Israel backs draft bill to legalise settlements

[Morch]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

Benny Begin is a hawk, but also a rather decent human being, and not your everyday politician. The relevant point is not his obvious disagreement with the bill proposed - but that Israel is far from being a single entity when it comes to political opinions, a view many of the bashers on here either fail to grasp or refuse to accept.

[Morch]

 

@Thorgal

 

You must have your own definition of "debunked". And also a great sense of humor, especially linking the Wikipedia entry for Historian.

 

Miko Peled is not a historian, but a radical left wing political activist. What he says is not gospel, and should not be taken as objective, while ignoring the context of his political activism and opinions.

 

And still, even with the "support" above, this does not address the point made - namely, that the Israeli actions did not occur in a vacuum - but were related to pre-existing reality of conflict, aggression and violence.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>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.

 

Both the politicians as passing harsh criticism on the proposed bill are Zionists. One of them even heads a party announcing it in it's name. Of course, acknowledging  that would require backpedaling from some of your assertions, so guess it will be another deflection instead. Given enough time the "trashcan of history"' ultimately absorbs pretty much anything and everything, but as pointed in another post, making long term predictions is a rather futile, especially when these "prediction" are limited to but a single element.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

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.

As you so rightly imply...what's in a name?

 

I am surprised you have bought into one of the silliest in the Zionist apologists' collection of excuses for land theft and ethnic cleansing.

 

Before 1948 there was no state of Israel recognized by the UN either, and now there are two recognized within historic Palestine....Israel and Palestine. Lets look to the future. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

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. 

 

Peled's views are not "objective", but represent an extreme interpretation, which disregards context to allow for ideological and political arguments. His "credentials" are irrelevant to his acumen as a historian, and if you think they are in any way unique - guess again. Like the rest on the fringe left, there is little in Peled views to suggest how a one-state solution could actually materialize and be maintained, in a peaceful manner. Pretty much the same disconnect evident in your posts.

 

If you still hold that the actions of the Israeli government and the Israeli right wing are "fortunate" - then this simply reaffirms my take that your main concern is not with resolving the conflict, addressing the wishes of both sides or anything resembling a peaceful outcome. Rather, it reads like yet  another revolutionary manifesto - building an utopia out of the ashes, sort of thing. Obviously, nothing which will effect you in any way, hence easy to tout.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

As you so rightly imply...what's in a name?

 

I am surprised you have bought into one of the silliest in the Zionist apologists' collection of excuses for land theft and ethnic cleansing.

 

Before 1948 there was no state of Israel recognized by the UN either, and now there are two recognized within historic Palestine....Israel and Palestine. Lets look to the future. 

 

Except that Israel was a country in ancient times, whereas Palestine was not. This is an observation on detail, not the major element of my posts. It was pointed out in reference to a nonsense claim often repeated on these topics, and which you help to regurgitate and perpetuate.

 

Anyone reading my posts will know that I believe in the Palestinian's right to self determination, and would know your misrepresentation for what it  is - mere demagoguery.

[dexterm]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Both the politicians as passing harsh criticism on the proposed bill are Zionists. One of them even heads a party announcing it in it's name. Of course, acknowledging  that would require backpedaling from some of your assertions, so guess it will be another deflection instead. Given enough time the "trashcan of history"' ultimately absorbs pretty much anything and everything, but as pointed in another post, making long term predictions is a rather futile, especially when these "prediction" are limited to but a single element.

I am well aware, as you well know (we've been here before..except you frequently bandy the word about but have never defined what a Zionist is) that the majority of Israeli voters and parliamentarians are Zionists. Doesn't stop it being a racist/religionist supremacist ideology though. No backpedalling required.

As I have said previously, there are two routes to an eventual one state solution where Jews and non Jews will live together in peace and have equal rights:

 

1) the slow way...via a two state solution as proposed by the Israeli opposition 's Zionist Union, USA and EU, where Israel would get to preserve a state with some Jewish character and majority for a few more years at least. 

 

2) the fast way...as being encouraged blindly by the right wing Zionists in the OP.

 

Hopefully all in my lifetime, but inevitable nonetheless.

Edited November 21, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Except that Israel was a country in ancient times, whereas Palestine was not. This is an observation on detail, not the major element of my posts. It was pointed out in reference to a nonsense claim often repeated on these topics, and which you help to regurgitate and perpetuate.

 

Anyone reading my posts will know that I believe in the Palestinian's right to self determination, and would know your misrepresentation for what it  is - mere demagoguery.

>>Except that Israel was a country in ancient times, whereas Palestine was not.

 

That entire premise is a ridiculous scam. We could descend into a Mobius strip of defining "country".

 

That some people who believed in Judaism lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago is true. So what! So have lots of other people and religions, before and after Judaism.  

 

But how does that give say a New York Jew who has never even set eyes on the place before somehow the right to live there today? Please explain the rationale.. that someone who has a tenuous link to a religion 2000 years ago somehow has the right to dispossess others who were born there....especially when you consider the fact that the New York Jew may not even be remotely genetically related to Jews of 1,000s of years ago, after years of intermarriage and conversion (ask Ivanka Trump) and need not even be a believer in Judaism.

Edited November 21, 2016 by dexterm

[geriatrickid]

And yet netanyahu is restrained in that regard. Trump can change, and I expect that he will. netanyahuu is expecting it too. Realpolitik will come into play.

[coma]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

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.

 

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am well aware, as you well know (we've been here before..except you frequently bandy the word about but have never defined what a Zionist is) that the majority of Israeli voters and parliamentarians are Zionists. Doesn't stop it being a racist/religionist supremacist ideology though. No backpedalling required.

As I have said previously, there are two routes to an eventual one state solution where Jews and non Jews will live together in peace and have equal rights:

 

1) the slow way...via a two state solution as proposed by the Israeli opposition 's Zionist Union, USA and EU, where Israel would get to preserve a state with some Jewish character and majority for a few more years at least. 

 

2) the fast way...as being encouraged blindly by the right wing Zionists in the OP.

 

Hopefully all in my lifetime, but inevitable nonetheless.

 

And as usual, you seem to erroneously assume there is a definitive brand of Zionism, whereas I correctly hold that there are, in fact, various schools of thought, and various ways in which they are manifested. The same narrow view is in evidence whenever you attempt to present any supposed Palestinian views.

 

There bottom line is that are obviously Zionists who do not see control over the Palestinians, nor the maintenance of the the illegal settlements as a fundamental to Zionism. Then there are those Zionists who hold that regardless of their views, realistic constraints ought to be deferred to. Your posts habitually belittle, deny or ignore this.

 

Your assumption that a one-state solution will ultimately have a happy ending is fallacious. Long term predictions regarding processes involving multiple factors, and yet artificially specifying a single issue are almost certainly off mark. Neither Israel, nor the Palestinians exist in a vacuum. There is no specific reason given to assume that all related factors will align to support your view. Fantasies are all very nice, but do try not to pass them as inevitable, or as being grounded in reality.

 

Your whole assumption is based on the fallacy that a specific set of current conditions will persist indefinitely, and in isolation from other current (and future) relevant conditions.   

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Except that Israel was a country in ancient times, whereas Palestine was not.

 

That entire premise is a ridiculous scam. We could descend into a Mobius strip of defining "country".

 

That some people who believed in Judaism lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago is true. So what! So have lots of other people and religions, before and after Judaism.  

 

But how does that give say a New York Jew who has never even set eyes on the place before somehow the right to live there today? Please explain the rationale.. that someone who has a tenuous link to a religion 2000 years ago somehow has the right to dispossess others who were born there....especially when you consider the fact that the New York Jew may not even be remotely genetically related to Jews of 1,000s of years ago, after years of intermarriage and conversion (ask Ivanka Trump) and need not even be a believer in Judaism.

 

Are you really trying to spin this?

 

I'm not the one who raised this historical argument, but was correcting the bold statements made by another poster. If anything, my long held position is that most historical debate (such as it is), does not promote the resolution of the conflict, and in fact does more to make sides dig in their positions.

 

Troll on.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Sounds to me that you are agreeing with my premise that Israel has NO RIGHTS to any land outside the boundaries of the 1948 UN grant. After all, Israel of old ceased to exist with the banishment of the Israelis of old, so no such country existed between then and 1948. It wasn't even on Roman maps as Israel. It was called Judea.

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

 

My reference to 600 years will be understood by anyone of Irish descent. It is something that all occupying powers need to remember. Does Israel really want to occupy Palestinian land by force for centuries?

[Ulysses G.]

40 minutes ago, coma said:

 

 

Celebrating a very unlikely fantasy. 

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And as usual, you seem to erroneously assume there is a definitive brand of Zionism, whereas I correctly hold that there are, in fact, various schools of thought, and various ways in which they are manifested. The same narrow view is in evidence whenever you attempt to present any supposed Palestinian views.

 

There bottom line is that are obviously Zionists who do not see control over the Palestinians, nor the maintenance of the the illegal settlements as a fundamental to Zionism. Then there are those Zionists who hold that regardless of their views, realistic constraints ought to be deferred to. Your posts habitually belittle, deny or ignore this.

 

Your assumption that a one-state solution will ultimately have a happy ending is fallacious. Long term predictions regarding processes involving multiple factors, and yet artificially specifying a single issue are almost certainly off mark. Neither Israel, nor the Palestinians exist in a vacuum. There is no specific reason given to assume that all related factors will align to support your view. Fantasies are all very nice, but do try not to pass them as inevitable, or as being grounded in reality.

 

Your whole assumption is based on the fallacy that a specific set of current conditions will persist indefinitely, and in isolation from other current (and future) relevant conditions.   

Yes there are many schools of Zionist thought and I suppose discussing the has some value as an academic and historical exercise. But polls of Israeli Jews show that increasingly they subscribe to the more extreme versions of Zionism with the tilt being most pronounced in the young.  And it's where Zionism is today that's relevant. This is a link to a page that shows a few polls taken over the years and shows how Israeli opinion has massively shifted to the right.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/isposettle.html

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It was called Judea.

 

 

There was both Israel AND Judea.

 

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

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And as usual, you seem to erroneously assume there is a definitive brand of Zionism, whereas I correctly hold that there are, in fact, various schools of thought, and various ways in which they are manifested. The same narrow view is in evidence whenever you attempt to present any supposed Palestinian views.

 

There bottom line is that are obviously Zionists who do not see control over the Palestinians, nor the maintenance of the the illegal settlements as a fundamental to Zionism. Then there are those Zionists who hold that regardless of their views, realistic constraints ought to be deferred to. Your posts habitually belittle, deny or ignore this.

 

Your assumption that a one-state solution will ultimately have a happy ending is fallacious. Long term predictions regarding processes involving multiple factors, and yet artificially specifying a single issue are almost certainly off mark. Neither Israel, nor the Palestinians exist in a vacuum. There is no specific reason given to assume that all related factors will align to support your view. Fantasies are all very nice, but do try not to pass them as inevitable, or as being grounded in reality.

 

Your whole assumption is based on the fallacy that a specific set of current conditions will persist indefinitely, and in isolation from other current (and future) relevant conditions.   

My research opines only that Zionism is the search for a Jewish homeland in the ancient land of Judea, and is actually nothing to do with religion. Many Zionists were not religious.

So the goal was achieved. There is nothing that I can see in Zionism that requires occupation of Palestinian lands.

What is going on now is, IMO, nothing to do with Zionism, and everything to do with government power and fanaticism by religious maniacs.

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

And yet netanyahu is restrained in that regard. Trump can change, and I expect that he will. netanyahuu is expecting it too. Realpolitik will come into play.

 

Netanyahu is not exactly "restrained" so much as cautious. The difference between Netanyahu and his even more right-wing partners is that his motivations are less grounded in messianic-religious beliefs, and that by virtue of his experience he does realize Israel does not exist in a vacuum, as far as global perceptions go.

 

Netanyahu's caution stems from a few factors -

 

- Trump, for all his words is still seen as an unknown quantity. What he said and what he will do are different things.

- Obama is still the POTUS , and there's no need to run the risk of pushing him into end of term moves.

- There's an upcoming French sponsored peace convention, no point in giving international criticism more to go on prior to that.

 

Netanyahu (and some others on the right wing) argued that it would be more beneficial to reach new understandings with the Trump administration over US policy regarding the settlements. I think they were not aiming for a general support of any settlement activity, but a more limited goal allowing for further development of existing settlements. A more realistic approach as far as shifts in the US position goes. Wonder how this will pan out if Mattis is appointed Secretary of Defense.

 

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, coma said:

 

 

Meantime in the US...

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Morch

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Netanyahu is not exactly "restrained" so much as cautious. The difference between Netanyahu and his even more right-wing partners is that his motivations are less grounded in messianic-religious beliefs, and that by virtue of his experience he does realize Israel does not exist in a vacuum, as far as global perceptions go.

 

Netanyahu's caution stems from a few factors -

 

- Trump, for all his words is still seen as an unknown quantity. What he said and what he will do are different things.

- Obama is still the POTUS , and there's no need to run the risk of pushing him into end of term moves.

- There's an upcoming French sponsored peace convention, no point in giving international criticism more to go on prior to that.

 

Netanyahu (and some others on the right wing) argued that it would be more beneficial to reach new understandings with the Trump administration over US policy regarding the settlements. I think they were not aiming for a general support of any settlement activity, but a more limited goal allowing for further development of existing settlements. A more realistic approach as far as shifts in the US position goes. Wonder how this will pan out if Mattis is appointed Secretary of Defense.

 

Right. There is still time for Obama to grow a spine and do something to force a compromise on the two state solution, involving an Israeli withdrawal from the illegally occupied West Bank, and a corridor to Gaza.

However, I'm not holding my breath.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sounds to me that you are agreeing with my premise that Israel has NO RIGHTS to any land outside the boundaries of the 1948 UN grant. After all, Israel of old ceased to exist with the banishment of the Israelis of old, so no such country existed between then and 1948. It wasn't even on Roman maps as Israel. It was called Judea.

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

 

My reference to 600 years will be understood by anyone of Irish descent. It is something that all occupying powers need to remember. Does Israel really want to occupy Palestinian land by force for centuries?

 

Sounds to me like you are dishonestly misrepresenting my view,  especially as it was reiterated on many occasions. Non but extremists and loons actually refers to the 1948 lines being a basis for resolution. Wouldn't be the first time you try to raise this pointless argument. 

 

Discussions of ancient history are not a very conductive venue for resolving present-day conflicts. One obvious reason would be what passes for historical knowledge as is obvious on this topic and others (pro tip - history did not begin with the Romans). My comments were simply meant as corrections to asserted "facts".

 

The situation can only be resolved according to how things are now, not according to how they were. This is, in fact, one of the main arguments against the Israeli government affecting current changes, and the Palestinian leaderships living in the past with regard to acknowledging reality.

 

Your reference was well understood, and still rejected. There is no particular reason to assume two different sets of conditions will develop in a similar way over such a period of time.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sounds to me like you are dishonestly misrepresenting my view,  especially as it was reiterated on many occasions. Non but extremists and loons actually refers to the 1948 lines being a basis for resolution. Wouldn't be the first time you try to raise this pointless argument. 

 

Discussions of ancient history are not a very conductive venue for resolving present-day conflicts. One obvious reason would be what passes for historical knowledge as is obvious on this topic and others (pro tip - history did not begin with the Romans). My comments were simply meant as corrections to asserted "facts".

 

The situation can only be resolved according to how things are now, not according to how they were. This is, in fact, one of the main arguments against the Israeli government affecting current changes, and the Palestinian leaderships living in the past with regard to acknowledging reality.

 

Your reference was well understood, and still rejected. There is no particular reason to assume two different sets of conditions will develop in a similar way over such a period of time.

Well, fine. The situation as it is NOW, is that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land and only holds it due to the American veto.

Even the most ardent Zionist has to understand that situation can not continue forever. I think ethnic cleansing would not be tolerated, even by the US.

That leaves the two state solution, which grows more impossible with every new settlement, or the one state solution with equality of both races. Over to Bibi.

Edited November 21, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes there are many schools of Zionist thought and I suppose discussing the has some value as an academic and historical exercise. But polls of Israeli Jews show that increasingly they subscribe to the more extreme versions of Zionism with the tilt being most pronounced in the young.  And it's where Zionism is today that's relevant. This is a link to a page that shows a few polls taken over the years and shows how Israeli opinion has massively shifted to the right.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/isposettle.html

 

Chicken and egg thing.

 

Israel's shift to the right is not happening out of context - there are multiple factors involved. That certain modes of Zionism are gaining popularity is not the cause, but the effect. On the same note, similar trends leaning toward extreme political and religious view exist among the Palestinians - and there too, multiple factors involved.

 

Given that beliefs and ideologies cannot be easily done with, this is, IMO,  more a question of how to convince people to other points of view. Over emphasizing animosity, hatred, demonizing perceptions of the other side and inflammatory rhetoric are not helpful in creating an atmosphere in which such changes could take place.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Chicken and egg thing.

 

Israel's shift to the right is not happening out of context - there are multiple factors involved. That certain modes of Zionism are gaining popularity is not the cause, but the effect. On the same note, similar trends leaning toward extreme political and religious view exist among the Palestinians - and there too, multiple factors involved.

 

Given that beliefs and ideologies cannot be easily done with, this is, IMO,  more a question of how to convince people to other points of view. Over emphasizing animosity, hatred, demonizing perceptions of the other side and inflammatory rhetoric are not helpful in creating an atmosphere in which such changes could take place.

Over emphasizing animosity, hatred, demonizing perceptions of the other side and inflammatory rhetoric are not helpful in creating an atmosphere in which such changes could take place.

 

True. Perhaps the Israelis could remember that as they make Palestinian life miserable with the military occupation and land theft.

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My research opines only that Zionism is the search for a Jewish homeland in the ancient land of Judea, and is actually nothing to do with religion. Many Zionists were not religious.

So the goal was achieved. There is nothing that I can see in Zionism that requires occupation of Palestinian lands.

What is going on now is, IMO, nothing to do with Zionism, and everything to do with government power and fanaticism by religious maniacs.

 

That's a good example of why I don't take posters usage of the word "research" very seriously. Obviously there's more to the issue than a few lines peppered with pre-existing political views.

 

But given that you believe the above, perhaps your political position would be better served by supporting those Zionists in Israel opposed to the current government's policies, rather than constantly engaging in a wholesale denunciation of Israel and Zionism.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Right. There is still time for Obama to grow a spine and do something to force a compromise on the two state solution, involving an Israeli withdrawal from the illegally occupied West Bank, and a corridor to Gaza.

However, I'm not holding my breath.

 

The double standard is all too obvious. If Obama was to use the end of his campaign to affect changes related to his other policies, you'd probably be among those crying foul.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Both the politicians as passing harsh criticism on the proposed bill are Zionists. One of them even heads a party announcing it in it's name. Of course, acknowledging  that would require backpedaling from some of your assertions, so guess it will be another deflection instead. Given enough time the "trashcan of history"' ultimately absorbs pretty much anything and everything, but as pointed in another post, making long term predictions is a rather futile, especially when these "prediction" are limited to but a single element.

Amazing ...you can unequivocally state "Both the politicians as passing harsh criticism on the proposed bill are Zionists.[underscored even!] One of them even heads a party announcing it in it's name. " ...and yet you cannot define in even the simplest of levels what that means. That's why you lose credibility, Morch. That's why I often take your usual 15 yards of warm air with a pinch of salt.

 

Please don't bandy words around when you aren't prepared to tell us what they mean. That's just obfuscation.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, fine. The situation as it is NOW, is that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land and only holds it due to the American veto.

Even the most ardent Zionist has to understand that situation can not continue forever. I think ethnic cleansing would not be tolerated, even by the US.

That leaves the two state solution, which grows more impossible with every new settlement, or the one state solution with equality of both races. Over to Bibi.

 

I never said anything in favor of the Israeli occupation of deemed it legal. Israel holds on to this territory for more than one reason - Palestinian positions would be an obvious example. Had the US been less protective of Israel on the UNSC, things may or may not have developed otherwise. There's a school of thought arguing that the veto became it own thing - pulling more global attention than if Israel was to accept condemnation and go on regardless, or alternatively, that the US is sometimes maneuvered into this position as to score points by international rivals.

 

Israeli right wing personas and groups failing to realistically address the long run is something I have posted about numerous times. It boils down to rejecting reality, belief in Deus ex Machina, or falsely equating the situation to conditions relevant to pre independence times. These views indeed fail to provide adequate answers to pertinent issues. That said, the seemingly "obligatory" "ethnic cleansing" remark is not something which accurately represent the majority of these views. Again, more like an unrealistic expectation that the Palestinians will accept things as they are, or altogether dodging the issue.

 

 

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Over emphasizing animosity, hatred, demonizing perceptions of the other side and inflammatory rhetoric are not helpful in creating an atmosphere in which such changes could take place.

 

True. Perhaps the Israelis could remember that as they make Palestinian life miserable with the military occupation and land theft.

 

And perhaps you just did the very same thing. Point scoring rather than addressing the issue. Lumping all those on one side doesn't help.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Amazing ...you can unequivocally state "Both the politicians as passing harsh criticism on the proposed bill are Zionists.[underscored even!] One of them even heads a party announcing it in it's name. " ...and yet you cannot define in even the simplest of levels what that means. That's why you lose credibility, Morch. That's why I often take your usual 15 yards of warm air with a pinch of salt.

 

Please don't bandy words around when you aren't prepared to tell us what they mean. That's just obfuscation.

 

I wouldn't know that your biased opinion is a measure of posters credibility. Seems like bandying words and obfuscation in the face of repeated explanations is more your thing. How you take my posts doesn't matter much, nor does it reflect on my views.

 

As stated numerous times, and as you continuously deflect - there are many ways in which people define their Zionist views. There is no single definition, as is obvious from the plurality of political opinions pointed at. If you wish to belittle, deny, or ignore this obvious plurality, that's your choice - but do go on about "credibility".

 

Personally, I do not go much for ideological and political labels, which all too often serve to convey order where there is none. Granted, some find this difficult to handle.