Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election

[Morch]

On 9/22/2016 at 4:12 AM, dexterm said:

You wrote "I cannot off hand recall similar long term predictions serving as basis for current policy."
So I give you 2 examples Kerry and Biden who are pushing their current 2 state solution policy,  because they can see Israel drifting into a one state solution, as I also envisage.
You respond ah but that's different "their comments revolve around the short-mid term"...whatever that means? 
See what I mean. All becomes a bit pedantic, and a waste of my valuable time. Maybe you have more available for this hot air semantics nonsense.

 

Then on the off topic issue, I have found that whatever the subject we have the usual Israeli apologists drag out their favorite off topic deflections recipe, as happened on this occasion:

 

Quibbling over the name Palestine.
Jews are supposedly indigenous, although absent for 2,000 yrs
The Palestinians are to blame because they resisted occupation.
The 5 Arab armies meme

....Then we occasionally have the myths..

A land without a people for a people without a land
Jews deserve to occupy Palestine because they win so many Nobel Prizes.
Zionists made the desert bloom.

Add a dash of Muslim bashing and a pinch of whataboutery for flavor  ..then stir.

 

I and others usually let these go, having refuted them in depth many times. But if the mods let these deflections stay and I or others have the time, we rebut them yet again, to prevent TV from becoming a mouthpiece for the Israeli propaganda machine.

 

I don't think so. What you were on about was an uber long term ("after decades of just peace...") view on how things may turn out. Both Biden and Kerry's views do not relate to such time frame. Both to not advocate a one state solution, as you do (and by the way, neither do the Palestinians). The smoke and mirrors semantics comes from your part, not having a credible answer to legitimate questions posed. Nothing new about that. Your time is not more "valuable" than other posters, and anyway, your impressive post output seems to imply otherwise.

 

As for deflection whining about deflections: a reflection of the same appears regularly on your own posts. Spare me the nonsense about "responding to other posters", anyone  reading these topics knows it's not always the case. Same goes for the lofty, yet untrue,  "I and others usually let these go". My posts do not usually feature the "points" appearing on this inane list. If you wish to dishonestly whine about other posters, by all means - but bear in mind, that I'm not responsible for what others post. Re "mouthpiece" - in your "heroic" efforts to save TV (you do realize how sadly pathetic this sounds?) it seems you have assumed the mirror image role of the imaginary thing you set to fight.

 

Labeling all those not agreeing with your views as being part of a "propaganda machine" would probably see one of the usual "besmirch" comments if it was applied in the other direction.

[Morch]

On 9/22/2016 at 6:50 AM, dexterm said:

Far from it. If all parties in the conflict agreed on a peace deal tomorrow, I would be one of the first to crack open the champagne.

 

There is not a racist/religionist bone in my body.

I was baptised a Christian and about 5 or 6 generations back have a Latvian Jewish ancestor who married a Scottish Christian ancestor. Not that that means diddly squat because I am an atheist, and believe religion is a mild form of mental illness.

 

I went to a sports presentation for my young nephew the other night. In his side winning medals were Hindus, Muslims(from their names), Chinese, Jews(from their name) and Caucasians. All team mates, not a hint on any prejudice in matches I have watched. And I thought:  Why can't the whole world live like this? It's just the poison of adults that pulls races and religions apart.

 

I also believe it is supporters of the current right wing regime in Israel that are Israel's worst enemies, rewarding them for their occupation of another people, which is only delaying a peace deal which would benefit Israelis and global Jewry too.

 

You wouldn't approve of any peace deal. At least not anything that does not conform to your "vision" of a non-Israel. With such an eventuality not being on the cards anytime soon, it will provide you with ample opportunities to view any other agreement as unsatisfactory. Further, a peace agreement is words on paper, usually takes quite a while for all these words to materialize - there will be no instant peace, and there will be many setbacks - hence, even moar things to find fault with.

 

In your posts, the repeated rejection of religion is often applied to Israel. Rarely, if ever, does it feature with regard to the Palestinian side. Presented either as a non-issue, or resulting in outright denial. Could be an expression of the usual bias. Could be the lack of actual familiarity with the subject matter.

 

Allow me to guess that your nephew grew up in a country and a society were ethnic/religious/national conflict was not one of the main ingredients of life. Applying of the shelf Western reality to other areas does not always work, nor does it always end well.

 

This topic being, at least nominally, about the Palestinian predicament under a future US president (well, it deals only with HRC, really), and yet to see much by direct reference to the Palestinians.

[Morch]

On 9/22/2016 at 0:22 PM, dexterm said:

>>America will always support the only liberal democracy in the Middle East - one of our closest allies.

..3 myths in one sentence!

 

US policy is already beginning to change, as President Obama warned in a UN address today.

 

Barack Obama tells Israel it 'cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land’
'We all have to do better as leaders in tamping down, rather than encouraging, a notion of identity that leads us to diminish others'

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barack-obama-israel-palestine-comments-occupation-settlements-cannot-be-permanent-a7319956.html

 

 

Those are not myths, even if they are exaggerated statements. The US support for Israel is not likely to waver dramatically anytime soon. Certainly not with either HRC or Trump at the helm. Always is indeed a big word, and demographics do suggest a less invested and involved US somewhere down the line. Evaluating Israel's democracy depends on the yardstick and on one's held concept of democracy. Relative to the neighborhood and current conditions, Israel comes out in one light, compared with Western democracies, in another. Same goes for the ally thing - more than some, less than others.

 

No, the US policy did not change, nor is it beginning to change. The US was never supportive of the Israeli illegal settlement effort, or of the Israeli occupation in general. Some US presidents, Secretaries of State and other representatives were more vocal (or blunt) about it, some less. As per the norm, no mention in the post above of the part relating to the Palestinians (in a topic supposedly discussing the Palestinians...):

 

Quote

“Surely Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel," he said on Tuesday.

 

There was nothing in the speech which pointed to a change in policy, and Obama is not likely to initiate such changes in the last months of his term. The only scenario where this applies is use of the US's veto right in the UNSC (if a relevant resolution is tabled). In my opinion, he'll make Netanyahu sweat, but won't go through with it. Main reasons being the upcoming elections and the fact that there is currently nothing concrete which could be advanced by such a move.

 

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What "serious study of the subject" is referred to? Can't recall much evidence of such in the repetitive one liners often posted.

I suggest you widen your choice of reading and viewing then.

 

"Al Nakba" is a very good 4 part documentary series that you can find on YouTube. Gives an excellent balanced history of the whole conflict.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/05/20135612348774619.html

Books and Youtube of anything by Miko Peled (IDF General's son) , Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, and Norman Finkelstein who have all had access to the Zionist inside story, so are in an excellent position to debunk it and expose the truth.

 

Perhaps if Israel declassified archives surounding the ethnic cleansing at the time of extablishing the state, the truth would be more transparent.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/catastrophic-thinking-did-ben-gurion-try-to-rewrite-history.premium-1.524308

Edited September 23, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Seems like mentioning other countries is only acceptable if it supports a negative view of Israel. The topic being, supposedly, about Palestine, one would imagine posters would actually have something to say about Palestine and the Palestinians rather than dealing almost exclusively with Israel. 

Don't be so disingenuous.

 

In that Zionist Israel has control over every last square inch of historic pre partition Palestine, has the blind support of US politicians, it makes mention of Israel 100% relevant.

 

Your pedantic nitpicking exposed again.

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think so. What you were on about was an uber long term ("after decades of just peace...") view on how things may turn out. Both Biden and Kerry's views do not relate to such time frame. Both to not advocate a one state solution, as you do (and by the way, neither do the Palestinians). The smoke and mirrors semantics comes from your part, not having a credible answer to legitimate questions posed. Nothing new about that. Your time is not more "valuable" than other posters, and anyway, your impressive post output seems to imply otherwise.

 

As for deflection whining about deflections: a reflection of the same appears regularly on your own posts. Spare me the nonsense about "responding to other posters", anyone  reading these topics knows it's not always the case. Same goes for the lofty, yet untrue,  "I and others usually let these go". My posts do not usually feature the "points" appearing on this inane list. If you wish to dishonestly whine about other posters, by all means - but bear in mind, that I'm not responsible for what others post. Re "mouthpiece" - in your "heroic" efforts to save TV (you do realize how sadly pathetic this sounds?) it seems you have assumed the mirror image role of the imaginary thing you set to fight.

 

Labeling all those not agreeing with your views as being part of a "propaganda machine" would probably see one of the usual "besmirch" comments if it was applied in the other direction.

>>My posts do not usually feature the "points" appearing on this inane list.
...that's true, but right on cue 4 of the Zionist propaganda schtiks mentioned were instantly spouted on the very next topic relating to Israel. QED.

 

Of course, you are not responsible for what other people post, so why do you involve yourself in attacking me for responding to such nonsense?
 
I am sure you are well aware of the Israeli government's propaganda machine that pays its supporters to troll the social media.

 

Prime Minister's Office Recruiting Students to Wage Online Hasbara Battles

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.541142

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You wouldn't approve of any peace deal. At least not anything that does not conform to your "vision" of a non-Israel. With such an eventuality not being on the cards anytime soon, it will provide you with ample opportunities to view any other agreement as unsatisfactory. Further, a peace agreement is words on paper, usually takes quite a while for all these words to materialize - there will be no instant peace, and there will be many setbacks - hence, even moar things to find fault with.

 

In your posts, the repeated rejection of religion is often applied to Israel. Rarely, if ever, does it feature with regard to the Palestinian side. Presented either as a non-issue, or resulting in outright denial. Could be an expression of the usual bias. Could be the lack of actual familiarity with the subject matter.

 

Allow me to guess that your nephew grew up in a country and a society were ethnic/religious/national conflict was not one of the main ingredients of life. Applying of the shelf Western reality to other areas does not always work, nor does it always end well.

 

This topic being, at least nominally, about the Palestinian predicament under a future US president (well, it deals only with HRC, really), and yet to see much by direct reference to the Palestinians.

>>You wouldn't approve of any peace deal. At least not anything that does not conform to your "vision" of a non-Israel.
..That's the height of arrogance. Who are you to say what I would or would not approve? If Palestinians sign a peace deal whatever the terms, that is their prerogative and right. They are on the front line bearing the brunt daily of Israeli occupation and repression, not I. I wouldn't even presume to criticize the Palestinian people's choice.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Those are not myths, even if they are exaggerated statements. The US support for Israel is not likely to waver dramatically anytime soon. Certainly not with either HRC or Trump at the helm. Always is indeed a big word, and demographics do suggest a less invested and involved US somewhere down the line. Evaluating Israel's democracy depends on the yardstick and on one's held concept of democracy. Relative to the neighborhood and current conditions, Israel comes out in one light, compared with Western democracies, in another. Same goes for the ally thing - more than some, less than others.

 

No, the US policy did not change, nor is it beginning to change. The US was never supportive of the Israeli illegal settlement effort, or of the Israeli occupation in general. Some US presidents, Secretaries of State and other representatives were more vocal (or blunt) about it, some less. As per the norm, no mention in the post above of the part relating to the Palestinians (in a topic supposedly discussing the Palestinians...):

 

 

There was nothing in the speech which pointed to a change in policy, and Obama is not likely to initiate such changes in the last months of his term. The only scenario where this applies is use of the US's veto right in the UNSC (if a relevant resolution is tabled). In my opinion, he'll make Netanyahu sweat, but won't go through with it. Main reasons being the upcoming elections and the fact that there is currently nothing concrete which could be advanced by such a move.

 

>>The US was never supportive of the Israeli illegal settlement effort, or of the Israeli occupation in general. Some US presidents, Secretaries of State and other representatives were more vocal (or blunt) about it, some less. 
...so instead of $38 billion handouts and hot air ..we are deeply disturbed..we strongly disapprove..unhelpful to the peace process..blah blah blah...why don't US politicians ditch their hypocrisy and stop vetoing UN resolutions that might bring pressure to bear and actually bring the conflict to an end?

[Ulysses G.]

17 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Don't be so disingenuous.

 

 

His unbiased analysis was spot on - as usual. What hypocrisy.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

I suggest you widen your choice of reading and viewing then.

 

"Al Nakba" is a very good 4 part documentary series that you can find on YouTube. Gives an excellent balanced history of the whole conflict.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/05/20135612348774619.html

Books and Youtube of anything by Miko Peled (IDF General's son) , Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, and Norman Finkelstein who have all had access to the Zionist inside story, so are in an excellent position to debunk it and expose the truth.

 

Perhaps if Israel declassified archives surounding the ethnic cleansing at the time of extablishing the state, the truth would be more transparent.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/catastrophic-thinking-did-ben-gurion-try-to-rewrite-history.premium-1.524308

 

My comment was addressed to a specific post and a specific poster.

 

As for your "suggestions", I'm rather well versed when it comes to the history of the conflict, thanks.

Doubt that anyone would take your list of sources as presenting anything but one sided, agenda driven views. Of the three authors mentioned, only one had privelieged access to records, and he's also the one holding that historical accounts are to be subjected to political agenda. Kinda helps when you actually know some of the people quoted....

 

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

Don't be so disingenuous.

 

In that Zionist Israel has control over every last square inch of historic pre partition Palestine, has the blind support of US politicians, it makes mention of Israel 100% relevant.

 

Your pedantic nitpicking exposed again.

 

Don't be obtuse.

 

Nobody said mentioning Israel is not relevant. It was simply observed that most posters have little to add when it comes to the Palestinians, even on a topic supposedly dealing with the Palestinians. It also reffed to the double standard practice of crying "off topic" whenever other countries are referenced in a manner not reflecting badly on Israel.

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>My posts do not usually feature the "points" appearing on this inane list.
...that's true, but right on cue 4 of the Zionist propaganda schtiks mentioned were instantly spouted on the very next topic relating to Israel. QED.

 

Of course, you are not responsible for what other people post, so why do you involve yourself in attacking me for responding to such nonsense?
 
I am sure you are well aware of the Israeli government's propaganda machine that pays its supporters to troll the social media.

 

Prime Minister's Office Recruiting Students to Wage Online Hasbara Battles

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.541142

 

 

Its getting harder to figure out if your trying to troll or actually not following your own posts.

 

"Of course, you are not responsible for what other people post, so why do you involve yourself in attacking me for responding to such nonsense?"

 

You do realize that your "list" was appearing in a reply to a post of mine, right? If you have issues with other posters, address them. The ongoing attempts to make all the opinions not in agreements with yours similar are pathetic.

 

I doubt that the figures involved merit the title "machine", same goes for commitment, strategy and long term investment. Either way, the insinuation was that posters with contradictory views to your own are involved in such an undertaking. Other than setting a low level of debate, your methods of portraying other posters are not usually acceptable on TVF.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>You wouldn't approve of any peace deal. At least not anything that does not conform to your "vision" of a non-Israel.
..That's the height of arrogance. Who are you to say what I would or would not approve? If Palestinians sign a peace deal whatever the terms, that is their prerogative and right. They are on the front line bearing the brunt daily of Israeli occupation and repression, not I. I wouldn't even presume to criticize the Palestinian people's choice.

 

My opinion is based on reading thousands of your posts on these topics. Hardly unfounded assertions. There were agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, - you managed to find fault with all, at one point of another.

 

The usual mechanism is by highlighting any infraction committed by Israel (not arguing that there aren't any, of course) and ignoring or justifying any infractions committed by the Palestinians. Another way this is manifested is by including the caveat of "just" peace. What you seem to consider "just" goes a ways beyond what is realistically achievable. Yet another instance of the same would be to imply the decision would be made by the "Palestinian people", when in fact, it would be a decision taken by leaders. Then one could always claim it does not reflect the true will of the Palestinians.

 

We've been over all that on numerous topics.

 

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>The US was never supportive of the Israeli illegal settlement effort, or of the Israeli occupation in general. Some US presidents, Secretaries of State and other representatives were more vocal (or blunt) about it, some less. 
...so instead of $38 billion handouts and hot air ..we are deeply disturbed..we strongly disapprove..unhelpful to the peace process..blah blah blah...why don't US politicians ditch their hypocrisy and stop vetoing UN resolutions that might bring pressure to bear and actually bring the conflict to an end?

 

I understand that comprehending a complex reality is difficult for those viewing the world through binary eyes. The US not being supportive of all Israeli policies does not entail that it will be actively anti-Israeli, or that it will adopt the Palestinian agenda.

 

Once again, may I suggest your read your own posts? Specifically the one I was replying to:

 

Quote

"US policy is already beginning to change, as President Obama warned in a UN address today.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/942673-harder-times-for-palestine-if-clinton-wins-us-election/?page=9#comment-11175544

 

You claimed (without actually demonstrating it) US policy is beginning to change. In the post above you seem to claim otherwise.

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Morch

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.  

[johnnywishbone]

I think not.
Kerry will fix it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, johnnywishbone said:

Kerry will fix it.
 

 

You have great sense of humor. 

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

My opinion is based on reading thousands of your posts on these topics. Hardly unfounded assertions. There were agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, - you managed to find fault with all, at one point of another.

 

The usual mechanism is by highlighting any infraction committed by Israel (not arguing that there aren't any, of course) and ignoring or justifying any infractions committed by the Palestinians. Another way this is manifested is by including the caveat of "just" peace. What you seem to consider "just" goes a ways beyond what is realistically achievable. Yet another instance of the same would be to imply the decision would be made by the "Palestinian people", when in fact, it would be a decision taken by leaders. Then one could always claim it does not reflect the true will of the Palestinians.

 

We've been over all that on numerous topics.

 

 

>>My opinion is based on reading thousands of your posts on these topics. Hardly unfounded assertions.
...Still the height of arrogance...a blatant falsehood and an attempt to besmirch me.  Learn to read. 

 

November 21, 2015 
"I will be one of the first cracking open the champagne toasting Palestinians and Israelis who have finally seen common sense and are living side by side in peace."
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/872161-us-teen-among-five-dead-in-west-bank-and-tel-aviv-attacks/?page=4#comment-10103553

 

 

October 13 2015
"While all the time the solution to your "Arab problem" is staring you in the face, one supported by the US administration, the EU, and 70% plus of the world's countries. It's called the 2 state solution.There would be a mainly Jewish state on one side of the pre 67 border (approximately with land swaps) and a Palestinian population on the other side. The whole world has agreed to recognize that deal and borders, with neighboring Arab countries and Iran signing on the dotted line too. I crack open the champagne and raise my glass to a permanent peace, the only kind worth having."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862541-palestinian-knife-attacker-shot-dead-by-israeli-forces/#comment-9960262

 

>> Yet another instance of the same would be to imply the decision would be made by the "Palestinian people", when in fact, it would be a decision taken by leaders. Then one could always claim it does not reflect the true will of the Palestinians.

... Of course, it is leaders who discuss peace terms.

I would humbly suggest that it would be madness not to get a clear majority mandate from both peoples in the form of an election or a referendum to endorse a permanent peace agreement. Naturally there will always be disgruntled [violent] extremists on both sides who object to any compromise. That's why the will of the people must be transparent.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

30 minutes ago, dexterm said:

...Still the height of arrogance...a blatant falsehood and an attempt to besmirch me.  Learn to read. 

 

 

 

Nothing false in his statement. Posting your own very selective quotes proves absolutely nothing. Anyone who read your output regularly knows where you are really coming from.

 

The OP is good news and it also applied to Trump: Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election. Just wait until Obama is out of office.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Nothing false in his statement. Posting your own very selective quotes proves absolutely nothing. Anyone who read your output regularly knows where you are really coming from.

 

The OP is good news and it also applied to Trump: Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election. Just wait until Obama is out of office.

>> Anyone who read your output regularly knows where you are really coming from.

 

...Another Israeli apologist with arrogant mind reading abilities but poor reading skills who claims "Nothing false in his statement"...yet you do not even quote his statement, which distortion is against forum rules.

 

I have stated my position clearly 4 times (possibly more..I only searched a year back in the TV archives) that I will celebrate a permanent peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, but you besmirch me by claiming to be able to read my mind and know where I am really coming from.

 

I don't know how I can articulate it more clearly. It's the Zionist way I suppose. When faced with facts, be delberately obtuse and just deny them.

 

I am pretty sure Morch is capable of fighting his own battles. I will wait for his response.

 

Whoever wins the US election, until this 100 year old conflict is finally resolved, it will be  a hard time for Palestinians, Israelis and the USA alike. Peace is surely better than conflict in Palestine. Then maybe that detente can inspire peace(makers)in the rest of the region.

Edited September 24, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

 

"Nothing false in his statement"...yet you do not even quote his statement, which distortion is against forum rules.

 

 

Why do you constantly misrepresent the truth - about all and sundry - when it is so easy to prove otherwise? THE FORUM SOFTWARE ignores the previous quote. How can it be "against the rules"?

Edited September 24, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>My opinion is based on reading thousands of your posts on these topics. Hardly unfounded assertions.
...Still the height of arrogance...a blatant falsehood and an attempt to besmirch me.  Learn to read. 

 

November 21, 2015 
"I will be one of the first cracking open the champagne toasting Palestinians and Israelis who have finally seen common sense and are living side by side in peace."
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/872161-us-teen-among-five-dead-in-west-bank-and-tel-aviv-attacks/?page=4#comment-10103553

 

 

October 13 2015
"While all the time the solution to your "Arab problem" is staring you in the face, one supported by the US administration, the EU, and 70% plus of the world's countries. It's called the 2 state solution.There would be a mainly Jewish state on one side of the pre 67 border (approximately with land swaps) and a Palestinian population on the other side. The whole world has agreed to recognize that deal and borders, with neighboring Arab countries and Iran signing on the dotted line too. I crack open the champagne and raise my glass to a permanent peace, the only kind worth having."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862541-palestinian-knife-attacker-shot-dead-by-israeli-forces/#comment-9960262

 

>> Yet another instance of the same would be to imply the decision would be made by the "Palestinian people", when in fact, it would be a decision taken by leaders. Then one could always claim it does not reflect the true will of the Palestinians.

... Of course, it is leaders who discuss peace terms.

I would humbly suggest that it would be madness not to get a clear majority mandate from both peoples in the form of an election or a referendum to endorse a permanent peace agreement. Naturally there will always be disgruntled [violent] extremists on both sides who object to any compromise. That's why the will of the people must be transparent.

 

 

 

Spare me the faux indignation. For starters, one of your linked posts was already addressed at the time. Second, your links merely show the tendency to repeat the same worn phrases over and over again, nothing more.

 

As pointed out, these are not representative of your posts, and in fact, even those posts linked are the usual hate filled tirades. Some people can't help themselves, I guess. 

 

The bottom line is that if a peace will be reached between Israelis and Palestinians, the Israelis will be Zionists. The peace agreement will accommodate Israeli (and therefore, Zionist) interests. Seeing is your own position is that Zionism is abhorrent, it is hard imagine you celebrating a peace agreement cementing its existence. In the same way, I do not suppose that an agreement being signed will change your hateful opinions toward the majority of Israelis. Hence, not putting too much stock in your agenda being amended.

 

I would humbly suggest that you get yourself familiarized with both side's domestic politics and their relevant (lack of) referendum mechanics, before opining on what may or may not be madness. Recalling the Brexit vote, for example, may give one pause.

 

Guess we will be treated to one of your usual anti-Zionist tirades. It will probably make my point.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Nothing false in his statement. Posting your own very selective quotes proves absolutely nothing. Anyone who read your output regularly knows where you are really coming from.

 

The OP is good news and it also applied to Trump: Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election. Just wait until Obama is out of office.

 

While I agree with the first part of your post, less clear about "harder timer for Palestine" being "good news".

 

Good news how? Doubtful any of it will be translated into something leading to an agreement, lead to changes in the Palestinian position, or have a beneficial effect on the lives of ordinary Palestinians. If it is taken as "bad for Palestinians" equals "good for Israelis", then no. The occupation takes its toll on Israel, whether posters like to admit it or not. The Israeli interest is to resolve the conflict, not prolong it.

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

Good news how? 

 

Good news in that Hillary and Trump are real friends of Israel. IMO, Obama is anything but. Politics have forced him to not be too obvious about it, but I do not trust the man.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Good news in that Hillary and Trump are real friends of Israel. IMO, Obama is anything but. Politics have forced him to not be too obvious about it, but I do not trust the man.

 

Unless mistaken, you'd said you don't trust Trump and HRC either....

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Unless mistaken, you'd said you don't trust Trump and HRC either....

 

Correct. However, I trust them a LOT more than Omama when it comes to Israel.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Spare me the faux indignation. For starters, one of your linked posts was already addressed at the time. Second, your links merely show the tendency to repeat the same worn phrases over and over again, nothing more.

 

As pointed out, these are not representative of your posts, and in fact, even those posts linked are the usual hate filled tirades. Some people can't help themselves, I guess. 

 

The bottom line is that if a peace will be reached between Israelis and Palestinians, the Israelis will be Zionists. The peace agreement will accommodate Israeli (and therefore, Zionist) interests. Seeing is your own position is that Zionism is abhorrent, it is hard imagine you celebrating a peace agreement cementing its existence. In the same way, I do not suppose that an agreement being signed will change your hateful opinions toward the majority of Israelis. Hence, not putting too much stock in your agenda being amended.

 

I would humbly suggest that you get yourself familiarized with both side's domestic politics and their relevant (lack of) referendum mechanics, before opining on what may or may not be madness. Recalling the Brexit vote, for example, may give one pause.

 

Guess we will be treated to one of your usual anti-Zionist tirades. It will probably make my point.

It was you who made the accusation against me.

>>You wouldn't approve of any peace deal.

 

I then pointed out the consistency in my position with 4 examples over at least a year (there are possibly more..depends on search keywords) stating if the Palestinians make a peace agreement with Israel, then who am I to dispute that?

 

But no, you are still not satisfied. This is where your arrogance is now bordering on trolling. 

 

>>..your links merely show the tendency to repeat the same worn phrases over and over again, nothing more. As pointed out, these are not representative of your posts

 

...you have just contradicted yourself. How can I repeat the same opinions using the same words even, if they dont represent my position?

 

I don't know how I can express my stand on the peace process more clearly and coherently.

 

Unfortunately, that's the way the Zionist propaganda machine works.... When confronted with facts and proof, be deliberately obtuse, deny them and besmirch the messenger.

 

Enough of your filibustering nonsense.

Edited September 25, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

14 hours ago, dexterm said:

It was you who made the accusation against me.

>>You wouldn't approve of any peace deal.

 

I then pointed out the consistency in my position with 4 examples over at least a year (there are possibly more..depends on search keywords) stating if the Palestinians make a peace agreement with Israel, then who am I to dispute that?

 

But no, you are still not satisfied. This is where your arrogance is now bordering on trolling. 

 

>>..your links merely show the tendency to repeat the same worn phrases over and over again, nothing more. As pointed out, these are not representative of your posts

 

...you have just contradicted yourself. How can I repeat the same opinions using the same words even, if they dont represent my position?

 

I don't know how I can express my stand on the peace process more clearly and coherently.

 

Unfortunately, that's the way the Zionist propaganda machine works.... When confronted with facts and proof, be deliberately obtuse, deny them and besmirch the messenger.

 

Enough of your filibustering nonsense.

 

Accusation? Nah, simply not taking your words at face value, and with a reasoned explanations why.

 

The Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords, and other agreements in the following years. On many a topic you have made (unfounded) comments to the effect that the Palestinians were cheated or were too naive when signing these agreements. This often leads to the conclusion that they are not to be held accountable for these agreements (while on other occasions claiming that the Palestinians fulfilled all their obligations - go figure...). There is no special reason to believe that any future understandings or agreements between the sides will receive different treatment.

 

As for the "contradiction" suggested in my view, kindly refer to the first line of this post. If that's not good enough, refer to your previous post, in which you claim to be aware of both sides faults, while ignoring or denying any such which relates to the Palestinians.

 

Re the last part of your post, one should hope that the evident self importance and self righteousness dripping from your posts does not make you blind to the irony of employing nonsense terms like "propaganda machine" while producing thousands of one sided posts on the same issue. This low level form of debate is usually employed in conjunctions with "besmirching" whines, accompanied by vehement mudslinging.