Israel backs draft bill to legalise settlements

[Sheryl]

A post has been edited to remove Nazi terminology/allusions.

 

 

[Thorgal]

 

Israel was probably more concerned about protecting itself from their attacks for much of that time. Not too many people are concerned about the "plight" of an avowed enemy who wants to destroy them completely.

Your quote : "Israel was PROBABLY more concerned about protecting itself from THEIR attacks..."

Historians from both sides confirmed in fact that the Jewish represailles/attacks in 1947 against Palestinian natives started 6 months prior to any foreign Arab army intervention.

This just to debunk any attempt to re-write history and falsely blame the Palestinian or the intervention of any Arab army in that time...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There are no Palestinian leaders of consequence advocating a one-state solution, and the concept is not very popular among the Palestinian public in general. That is sounds like an "admirable solution" to Westerners is irrelevant. Pushing this notion forward at any opportunity, while disregarding how involved parties views and the likelihood of actions leading this "solution" bringing about mayhem and further suffering, is just another indication of how far removed your views are from the reality of the conflict.

 

Israel was founded less than a 100 years ago, as you are surely aware. Shouldn't stand in the way of a nice round figure. Israel, of course, played and plays, a major part with regard to the sorry state the Palestinians are in. The Palestinians, however, did little on their part to change this predicament. Pretty sure these corrections will result in yet another off-topic, tedious and hate filled diatribe.
 

As stated many times in the past, Israel is Israel. Twist it all you like, what you call for is not Israel, but a new construct replacing it. While this is a dishonest presentation is recurrent theme in your posts, it is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.

He referred to Zionists and they have been around for over 100 years. Originally Zionists wanted much more. I believe they wanted all of Palestine and Trans Jordan as well.

I agree with what you say about the one state being a non starter. Palestinians would oppose any such solution, and I can't imagine Israel welcoming Palestinians into "their" state. They are probably planning how to remove all the Arab Israelis.

[thaibeachlovers]

27 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

Your quote : "Israel was PROBABLY more concerned about protecting itself from THEIR attacks..."

Historians from both sides confirmed in fact that the Jewish represailles/attacks in 1947 against Palestinian natives started 6 months prior to any foreign Arab army intervention.

This just to debunk any attempt to re-write history and falsely blame the Palestinian or the intervention of any Arab army in that time...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

All the facts are easily findable with google, but it's pointless pointing out the facts to certain posters.

The great tragedy of the Palestinians is that they have been a conquered race for 100s if not 1,000s of years. In most recent times by Turkey, then Britain and now the Zionists. Like the Arab nations that helped the British defeat Turkey, and were betrayed by the British that promised independence, Palestinians were betrayed by Britain that actively supported the Zionists till Begin and co started terrorizing the British forces. Then they ran away and left it to the US and the UN.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Faux is as faux does. Anyone actually caring about kids lives, other than for the purposes of point scoring would note that innocent casualties exist on both sides. Somehow, your vehement criticism does not seem to touch on the Palestinians role in prolonging the conflict or on  the responsibility of their leaderships to minimize the suffering of their own people. 

 

Twist it all you like, what you actually posted was that it would be better for things to come to a head, by Israel annexing the West Bank and then having to face the consequences. This position expresses a disconnect with prevalent political views on both sides, disregard for actual consequences, and real human suffering just as long as it makes a political case.

 

Unlike yourself, I refuse to despair or give in to the rhetoric of doom and hate. This is all the more so in the face of such views being offered while exhibiting an obvious lack of of any in-depth knowledge with the actual positions of both sides. Hateful, vehement and inflammatory posts are neither a substitute. The BDS nonsense was addressed, yet again, on this topic - if anyone is deluded enough to see it as having a major effect on the conflict, that's their own business. Not that I expect much coherence, but if the BDS is effective then it somewhat contradicts the previous advocacy for swift Israeli annexation.

 

As posted many times in the past, there is a difference between long term demographic, historical and social process occurring on their own, and hastening their supposed outcome by sociopolitical engineering as suggested by your posts. Most those advocating the latter, are those less likely to be effected when things go pear shaped.

 

So, what is the alternative to the two state solution? Occupation of Palestine forever?

Palestinians will never accept a one state solution without political equality and the Israelis won't accept that as the Palestinians would breed them into a minority.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That is a falsehood. The Jews intended to buy their own land and start their own state. In fact, at one point early in the conflict, they agreed to be governed by the Arabs if they were left in peace. As usual, the Arabs refused.

If the Jews intended to "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs, they would be long gone. The settlements are a way to pressure the Palestinians into - at long last - accepting the inevitable and signing a peace treaty.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFmandate.html#5

If the Arabs refused, that was their right to do so in their own land. The only way to give the Jews any "rights" in Palestine is to believe that "god" "gave" the land to the Jews in ancient times, as laid out in the fairy tale of the old testament.

When the Romans expelled the Jews, Israel of old ceased to exist.

I don't blame them for wanting to go back to the homeland of history, but they didn't have any "right" to do so. That was given to them by the UN and applied only to the borders in 1948. Any subsequent increase was by warfare.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

Your quote : "Israel was PROBABLY more concerned about protecting itself from THEIR attacks..."

Historians from both sides confirmed in fact that the Jewish represailles/attacks in 1947 against Palestinian natives started 6 months prior to any foreign Arab army intervention.

This just to debunk any attempt to re-write history and falsely blame the Palestinian or the intervention of any Arab army in that time...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

And this happened in a vacuum? There was absolutely no aggression from the Arab side? Security concerns were unfounded? Got to love these context-free "historical" accounts.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He referred to Zionists and they have been around for over 100 years. Originally Zionists wanted much more. I believe they wanted all of Palestine and Trans Jordan as well.

I agree with what you say about the one state being a non starter. Palestinians would oppose any such solution, and I can't imagine Israel welcoming Palestinians into "their" state. They are probably planning how to remove all the Arab Israelis.

 

 

No, he did not. The post is on this topic, read it again. And before engaging in further nonsense - "Zionist Israel" is Israel, there was no other Israel in modern times. Like I said, accuracy over demagoguery. And to continue in the same vein, there were and there are many views and opinions within Zionism. Asserting they all wanted the same things is incorrect. History is usually a wee bit more complicated than that.

 

Quote

They are probably planning how to remove all the Arab Israelis.

 

You are probably making this up.

 

 

[dexterm]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And this happened in a vacuum? There was absolutely no aggression from the Arab side? Security concerns were unfounded? Got to love these context-free "historical" accounts.

Just as the Israeli apologists always attempt to separate the history of Palestine from the context of the root cause of the entire conflict...Zionism! The European colonization goal of establishing a Jewish State in a land where the vast majority of the existing residents were non Jews.

 

Notice also that whatever the OP topic, a certain Israeli apologist on this site will invariably regurgitate his deflectionary red herrings. We've had 3 of the usual ones so far in this thread...9 more to go!

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All the facts are easily findable with google, but it's pointless pointing out the facts to certain posters.

The great tragedy of the Palestinians is that they have been a conquered race for 100s if not 1,000s of years. In most recent times by Turkey, then Britain and now the Zionists. Like the Arab nations that helped the British defeat Turkey, and were betrayed by the British that promised independence, Palestinians were betrayed by Britain that actively supported the Zionists till Begin and co started terrorizing the British forces. Then they ran away and left it to the US and the UN.

 

Facts, eh?

 

The Palestinian national identity is a relatively new development. it wasn't in existence hundreds of years ago, never mind a thousand. Notably missing from your list of so-called "conquerors" are Jordan and Egypt (right after 1948 and until 1967). And, of course, it wasn't the "Zionists", but Israel.

 

There was no Palestinian nation in attendance when the British arrived, and the locals did not wholeheartedly support the British during the fighting as suggested. Not being an actual side, or having much of a coherent organization, they were not directly betrayed by the British - the British issues were with more to do with other Arab rulers, who had aspirations of taking over the territory in question. During the Mandate, the British pretty much played whichever side was deemed convenient. It was not always the the Jews, and not entirely for the reasons you assert. The US involvement came many years after the British left.

[dexterm]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, he did not. The post is on this topic, read it again. And before engaging in further nonsense - "Zionist Israel" is Israel, there was no other Israel in modern times. Like I said, accuracy over demagoguery. And to continue in the same vein, there were and there are many views and opinions within Zionism. Asserting they all wanted the same things is incorrect. History is usually a wee bit more complicated than that.

 

 

You are probably making this up.

 

 

Better ask the Israeli Defense Minister Joseph Lieberman whether he is making it up too.

Lieberman's 'Peace Plan': Pay Israeli Arabs to Move to Palestinian State
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.629008

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

Just as the Israeli apologists always attempt to separate the history of Palestine from the context of the root cause of the entire conflict...Zionism! The European colonization goal of establishing a Jewish State in a land where the vast majority of the existing residents were non Jews.

 

Notice also that whatever the OP topic, a certain Israeli apologist on this site will invariably regurgitate his deflectionary red herrings. We've had 3 of the usual ones so far in this thread...9 more to go!

 

I was not the one who introduced historical detail into this topic, but don't let facts confuse you.  I was not the one making definitive claims without reference to both sides, but don't let that confuse you either.

 

The one who, as usual, have trouble posting anything directly related to the OP's, without resorting to faux emotional, hate filled diatribes is yourself. The one who engages in endless, and pointless pseudo-historical tirades exhibiting a one-sided take is yourself.

 

Glad I could sort it out for you. 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

Better ask the Israeli Defense Minister Joseph Lieberman whether he is making it up too.

Lieberman's 'Peace Plan': Pay Israeli Arabs to Move to Palestinian State
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.629008

 

 

 

 

And there you are again, pretending we never covered this in detail.

Lieberman's plan was never government policy, as far as I'm aware.

The link posted is a couple of years old, an eternity in ME terms.

 

 

[dexterm]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I was not the one who introduced historical detail into this topic, but don't let facts confuse you.

I was not the one making definitive claims without reference to both sides, but don't let that confuse you either.

 

The one who, as usual, have trouble posting anything directly related to the OP's, without resorting to faux emotional, hate filled diatribes is yourself. The one who engages in endless, and pointless pseudo-historical tirades exhibiting a one-sided take is yourself.

 

Glad I could sort it out for you. 

 

My very first post on this subject was completely on topic #35. 

Please desist from sarcastic inflammatory ad hominem attacks.

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All the facts are easily findable with google, but it's pointless pointing out the facts to certain posters.

The great tragedy of the Palestinians is that they have been a conquered race for 100s if not 1,000s of years. 

 

You mean "facts" like these? Only on websites presenting fake history. There is no Palestinian "race" and there was no Palestinian people until very recently. The Jews were known as Palestinians until after the Palestinian mandate. The Arabs were all over the Ottoman Empire and that is what they thought of themselves as. That is what they called themselves too.  (Generic) ARABS. Have no idea where you are getting this stuff about them being "a conquered race for 1,000s of years".

Edited November 20, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

My very first post on this subject was completely on topic #35. 

Please desist from sarcastic inflammatory ad hominem attacks.

 

You've made quite a few other posts, haven't you? Seems it's alright for you, or anyone sharing your views to post whatever, anyone opposing your views is an "apologist", posting "red herrings". As for the second line, gotta lol.... http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/954020-israel-backs-draft-bill-to-legalise-settlements/?page=3#comment-11349262

 

[dexterm]

I correct myself...that's 4 of the usual deflectionary off topic red herrings. 8 more to go.

 

No, that's not you Morch. I do regard you and anyone else who attempts to defend, rationalize or excuse Israel's atrocious behavior towards the Palestinians as an Israeli apologist. 

 

But your posts are mainly on topic except when you occasionally leap to the defense of the notorious troll, which I get inveigled into sometimes too.

 

Back on topic.

"In the debate preceding the vote, Opposition leader Isaac Herzog described the bill as the "Knesset's bill of horror." He called on all Knesset members to oppose the bill, saying that "never before in the country's history has the Knesset voted in total contradiction to the law of the land and international law."
Knesset member Ilan Gilon (Meretz), who was ejected from the chamber during the raucous debate, said the bill "resembles legislation in third-world countries, where laws are written retroactively to whitewash their crimes."

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/1.753378

 

There is hope still for Israel.

Edited November 20, 2016 by dexterm

[up-country_sinclair]

On 11/17/2016 at 2:33 AM, webfact said:

Israel’s parliament has approved a draft bill to legalise thousands of Jewish settlements on privately-owned Palestinian land in the West Bank.

 

Washington has described the move as troubling,

 

Troubling?

 

Revolting is more accurate.

[dexterm]

5 minutes ago, up-country_sinclair said:

 

Troubling?

 

Revolting is more accurate.

 

'Troubling, disturbing, unhelpful"....blah blah blah. I wonder if Trump will use the same Thesaurus.

 

Words are cheap. All the US need do to rein in Israel's aggression is simply to abstain from UN resolutions criticizing Israel when it behaves badly. This, of course, it rarely, if ever, does. Demonstrates its pure hypocrisy.

[Ulysses G.]

44 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

Words are cheap. All the US need do to rein in Israel's aggression is simply to abstain from UN resolutions criticizing Israel when it behaves badly. This, of course, it rarely, if ever, does.

 

And they are not going to. The blatant hypocrisy of the UN has to be balanced by someone. President Donald Trump is certainly not going to turn his back on one of our greatest allies. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

I correct myself...that's 4 of the usual deflectionary off topic red herrings. 8 more to go.

 

No, that's not you Morch. I do regard you and anyone else who attempts to defend, rationalize or excuse Israel's atrocious behavior towards the Palestinians as an Israeli apologist. 

 

But your posts are mainly on topic except when you occasionally leap to the defense of the notorious troll, which I get inveigled into sometimes too.

 

Back on topic.

"In the debate preceding the vote, Opposition leader Isaac Herzog described the bill as the "Knesset's bill of horror." He called on all Knesset members to oppose the bill, saying that "never before in the country's history has the Knesset voted in total contradiction to the law of the land and international law."
Knesset member Ilan Gilon (Meretz), who was ejected from the chamber during the raucous debate, said the bill "resembles legislation in third-world countries, where laws are written retroactively to whitewash their crimes."

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/1.753378

 

There is hope still for Israel.

 

...But your posts are mainly on topic except when you occasionally leap to the defense of the notorious troll...

 

I agree to the first part, can't recall leaping to your defense, though.

 

There is hope still for Israel.

 

And yet just a few posts ago you decreed the opposite. A bit fickle there.

Anyone not constantly engaged in mindless Israel bashing would realize that like most countries, Israel features a range of political opinions, not all in line with government policies. The presentation of Israel as a single minded construct is something which exists on your posts, not in reality. Interestingly, the only coalition member breaking rank was Begin (as in son of the late Israeli PM) - not usually known for being a dove.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You mean "facts" like these? Only on websites presenting fake history. There is no Palestinian "race" and there was no Palestinian people until very recently. The Jews were known as Palestinians until after the Palestinian mandate. The Arabs were all over the Ottoman Empire and that is what they thought of themselves as. That is what they called themselves too.  (Generic) ARABS. Have no idea where you are getting this stuff about them being "a conquered race for 1,000s of years".

There was certainly a country called Palestine and it would be logical to assume the people that lived there would be Palestinians.

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

Syria Palaestina or Roman Palestine

 

Palestine was called Palestine all the way to the present

Mandatory Palestine (1920–1948), a geopolitical entity under British administration

After the Jews departed, it would be logical to assume the people that lived there would be Palestinians, ergo, the Arabs that live in Palestine are Palestinians, just as the ones that live in Jordan are Jordanians.

 

However, I know that whatever facts are presented, some on here will continue to be willfully blind.

Regardless, time and population are against Israelis. Be it next year or 600 years from now, Israel will reap what it has sown, and it won't be pretty.

 

Good luck with the ongoing occupation taking millions of $ and traumatizing thousands of young Israeli men. Till Israel compromises, there will be no end to the conflict and there will be more Arabs than Israelis to continue the fight.

 

Myself, I think one day, not too far in the future, an American president will be elected that will not support Israel, and on the day s/he is elected, it will be the end of Israel as it is known now.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

...But your posts are mainly on topic except when you occasionally leap to the defense of the notorious troll...

 

I agree to the first part, can't recall leaping to your defense, though.

 

There is hope still for Israel.

 

And yet just a few posts ago you decreed the opposite. A bit fickle there.

Anyone not constantly engaged in mindless Israel bashing would realize that like most countries, Israel features a range of political opinions, not all in line with government policies. The presentation of Israel as a single minded construct is something which exists on your posts, not in reality. Interestingly, the only coalition member breaking rank was Begin (as in son of the late Israeli PM) - not usually known for being a dove.

the only coalition member breaking rank was Begin

Perhaps because he could see the unintended consequences of such a vile law. It took a while for enough countries to isolate South Africa so it was no longer sustainable. Perhaps he sees that such a law could be the catalyst to mobilize enough nations to make Israel unsustainable.

[Thorgal]

 

And this happened in a vacuum? There was absolutely no aggression from the Arab side? Security concerns were unfounded? Got to love these context-free "historical" accounts.

Debunked...

For your next post :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There was certainly a country called Palestine and it would be logical to assume the people that lived there would be Palestinians.

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

Syria Palaestina or Roman Palestine

 

Palestine was called Palestine all the way to the present

Mandatory Palestine (1920–1948), a geopolitical entity under British administration

After the Jews departed, it would be logical to assume the people that lived there would be Palestinians, ergo, the Arabs that live in Palestine are Palestinians, just as the ones that live in Jordan are Jordanians.

 

 

Yes indeed their was a country called Palestine - something like 2000 years ago and populated mostly by Jews.

Mandatory Palestine was not a country. It was a territory governed by the British. In fact, there has NEVER been a country called Palestine, governed by Arabs, in all of history.

By the way, during the Ottoman Empire -for 400 years - the area was called Southern Syria. It is not true that it has "always been called Palestine".

 

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

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

39 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Debunked...

 

 

Not debunked at all. One guys very biased opinion and nothing more. "Debunked"? Give us a break.

[dexterm]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

...But your posts are mainly on topic except when you occasionally leap to the defense of the notorious troll...

 

I agree to the first part, can't recall leaping to your defense, though.

 

There is hope still for Israel.

 

And yet just a few posts ago you decreed the opposite. A bit fickle there.

Anyone not constantly engaged in mindless Israel bashing would realize that like most countries, Israel features a range of political opinions, not all in line with government policies. The presentation of Israel as a single minded construct is something which exists on your posts, not in reality. Interestingly, the only coalition member breaking rank was Begin (as in son of the late Israeli PM) - not usually known for being a dove.

>>I agree to the first part, can't recall leaping to your defense, though.

...LOL

 

>>There is hope still for Israel.

And yet just a few posts ago you decreed the opposite.

... I said there was no hope for the hateful racist/religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism. Once that inevitably disappears into the trashcan of history, there is great hope for the people of Israel and her neighbors.

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Not debunked at all. One guys very biased opinion and nothing more. "Debunked"? Give us a break.

Except that the speaker Miko Peled is an Israeli Jew, ex Israeli Special Forces, who belongs to a prominent Zionist family, whose grandfather, Avraham Katsnelson, signed Israel’s Declaration of Independence, and whose father, Matti Peled, fought in the 1948 war, and served as a general in the war of 1967. In 1997 his 13 year old niece was killed by a terrorist's bomb. 

 

I'd say he has eminent credentials to speak objectively. He's seen both sides.

 

His book "The General's Son" is well worth reading. 

 

He too is a supporter of a One State solution with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians, that the right wing Zionists in the OP are fortunately helping Israel to sleepwalk into. 

[Ulysses G.]

56 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

I'd say he has eminent credentials to speak objectively. He's seen both sides.

 

He is also a well known, self hating Jew. Why am I not surprised that you are promoting his views?

 

http://forward.com/scribe/351949/miko-peled-and-progressive-jewish-anti-semitism/

[Morch]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There was certainly a country called Palestine and it would be logical to assume the people that lived there would be Palestinians.

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

Syria Palaestina or Roman Palestine

 

Palestine was called Palestine all the way to the present

Mandatory Palestine (1920–1948), a geopolitical entity under British administration

After the Jews departed, it would be logical to assume the people that lived there would be Palestinians, ergo, the Arabs that live in Palestine are Palestinians, just as the ones that live in Jordan are Jordanians.

 

However, I know that whatever facts are presented, some on here will continue to be willfully blind.

Regardless, time and population are against Israelis. Be it next year or 600 years from now, Israel will reap what it has sown, and it won't be pretty.

 

Good luck with the ongoing occupation taking millions of $ and traumatizing thousands of young Israeli men. Till Israel compromises, there will be no end to the conflict and there will be more Arabs than Israelis to continue the fight.

 

Myself, I think one day, not too far in the future, an American president will be elected that will not support Israel, and on the day s/he is elected, it will be the end of Israel as it is known now.

 

Except that what you post is wrong. There was no country such as Palestine. And even the link provided does not claim there was. A region, an ancient province, a previous historical designation - these are not a country. Basing rights to land simply on the phonetic similarities in names is a novel concept. Good luck with that.

 

Making predictions 600 years into the future is all very nice, but then a whole lot of other things will change as well. Basically, you're not saying anything by airing this bit of "insight".

 

Compromise is a two way street. Not exactly as if the other side (even if one ignores it is in fact divided to two) is ready and willing.