that something is rotten and decidedly wrong here.

 

The politicians (US in particular) are messing up yet again in a too little too late scenario, as always in a desire simply to get re-elected and not upset too many of their voters. No vision; no commitment to what they know in their hearts is right.

 

Yes, I am one sided, because I know that the Israeli propaganda machine is very powerful and insidious...attempts to suppress BDS, censor criticism in the media and university campuses, labelling criticism of Israel as anti semitism, trying to suppress the word "Zionist" (even though its the corner stone of the state of Israel and the name of the Israeli opposition party), and in your instance labelling Israel as racist as somehow inflammatory hyperbole. In this thread alone and others I have learnt that give the Israeli apologists an inch and they will take a mile, so I tend not to give an inch even though of course I am aware of the shortcomings on both sides. That's probably why you find my stance so vehement.

 

>>This stems from most relevant countries operating not according to one-sided emotional take on things, but following more realistic, balanced and interest driven approach. 
... I challenge you on this point. Don't you feel as you look back on some of the major human rights issues in history, that mainstream politicians were often way behind the cue ball. The Wilberforces, Pankhursts, Luther Kings were pilloried but now considered being way ahead of their times, and are now lauded. 

 

I feel future students of history will regard the Israel Palestinian conflict in the same light, and ask why didnt the major players and countries do X Y Z  years before they reached a final consensual peace agreement.

Obama and Clinton are smart enough to know what's right and wrong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how to resolve it. They just haven't got the guts to make tough decisions that may threaten their power base. Trump is too narcissistic to have a clue of what's right unless he personally benefits monetarily or gains adulation for it.

 

More of the same. The usual mishmash of half truth, slogans, and hatred.

 

The reference to the global community appeared in your post asserting that the majority of it agreed with your use of the term "stolen" (or "theft") with regard to the land controlled by Israel (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/942673-harder-times-for-palestine-if-clinton-wins-us-election/?page=5#comment-11157938). The post above does not support this: recognition of a Palestinian state is not quite the same as adopting your stance and terminology.

 

US politicians are no different than others operating in democratic systems. The differences between them and their European counterparts are superficial. But if your issues are with the nature of democratic systems, that's a whole new discussion.

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely to end up as nothing but a footnote of Human history. Realistically, it does not involve nor applies for the majority of the global population. In terms of human suffering, there are far worse tragedies (without taking away from the suffering of those involved). Sorting it will not lead to a new era of global (or even regional) peace and prosperity. From this point of view, your "challenge" is meaningless, other than a talking point attempting to simplistic equation of major human right struggles. The foreign policy of most countries reflects national, sectarian or personal interests. Hence, there is little to suggest major changes in US policy without relevant changes pertaining to demographics, economy and security.

 

Obama, Clinton, and them "future students" may or may not know what should be done in order to resolve the conflict. Personally I doubt this is the case, and further, convinced that even if they do - their answers are not similar to those you often present.

 

This topic, surprisingly, is not about racism, Zionism, Israel's immigration policies, or the lame pseudo history rants making up the bulk of your posts. Granted, the OP and the article linked could have been one of your posts (complete with misstatements and all), but the overall premise is limited to criticizing HRC's supposed position and track record on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Being a rant, It does not really even discuss much the US foreign policy or HRC's rival's positions.

 

You can post all you like about Israel being the "same" as former colonial powers. The basic trouble with this premise is the existence of an undeniable connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. This serves to differentiate, but obviously does not absolve Israel of any wrongdoing. Denying the connection, its relevance or its legitimacy puts your views way out there on the fringe of reasonable debate.

 

The most telling part of your post is the admission of posting biased, extreme opinion while being aware that they do not always conform to reality and the truth. This here is an open expat forum catering to foreigners in Thailand. Seeing it as an extension of a supposed "Israeli propaganda machine" borders on the paranoid, labeling anyone not sharing your view as an "apologist" is mind boggling disingenuous considering the self description appearing in the post above.

 

As recently said (privately) to another poster (of opposite opinions to yours), I find that a side's narrative a great obstacle when it comes to this conflict. Upholding the supposed  "justice" of the narrative over facts and the truth is often at the core of sides being unable to conduct dialogue.  I will suggest again, that presenting a balanced and realistic fact based picture is superior to one-sided emotional rants. That is, if the aim of these discussions is to achieve a better understanding of topics at hand. The opposite is true if one shares certain similarities with the politicians denounced earlier. Knowingly denying any wrongdoing committed by a side one supports is not about "not budging an inch", merely dishonesty or ignorance.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

...

You can post all you like about Israel being the "same" as former colonial powers. The basic trouble with this premise is the existence of an undeniable connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. This serves to differentiate, but obviously does not absolve Israel of any wrongdoing. Denying the connection, its relevance or its legitimacy puts your views way out there on the fringe of reasonable debate.

 

...

 

Thank you.

That is such a CORE point and deserves to be emphasized strongly. 

It flows to pretty much all the discussion about the conflict.

For example when Israel demonizers absurdly try to draw an equivalence between the history of South Africa and if Israel, the point about Jews very real historical connection to Israel (compared to white South Africans having NONE) DESTROYS that. 

 

To better understand why Israel continues to need a very strong defense, which of course the likely next U.S. president Hillary Clinton well understands:

Quote

If I accepted a two state solution, I'd be acknowledging that (the Jews) may have a state of their own. How can that be?!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

More of the same. The usual mishmash of half truth, slogans, and hatred.

 

The reference to the global community appeared in your post asserting that the majority of it agreed with your use of the term "stolen" (or "theft") with regard to the land controlled by Israel (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/942673-harder-times-for-palestine-if-clinton-wins-us-election/?page=5#comment-11157938). The post above does not support this: recognition of a Palestinian state is not quite the same as adopting your stance and terminology.

 

US politicians are no different than others operating in democratic systems. The differences between them and their European counterparts are superficial. But if your issues are with the nature of democratic systems, that's a whole new discussion.

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely to end up as nothing but a footnote of Human history. Realistically, it does not involve nor applies for the majority of the global population. In terms of human suffering, there are far worse tragedies (without taking away from the suffering of those involved). Sorting it will not lead to a new era of global (or even regional) peace and prosperity. From this point of view, your "challenge" is meaningless, other than a talking point attempting to simplistic equation of major human right struggles. The foreign policy of most countries reflects national, sectarian or personal interests. Hence, there is little to suggest major changes in US policy without relevant changes pertaining to demographics, economy and security.

 

Obama, Clinton, and them "future students" may or may not know what should be done in order to resolve the conflict. Personally I doubt this is the case, and further, convinced that even if they do - their answers are not similar to those you often present.

 

This topic, surprisingly, is not about racism, Zionism, Israel's immigration policies, or the lame pseudo history rants making up the bulk of your posts. Granted, the OP and the article linked could have been one of your posts (complete with misstatements and all), but the overall premise is limited to criticizing HRC's supposed position and track record on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Being a rant, It does not really even discuss much the US foreign policy or HRC's rival's positions.

 

You can post all you like about Israel being the "same" as former colonial powers. The basic trouble with this premise is the existence of an undeniable connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. This serves to differentiate, but obviously does not absolve Israel of any wrongdoing. Denying the connection, its relevance or its legitimacy puts your views way out there on the fringe of reasonable debate.

 

The most telling part of your post is the admission of posting biased, extreme opinion while being aware that they do not always conform to reality and the truth. This here is an open expat forum catering to foreigners in Thailand. Seeing it as an extension of a supposed "Israeli propaganda machine" borders on the paranoid, labeling anyone not sharing your view as an "apologist" is mind boggling disingenuous considering the self description appearing in the post above.

 

As recently said (privately) to another poster (of opposite opinions to yours), I find that a side's narrative a great obstacle when it comes to this conflict. Upholding the supposed  "justice" of the narrative over facts and the truth is often at the core of sides being unable to conduct dialogue.  I will suggest again, that presenting a balanced and realistic fact based picture is superior to one-sided emotional rants. That is, if the aim of these discussions is to achieve a better understanding of topics at hand. The opposite is true if one shares certain similarities with the politicians denounced earlier. Knowingly denying any wrongdoing committed by a side one supports is not about "not budging an inch", merely dishonesty or ignorance.

 

 

 

>>The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely to end up as nothing but a footnote of Human history.
... agreed. That's why I tend to see the bigger picture of an eventual political reality of a multicultural secular Israel.

 

>>Sorting it will not lead to a new era of global (or even regional) peace and prosperity. 
...maybe, maybe not. But I do believe a just peace for the Israeli Palestinian conflict will be beneficial for US relations with the rest of the Arab world and will take the wind out of the sails of extremists, Muslim and Jewish.

 

>>this topic, surprisingly, is not about racism, Zionism, Israel's immigration policies.
...I agree the we have drifted off topic, but I have only responded to Israeli apologists' justifications for a racist Jewish only state and thanks to the tolerance of the mods we have cleared the air a little on where we stand, without any personal flaming. I would have stopped posting aeons ago, when I stated that it will all be one state one day anyway..and it will be. The mere 70 year old Zionist state of Israel is a pinprick on history and will ultimately disappear. It was only the provocative Israeli apologists' deflections that kept me posting.

 

>>You can post all you like about Israel being the "same" as former colonial powers. The basic trouble with this premise is the existence of an undeniable connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.
... No, I will not compromise on Zionism being a European colonial enterprise. It was and is still. Bearing in mind that Zionism was originally a non religious movement and several other regions..Argentina, Uganda, Australia, and Alaska were considered for the new Jewish state at one time.  UK approval through the Balfour Declaration and later support was proxy colonialism. Palestine was an easy target with the Ottoman Empire in disarray and UK politicians susceptble to Zionist influences.

 

I live in Thailand for half of the year. The reason I was first motivated to post on this forum was because of the one sided pro Israeli narrative that seemed to predominate on TV. All I try to do is balance the discussion with the truth, so that readers are aware there is another side to the history, as I myself discovered a few years ago when I travelled in the area and discovered the Zionist mythology.

Edited September 20, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Thank you.

That is such a CORE point and deserves to be emphasized strongly. 

It flows to pretty much all the discussion about the conflict.

For example when Israel demonizers absurdly try to draw an equivalence between the history of South Africa and if Israel, the point about Jews very real historical connection to Israel (compared to white South Africans having NONE) DESTROYS that. 

 

To better understand why Israel continues to need a very strong defense, which of course the likely next U.S. president Hillary Clinton well understands:

 

 

 

 

 

A national homeland for globally persecuted Jewish people located in Palestine would have been a wonderful idea..if only it had been an empty space without any resident population that outnumbered the original Jewish migrants about 8:1. The Jewish state has been established at the expense of the resident Palestinian population, now made refugees.

 

That's what I object to, and that problem ain't going away.

 

And that's the same problem that either Clinton or Trump must address for the benefit of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans.

[CharlieK]

 

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

A national homeland for globally persecuted Jewish people located in Palestine would have been a wonderful idea..if only it had been an empty space without any resident population that outnumbered the original Jewish migrants about 8:1. The Jewish state has been established at the expense of the resident Palestinian population, now made refugees.

 

That's what I object to, and that problem ain't going away.

 

And that's the same problem that either Clinton or Trump must address for the benefit of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans.

 

Fortunately your objections don't really matter! 

 

https://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/9000-photographs-and-israel-from-1800s-with-no-trace-of-displaced-palestinians/

 

Palestinians are a fake creation ordered and constructed by the Grand Mufti Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini [1889-1974]. They were basically discovered (formed and invented) and originate from mass immigration from Egypt and Saudi Arabia with purpose to commit jihad. The Egyptian fighters ended up in Gaza and the Saudi fighters ended up in the West Bank according to their rout of entry.

 

This makes very interesting reading. if you scroll down the page there are some photo's which make the point! 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by CharlieK

[Jingthing]

CharlieK, that doesn't really matter so much given current realities.

Palestinian Arab identity while indeed a quite modern creation does indeed now strongly exist and it is isn't going away.

Two states are needed but the political will to make that happen is sadly lacking on BOTH sides. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely to end up as nothing but a footnote of Human history.
... agreed. That's why I tend to see the bigger picture of an eventual political reality of a multicultural secular Israel.

 

>>Sorting it will not lead to a new era of global (or even regional) peace and prosperity. 
...maybe, maybe not. But I do believe a just peace for the Israeli Palestinian conflict will be beneficial for US relations with the rest of the Arab world and will take the wind out of the sails of extremists, Muslim and Jewish.

 

>>this topic, surprisingly, is not about racism, Zionism, Israel's immigration policies.
...I agree the we have drifted off topic, but I have only responded to Israeli apologists' justifications for a racist Jewish only state and thanks to the tolerance of the mods we have cleared the air a little on where we stand, without any personal flaming. I would have stopped posting aeons ago, when I stated that it will all be one state one day anyway..and it will be. The mere 70 year old Zionist state of Israel is a pinprick on history and will ultimately disappear. It was only the provocative Israeli apologists' deflections that kept me posting.

 

>>You can post all you like about Israel being the "same" as former colonial powers. The basic trouble with this premise is the existence of an undeniable connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.
... No, I will not compromise on Zionism being a European colonial enterprise. It was and is still. Bearing in mind that Zionism was originally a non religious movement and several other regions..Argentina, Uganda, Australia, and Alaska were considered for the new Jewish state at one time.  UK approval through the Balfour Declaration and later support was proxy colonialism. Palestine was an easy target with the Ottoman Empire in disarray and UK politicians susceptble to Zionist influences.

 

I live in Thailand for half of the year. The reason I was first motivated to post on this forum was because of the one sided pro Israeli narrative that seemed to predominate on TV. All I try to do is balance the discussion with the truth, so that readers are aware there is another side to the history, as I myself discovered a few years ago when I travelled in the area and discovered the Zionist mythology.

 

The underlying assumption that the eventual long term conditions will include a secular or a multicultural element are not supported by much. Nothing to say that an opposite outcome will not emerge. But be that as it may, this refers to the long term. I cannot off hand recall similar long term predictions serving as basis for current policy. That's probably due to crystal balls being out. The only reason this simplistic distant future features in your posts is to cover the inability to deal with the nature of complex reality in the present.

 

The same goes for the prediction that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will result in marginalizing extreme elements. This, again, may be something which will appear mid-long term. Short-mid term, there is little doubt that there will be some sort of backlash. Also doubtful is the relevance this holds for other conflicts in the region. With regard to the US relations with the Arab world, no reason to assume the US will benefit much (see previous Israel related agreements involving the US and their aftermath). As posted earlier, if anything, it is more likely that if the same condition persist, then at some point the US may gradually disengage itself from the level of involvement it exerts today.

 

With regard to the "colonial" nonsense, your "compromise" is unnecessary. Insisting on this point simply paints your opinions as extreme fringe. No surprises there. All the pseudo-historical drivel will not make it otherwise. I think that you would be hard pressed to find support for this view even among those countries recognizing the Palestinian statehood. The Palestinians themselves, by the way, acknowledge the connection (granted, not all). Reads more like a case of guilt projection over the sins of the past, sometimes found on the fringe element of the political left.

 

As for off topic rants - spare us the bogus explanations. I doubt there is a single topic related to the conflict which does not host at least one of those hyperbole hate filled rants. These usually include as many negative statement regarding Israel as can be thrown in, while ignoring anything casting a less than favorable light on the Palestinian side. You just responded and of course, only others are being provocative. Right.

 

Neither balance, nor truth, are a hallmark of your posts. Said so yourself in your previous attempt. Aware of  both sides "shortcoming" but choose to deny or ignore any such when applies to the Palestinians, just in order to avoid conceding a point. Would have expected someone posting so prolifically and vehemently on a specific issue to have a bit more to go on other than being an opinionated tourist. The audacity of calling others "apologists" and yapping about "propaganda, is quite out there.

 

SJW FTW!

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Neither balance, nor truth, are a hallmark of your posts. 

 

That is putting it mildly - very politely said.

[Ulysses G.]

51 minutes ago, MisterTee said:

 

Debate the points of the topic and stop the personal insults.

 

Pointing out dishonest posts is not a personal insult. It is calling a spade a spade.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The underlying assumption that the eventual long term conditions will include a secular or a multicultural element are not supported by much. Nothing to say that an opposite outcome will not emerge. But be that as it may, this refers to the long term. I cannot off hand recall similar long term predictions serving as basis for current policy. That's probably due to crystal balls being out. The only reason this simplistic distant future features in your posts is to cover the inability to deal with the nature of complex reality in the present.

 

The same goes for the prediction that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will result in marginalizing extreme elements. This, again, may be something which will appear mid-long term. Short-mid term, there is little doubt that there will be some sort of backlash. Also doubtful is the relevance this holds for other conflicts in the region. With regard to the US relations with the Arab world, no reason to assume the US will benefit much (see previous Israel related agreements involving the US and their aftermath). As posted earlier, if anything, it is more likely that if the same condition persist, then at some point the US may gradually disengage itself from the level of involvement it exerts today.

 

With regard to the "colonial" nonsense, your "compromise" is unnecessary. Insisting on this point simply paints your opinions as extreme fringe. No surprises there. All the pseudo-historical drivel will not make it otherwise. I think that you would be hard pressed to find support for this view even among those countries recognizing the Palestinian statehood. The Palestinians themselves, by the way, acknowledge the connection (granted, not all). Reads more like a case of guilt projection over the sins of the past, sometimes found on the fringe element of the political left.

 

As for off topic rants - spare us the bogus explanations. I doubt there is a single topic related to the conflict which does not host at least one of those hyperbole hate filled rants. These usually include as many negative statement regarding Israel as can be thrown in, while ignoring anything casting a less than favorable light on the Palestinian side. You just responded and of course, only others are being provocative. Right.

 

Neither balance, nor truth, are a hallmark of your posts. Said so yourself in your previous attempt. Aware of  both sides "shortcoming" but choose to deny or ignore any such when applies to the Palestinians, just in order to avoid conceding a point. Would have expected someone posting so prolifically and vehemently on a specific issue to have a bit more to go on other than being an opinionated tourist. The audacity of calling others "apologists" and yapping about "propaganda, is quite out there.

 

SJW FTW!

>>I cannot off hand recall similar long term predictions serving as basis for current policy. 
.... John Kerry has stated that Israel's present illegal occupation is unsustainable.  Joe Biden is staring into a crytsal ball too.

“I firmly believe that the action Israel’s government has taken over the past several years – the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures – they’re moving us, and more important, they’re moving Israel, in the wrong direction,” the vice president said.
Mr. Biden said those moves were efforts to make a two-state solution impossible logistically. This possibility he called “dangerous,” saying it would not only make peace with the Palestinians impossible, it would push Israel into a dilemma of remaining a Jewish state or remaining a liberal, democratic one."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/18/joe-biden-blasts-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-govern/

Their stated vision is of a two state solution. Mine goes beyond that. After decades of a just peace between two economically dependent states I predict these geographic-neighbors-for-eternity and their populations will meld. Nothing unrealistic about that at all.
It's all very well to focus as you do on "the complex reality of the present", but IMO you lack vision of the bigger picture.

 

>>The same goes for the prediction that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will result in marginalizing extreme elements
...I disagree with you. You are always looking at a glass half empty. Peace in a 100 year old conflict must be good for the region. Extremists have used the Arab Israel conflict as a casus belli for decades. The Arab world is well aware of US hypocrisy ..championing freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while supporting the 50 year illegal Israeli occupation and repression of Palestinians. Sanctioning Iran over possible development of nuclear technology, while they know full well that Israel has 200 nukes pointed at Tehran (according to Colin Powell).

 

>>As posted earlier, if anything, it is more likely that if the same condition persist, then at some point the US may gradually disengage itself from the level of involvement it exerts today.
..the US has just increased its commitment to Israel's defense with a $38 billion package over the next 10 years.

 

I have never denied that people of the Jewish faith lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago. People of other faiths lived there before them and after them. It's using that distant religious connection as a ridiculous tenuous pretext to colonize and ethnically cleanse the resident Palestinian population that I object to.

 

I suggest readers view the excellent 4 part series Al Nackba (on Youtube) if they want to know the full history of Zionists' colonial enterprise with the collusion of UK

"Arab, Israeli and Western intellectuals, historians and eye-witnesses provide the central narrative which is accompanied by archive material and documents, many only recently released for the first time."

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/05/20135612348774619.html

 

If you are still in doubt that Zionism = colonialism, the history of one of Israel's biggest banks may give you a clue.
"The Jewish Colonial Trust, predecessor to the present Bank Leumi was founded at the Second Zionist Congress and incorporated in London in 1899 as the financial instrument of the Zionist Organization."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Leumi#History

 

>> Neither balance, nor truth, are a hallmark of your posts. Said so yourself in your previous attempt. Aware of  both sides "shortcoming" but choose to deny or ignore any such when applies to the Palestinians, just in order to avoid conceding a point.
...it's not my job to do the Zionists' dirty work for them, especially since I regard Zionism as the root cause of the entire conflict. I also said in my previous post, that give Zionist apologists an inch and they will take a mile. You have just proven my point.

Edited September 20, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

 

Fortunately your objections don't really matter! 

 

https://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/9000-photographs-and-israel-from-1800s-with-no-trace-of-displaced-palestinians/

 

Palestinians are a fake creation ordered and constructed by the Grand Mufti Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini [1889-1974]. They were basically discovered (formed and invented) and originate from mass immigration from Egypt and Saudi Arabia with purpose to commit jihad. The Egyptian fighters ended up in Gaza and the Saudi fighters ended up in the West Bank according to their rout of entry.

 

This makes very interesting reading. if you scroll down the page there are some photo's which make the point! 

 

Better ask the people at the Jewish Virtual Library who all those hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians were living in Palestine in the 1800s compared to the handful of Jews

 

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

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

 

Fortunately your objections don't really matter! 

 

https://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/9000-photographs-and-israel-from-1800s-with-no-trace-of-displaced-palestinians/

 

Palestinians are a fake creation ordered and constructed by the Grand Mufti Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini [1889-1974]. They were basically discovered (formed and invented) and originate from mass immigration from Egypt and Saudi Arabia with purpose to commit jihad. The Egyptian fighters ended up in Gaza and the Saudi fighters ended up in the West Bank according to their rout of entry.

 

This makes very interesting reading. if you scroll down the page there are some photo's which make the point! 

 

delete duplicate

Edited September 20, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

 

Fortunately your objections don't really matter! 

 

https://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/9000-photographs-and-israel-from-1800s-with-no-trace-of-displaced-palestinians/

 

Palestinians are a fake creation ordered and constructed by the Grand Mufti Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini [1889-1974]. They were basically discovered (formed and invented) and originate from mass immigration from Egypt and Saudi Arabia with purpose to commit jihad. The Egyptian fighters ended up in Gaza and the Saudi fighters ended up in the West Bank according to their rout of entry.

 

This makes very interesting reading. if you scroll down the page there are some photo's which make the point! 

 

delete duplicate

Edited September 20, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

 

Fortunately your objections don't really matter! 

 

https://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/9000-photographs-and-israel-from-1800s-with-no-trace-of-displaced-palestinians/

 

Palestinians are a fake creation ordered and constructed by the Grand Mufti Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini [1889-1974]. They were basically discovered (formed and invented) and originate from mass immigration from Egypt and Saudi Arabia with purpose to commit jihad. The Egyptian fighters ended up in Gaza and the Saudi fighters ended up in the West Bank according to their rout of entry.

 

This makes very interesting reading. if you scroll down the page there are some photo's which make the point! 

 

Better ask the people at the Jewish Virtual Library who all those hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians were living in Palestine in the 1800s compared to the handful of Jews

 

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

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Better ask the people at the Jewish Virtual Library who all those hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians were living in Palestine in the 1800s compared to the handful of Jews

 

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

 

His point is that there has never been an independent Arab country called Palestine. There were Arabs living conditions all over the Ottoman Empire, but they considered themselves Arabs - because that is exactly what they were. That is all covered in the Jewish Virtual Library.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

His point is that there has never been an independent Arab country called Palestine. There were Arabs living conditions all over the Ottoman Empire, but they considered themselves Arabs - because that is exactly what they were.

So what?

The resident population who outnumbered the Jewish residents 8:1, whatever you want to call them  (I call them Palestinians), were dispossessed by migrating European Zionists whose intention was to establish a Jewish State.

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

So what?

The resident population who outnumbered the Jewish residents 8:1, whatever you want to call them  (I call them Palestinians), were dispossessed by migrating European Zionists whose intention was to establish a Jewish State.

 

Maybe the Arabs should not have started the unprovoked attacks on them in the first place. The Jews were perfectly happy to live in peace.

[dexterm]

27 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Maybe the Arabs should not have started the unprovoked attacks on them in the first place. The Jews were perfectly happy to live in peace.

...and repeat your schtiks endlessly.  

 

It is extreme provocation that well organised, financed, and better armed European Zionists migrated to Palestine with the intention of establishing a Jewish State with the collusion of another occupying power UK, which can only be achieved by making themselves the majority (simple math) by dispossessing the resident Palestinians. 

 

You tell me how you can create a Jewish State when the majority are not Jewish, without in some way dispossessing the resident population? Zionists happy to live in peace...baloney. Just another meme from the perfect Israeli hoax playbook.

 

Pure colonialism.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

You tell me how you can create a Jewish State when the majority are not Jewish, without in some way dispossessing the resident population? 

 

 

 By buying large tracks of land, which is exactly what they did. If the Arabs had not started attacking them and trying to take it away, they would have been satisfied with a much smaller state.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Who would have been satisfied with a much smaller state?

Not the Zionists.

Eretz Israel has been their objective from the beginning.

[dexterm]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 By buying large tracks of land, which is exactly what they did. If the Arabs had not started attacking them and trying to take it away, they would have been satisfied with a much smaller state.

Nonsense.

Prior to Partition proposals in 1947 your "large tracts of land" amounted to 6% owned by Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#British_censuses_and_estimations

 

And on these large tracts of land what did the Zionists plan to do with the resident Palestinian farmers other than dispossess them?

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

And on these large tracts of land what did the Zionists plan to do with the resident Palestinian farmers other than dispossess them?

 

 Anything they wanted to. They OWNED them. Most "Palestinian" Arabs were tenant farmers.