Israel backs draft bill to legalise settlements

[thaibeachlovers]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Of course I would. His humiliation of Bibi was the only thing he did that I liked.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Simply being in Israel makes them liable to the same consequences as those they oppose.

A Palestinian bomb does not distinguish between the fanatics and the moderates.

Unfortunately, life is unfair, as the dead children in Gaza prove.

[dexterm]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

>>there are many ways in which people define their Zionist views.

...Well, go on, define any one of them. How about starting off with your own interpretation, since you clearly define yourself as a Zionist?

Edited November 21, 2016 by dexterm

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Unfortunately for those that oppose the current situation but continue to live in Israel, all Israelis are tarred with the same brush when it comes to the outside world. Unfair, yes, but so is life.

[dexterm]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I doubt that will happen - in regard to my posts about Israel anyway. The posts that "antagonize" those that I am debating with are usually historical facts that contradict historical inaccuracies. I am not likely to get banned for that.

 

 

Except you are the one who usually introduces these off topic so called "historical facts"..you were first cab off the rank this time...the very first post in this thread before anyone else had made any comments at all..in your own words... in order to "antagonize" other members. That's what TVF rules call trolling.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>there are many ways in which people define their Zionist views.

...Well, go on, define any one of them. How about starting of with your own interpretation, since you clearly define yourself as a Zionist?

 

Comprehension difficulties much?

 

Quote

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.

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Simply being in Israel makes them liable to the same consequences as those they oppose.

A Palestinian bomb does not distinguish between the fanatics and the moderates.

Unfortunately, life is unfair, as the dead children in Gaza prove.

 

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately for those that oppose the current situation but continue to live in Israel, all Israelis are tarred with the same brush when it comes to the outside world. Unfair, yes, but so is life.

 

That's your opinion. I'm suggesting it is not constructive with regard to the conflict being resolved or to empowering moderate forces within Israel. The same, of course, goes for portrayals of the Palestinian side. As this is an opinion, it is not a fundamental fact of life - but a choice.

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Comprehension difficulties much?

 

 

>> Personally, I do not go much for ideological and political labels, which all too often serve to convey order where there is none. 

 

What a disingenuous cop out! Weasel words.

 

I would suggest that if you don't believe in ideological and political labels, then don't use them yourself and don't quibble over other members' usage who are prepared to define exactly what they mean. 

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

That's your opinion. I'm suggesting it is not constructive with regard to the conflict being resolved or to empowering moderate forces within Israel. The same, of course, goes for portrayals of the Palestinian side. As this is an opinion, it is not a fundamental fact of life - but a choice.

The same, of course, goes for portrayals of the Palestinian side.

Agreed. I would say they are pretty united in their hatred of Israel.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

>> Personally, I do not go much for ideological and political labels, which all too often serve to convey order where there is none. 

 

What a disingenuous cop out! Weasel words.

 

I would suggest that if you don't believe in ideological and political labels, then don't use them yourself and don't quibble over other members' usage who are prepared to define exactly what they mean. 

 

 

 

 

 

And I suggest that you stop trolling and twisting my words.

 

The two politicians define themselves as Zionists, each with his own take on what that means and with differing political views (albeit both oppose the current government). Similarly, members of the Israeli right wing coalition define themselves as Zionists, while holding yet other political views. Obviously, then, there are different interpretations of what it means.

 

It is not required that each politician's exact definition will be discussed in order for this to be obvious. It is not even necessary for a poster to personally hold on to such a definition in order to acknowledge this plurality exits.

 

That you choose to tout a particular narrow interpretation motivated by your political views does not make it definitive, nor does it compel other posters to similarly hold on to such definitions.

 

We have been over this in the past, your usual faux outbursts of indignation are comical.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The same, of course, goes for portrayals of the Palestinian side.

Agreed. I would say they are pretty united in their hatred of Israel.

 

Ah, back to the old nonsense one liners, eh?

The reference was obviously with regard to how Palestinians are often portrayed negatively as a group, without differentiation or context. Unsurprisingly, you took it in another direction - promoting further antagonism.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Morch

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, back to the old nonsense one liners, eh?

The reference was obviously with regard to how Palestinians are often portrayed negatively as a group, without differentiation or context. Unsurprisingly, you took it in another direction - promoting further antagonism.

Sadly, I don't have to promote antagonism. The Israelis are doing that all by themselves.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sadly, I don't have to promote antagonism. The Israelis are doing that all by themselves.

 

And again....

 

The point made was regarding this exact lumping of groups. If you define all Israelis one way, what's the point of you going on about moderates and such?

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And again....

 

The point made was regarding this exact lumping of groups. If you define all Israelis one way, what's the point of you going on about moderates and such?

When have I ever GONE ON about moderates? I might have mentioned them, but I doubt they make any difference.

 

This thread is turning into a clone of every other Israel/ Palestine thread, ie two intractably opposed sides repeating the same thing over and over ad nauseam. It's got boring now so I'm out of this one, but see you next thread, perhaps.

[geriatrickid]

9 hours 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.

Why is it  President Obama's responsibility to impose anything? The Arabs have had opportunity after opportunity and refused to negotiate in good faith. And now you expect the USA to impose a "corridor"? You just can't go in and slice out a corridor from a sovereign nation. If that was the case, Argentina would have greater access to the ocean through Chile,   Point Roberts USA would have  a corridor to the USA through Canada,  African countries would have a corridor to the  ocean etc.

 

Your use of the term "illegally occupied" is erroneous. There isn't an  illegal occupation, despite the labeling by the the arabs and their supporters. This argument has been going on  ever since the Arabs  illegally started a war in 1948 and illehgally seized jerusalem. You remember that don't you? You do recall what the original border was for jeusalem don't you? Remember how the Jordanians seized the entire city?  The Arabs grabbed and they lost.Tough.  

 

Here's a tip: Don't start a war as the  consequences can be bad.

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

This thread is turning into a clone of every other Israel/ Palestine thread, ie two intractably opposed sides repeating the same thing over and over ad nauseam. It's got boring now so I'm out of this one, but see you next thread, perhaps.

 

Actually, Morch does a pretty good job of not taking one side, or the other and presenting both sides of the story. I do not agree with all his conclusions, but you have to give him that.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

 
Actually, Morch does a pretty good job of not taking one side, or the other and presenting both sides of the story. I do not agree with all his conclusions, but you have to give him that.

Yes he's read the riot act to pretty much all of us at one time or another.

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Why is it  President Obama's responsibility to impose anything? The Arabs have had opportunity after opportunity and refused to negotiate in good faith. And now you expect the USA to impose a "corridor"? You just can't go in and slice out a corridor from a sovereign nation. If that was the case, Argentina would have greater access to the ocean through Chile,   Point Roberts USA would have  a corridor to the USA through Canada,  African countries would have a corridor to the  ocean etc.

 

Your use of the term "illegally occupied" is erroneous. There isn't an  illegal occupation, despite the labeling by the the arabs and their supporters. This argument has been going on  ever since the Arabs  illegally started a war in 1948 and illehgally seized jerusalem. You remember that don't you? You do recall what the original border was for jeusalem don't you? Remember how the Jordanians seized the entire city?  The Arabs grabbed and they lost.Tough.  

 

Here's a tip: Don't start a war as the  consequences can be bad.

>>Your use of the term "illegally occupied" is erroneous.

..perhaps you should argue with the US State Department, the EU, the UN, the Geneva Convention and even the Israeli opposition parties, who all appear to disagree with you.

 

Opposition leader Isaac Herzog described the [OP] 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."
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/1.753378

 

...You and other Israeli apologists are on the wrong side of history, but by all means continue with your fantasies if you wish.

[dick dasterdly]

23 hours 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?

Re. the last paragraph - those in N Ireland wanted to remain part of Great Britain, and didn't want to become one country with S Ireland - so the Brits in N Ireland weren't an 'occupying power' as such.

 

Having said this, I too have a horrible feeling that Israel/Palestine will be as long lasting a war as happened in Ireland .

[dick dasterdly]

12 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Actually, Morch does a pretty good job of not taking one side, or the other and presenting both sides of the story. I do not agree with all his conclusions, but you have to give him that.

To a certain extent I agree.

 

As far as I can make out (but admittedly don't follow these threads particularly), he's a moderate - albeit sympathising slightly more with the Israelis.

 

But in the context of this thread, there's no defending Israel coming up with a draft bill to legalise the settlements - IMO of course.

[Jingthing]

The Ireland Israel/Palestine analogy is as irrelevant as the South Africa one. The Israel/Palestine situation is very specific. There is nothing like it.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Jingthing said:

The Ireland Israel/Palestine analogy is as irrelevant as the South Africa one. The Israel/,Palestine situation is very specific. There is nothing like it.

Of course.  Apart from how long it may last .

[Morch]

16 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Why is it  President Obama's responsibility to impose anything? The Arabs have had opportunity after opportunity and refused to negotiate in good faith. And now you expect the USA to impose a "corridor"? You just can't go in and slice out a corridor from a sovereign nation. If that was the case, Argentina would have greater access to the ocean through Chile,   Point Roberts USA would have  a corridor to the USA through Canada,  African countries would have a corridor to the  ocean etc.

 

Your use of the term "illegally occupied" is erroneous. There isn't an  illegal occupation, despite the labeling by the the arabs and their supporters. This argument has been going on  ever since the Arabs  illegally started a war in 1948 and illehgally seized jerusalem. You remember that don't you? You do recall what the original border was for jeusalem don't you? Remember how the Jordanians seized the entire city?  The Arabs grabbed and they lost.Tough.  

 

Here's a tip: Don't start a war as the  consequences can be bad.

 

It is not the responsibility of the US to impose anything. The problem is more to do with the US trying to juggle both support for Israel and maintaining its image as an "honest broker". Most Palestinians, as well as most ME countries are not buying into that anymore. Some on these topics seem constantly surprised and outraged that the US (or other Western governments) do not fully subscribe to their views, hence such nonsense as expecting the US to impose this or that. Same goes for the "World is watching" statements.

 

The West Bank is illegally occupied. The Arab states and the Palestinians rejection of the partition plan never implied Israel had a legal claim to said territory. The same applied with regard to the preceding Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. And a small correction, the Jordanians never seized the entire city of Jerusalem, but the most of the old city (which includes the Temple Mount). While this was indeed a violation of the lines drawn out on the partition plan, so were gains made by Israel elsewhere.

 

Lastly, Netanyahu's government is into anything but negotiating in "good faith". The Palestinian failure is not to accept negotiations and expose this. Of course, this would entail exposing their own rejections and a whole lot of backroom dealings better kept out of sight.

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes he's read the riot act to pretty much all of us at one time or another.

 

And, defying all common sense, the riots continue unabated.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And, defying all common sense, the riots continue unabated.

You expected anything different? 

[dick dasterdly]

Did anyone think this thread, namely " Israel backs draft bill to legalise settlements" would result in anything other than a 'general level Israeli/Palestinian argument' ?

 

Even though the draft bill is so obviously wrong - and the opposite to any chance of peace??

Edited November 22, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Jingthing]

Of course not. Boilerplate stuff. Endless loop. Send us all a memo when that might change ... 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jingthing