Jewish settlers demand support for Amona outpost

[DavidVincent]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I am better informed than most posters regularly commenting on these topics. Take it as vanity, if you like, I see it as stating a fact. It does not preclude others having a different opinion on these matters. Being a longtime member is not, by itself is not an indication of superior knowledge, perhaps of perseverance. Credibility is a matter of perceptions over time, which does put newcomers at a certain disadvantage. The reference to the length of your own membership was to do with your incorrect description of my views, suggesting you are basing these on imagination rather than fact. The credibility of your posts was not judged by how long you've been around, but by their content.

 

And I get it, another one who heralds lack of relevant experience, knowledge and familiarity with the subject at hand as the hallmarks of better understanding. A rather popular view on this forum among the opinionated, yet not so informed. Sorry, not into the whole post fact thing, nor into inane one sided views or hate driven agendas.

 

Hard to tell if there's a language barrier here or simply twisting words. The "original thought" comment was made with reference to the boycott thing, which spin as you may, is not a widely accepted global view. Continuing to claim that I do not see the illegal settlements as an obstacle to peace is contrary to my previously (and often) stated position. The term "illegal" might give it away.

 

Stating that the situation not complicated is a joke, not an opinion. Laying blame for all the conflict, based on a specific time frame is not an honest position. Disregarding the accountability of the other side to anything and everything related to the conflict is ridiculous. And no, the efficacy of non-government level boycotts on issues pertaining to international relations was not proved "numerous times".

 

Allow me to doubt that you actually took time to review my posting history before pronouncing it a "useless" exercise. Certainly not in the short time between your posts. This is, again, another instance of choosing to be opinionated over informed. My position is hardly a defense of Israeli government policy, but rather a more balanced take then that advocated by the pitchfork brigade. And no "point" was proven - just no intention of playing your game by over-simplifying solutions.

 

Israelis do not vote "for a government", but for political parties from which a coalition emerges. The voters do not have a say in the creation of the coalition, which is more often than not based on questionable dealings and ethics. But seeing as you "followed many Israeli elections" you ought to have known this. Lieberman's party, for example, was added to the coalition long after the elections. And as an aside, Lieberman was one of the few right wing politicians who clearly said to the Amona settlers that they'd be evacuated.

 

The rest of your nonsense is getting strangely personal...kinda funny for a newcomer.

Ahhh vanity... Mother of all sins my grandmother used to say. But for this I agree. You see i come on tv on nearly daoly basis for 6 years, and yet i lost my email password so i had to make a new account.. So be sure i know your posts. Posts which want to look balanced, coming from a superior guidance and "who knows". And yet you don't look at the facts. I will not post the well known map of the west bank falling year after year under the land stealing and settlements but this map worth a 1000 words and clearly show THE problem. Guess what? I am sure if this was resolved and the palestinians continued to provoke israel they wouldn't have such support from their current fans. 

You point "a specific time frame" as not being a reliable opinion, but yet all the supporters of the settlements.and against a palestinian state use it : there was no such thing as palestine they say.. So should we or shouldn t we use a time line as a factor?should we only start at the Judaism emergence?

Saying that boycott bot organized by government couldn't work is either a lack of information or pure denial. Do you want a list of companies, communities and  others which falled under a popular boycott. Ignoring the power of social media to qccomplish the same thing toward a country is foolish.

Israeli vote for political partiea, you re right. Don't those.political parties have a political agenda to show to the voters? Are the israeli maintained in ignorance of what the party they votw for intenda to do once in charge? I doubt it.

Lieberman lost all credibility when he told publiclh he wanted to "deport" the arabs outside israel, and having is home in a west bank settlement do not help to be seeing as a cool guy.

It is not really me who take a personnal side on this exchange. I just find it amusing that, even on the internet, a number under a small profile pic, is a sign of reliability... Ahhh vanity...

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Anyone not on the pitchfork brigade would know that there are multiple points of view, and that public opinion is split, if not fragmented, on a whole range of topics. Including issues pertaining to the conflict with the Palestinians. So when you post nonsense which amounts to asserting all Israelis support this or that, it leaves your previous claims of having a clue under some doubt.

 

I think your reply here is quite disingenuous. While it's true that in a nation of more than 8 million people there will be a wide diversity of opinion, the fact is that Israeli opinions on Palestinians and the West Bank have veered sharply to the right.  And what's more, the younger a voter is, the more likely she or he is to be right wing.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, JingerBen said:

Your final point is thought provoking.

It may be that the publicity surrounding the evacuation of Amona is a smoke screen for the legalization of many other illegal settlements.

The end result of this policy - a one-state reality - will be a disaster for Israel.

How will they live with the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank?

Grant them full civil and voting rights and Israel ceases to be a Jewish state.

Keep them confined to bantustans and the civilized nations of the world will do to Israel what they did to apartheid South Africa.

 

One got to question if some of the opinionated posters regularly inflicting their view on these topics (and those auto clicking them "likes") actually follow the relevant news and comprehend their meaning.

 

There is nothing "thought provoking" here, unless one is of the group described above. The background was described on previous topics. The Amona saga coming to a head was the catalyst for the suggested legislation regarding the rest of the illegal settlements. There was no "smoke screen". Things went awry as it became obvious even to right wing politicians that Amona itself could not be included in this bill, because there was a already a specific Supreme Court ruling on the matter. So there are two parallel stories now - first, Amona and its impeding evacuation, and second, the process of legislation involving the bill dealing with other illegal settlements. The Amona case is of a lesser magnitude compared to the legislation issue, even if bound to be more dramatic.

 

The new bill does not imply annexation. It is meant to give the government the authority to retroactively expropriate (well, in return for payment, but that's immaterial) lands privately owned by Palestinians. Settlements in the West Bank were intended to be built on state owned lands (which include any property lacking document or clear owner, and yes these are very wide definition to play with), a policy which wasn't strictly adhered to or enforced. In these relevant instances, posters wishing to apply "land theft" are welcome to do so, no argument. The new bill will simply mean that these illegal illegal settlements will become illegal settlements. Theoretically, the bill does not apply for future illegal settlements, but then again, that's how it came about in the first place. For the sake of clarity, the state owned land title does not confer that the land is part of the state of Israel.

 

The question of whether Israel is heading toward a one-state future is still an open one. Currently, there is one party (and the most vocal coalition partner on these matters) which mentions annexation. As usual with Israeli right wing politicians - no real answers as to how this is supposed to work. So far, not a whole lot of traction for this, as most Israelis can count. This too, was extensively posted about on previous topics.

[DavidVincent]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

One got to question if some of the opinionated posters regularly inflicting their view on these topics (and those auto clicking them "likes") actually follow the relevant news and comprehend their meaning.

 

There is nothing "thought provoking" here, unless one is of the group described above. The background was described on previous topics. The Amona saga coming to a head was the catalyst for the suggested legislation regarding the rest of the illegal settlements. There was no "smoke screen". Things went awry as it became obvious even to right wing politicians that Amona itself could not be included in this bill, because there was a already a specific Supreme Court ruling on the matter. So there are two parallel stories now - first, Amona and its impeding evacuation, and second, the process of legislation involving the bill dealing with other illegal settlements. The Amona case is of a lesser magnitude compared to the legislation issue, even if bound to be more dramatic.

 

The new bill does not imply annexation. It is meant to give the government the authority to retroactively expropriate (well, in return for payment, but that's immaterial) lands privately owned by Palestinians. Settlements in the West Bank were intended to be built on state owned lands (which include any property lacking document or clear owner, and yes these are very wide definition to play with), a policy which wasn't strictly adhered to or enforced. In these relevant instances, posters wishing to apply "land theft" are welcome to do so, no argument. The new bill will simply mean that these illegal illegal settlements will become illegal settlements. Theoretically, the bill does not apply for future illegal settlements, but then again, that's how it came about in the first place. For the sake of clarity, the state owned land title does not confer that the land is part of the state of Israel.

 

The question of whether Israel is heading toward a one-state future is still an open one. Currently, there is one party (and the most vocal coalition partner on these matters) which mentions annexation. As usual with Israeli right wing politicians - no real answers as to how this is supposed to work. So far, not a whole lot of traction for this, as most Israelis can count. This too, was extensively posted about on previous topics.

"...inflicting their view..."  this is enough to mark my point toward you and your view of the people who don't agree to swallow your writings as the only truth...

[dexterm]

47 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

One got to question if some of the opinionated posters regularly inflicting their view on these topics (and those auto clicking them "likes") actually follow the relevant news and comprehend their meaning.

 

There is nothing "thought provoking" here, unless one is of the group described above. The background was described on previous topics. The Amona saga coming to a head was the catalyst for the suggested legislation regarding the rest of the illegal settlements. There was no "smoke screen". Things went awry as it became obvious even to right wing politicians that Amona itself could not be included in this bill, because there was a already a specific Supreme Court ruling on the matter. So there are two parallel stories now - first, Amona and its impeding evacuation, and second, the process of legislation involving the bill dealing with other illegal settlements. The Amona case is of a lesser magnitude compared to the legislation issue, even if bound to be more dramatic.

 

The new bill does not imply annexation. It is meant to give the government the authority to retroactively expropriate (well, in return for payment, but that's immaterial) lands privately owned by Palestinians. Settlements in the West Bank were intended to be built on state owned lands (which include any property lacking document or clear owner, and yes these are very wide definition to play with), a policy which wasn't strictly adhered to or enforced. In these relevant instances, posters wishing to apply "land theft" are welcome to do so, no argument. The new bill will simply mean that these illegal illegal settlements will become illegal settlements. Theoretically, the bill does not apply for future illegal settlements, but then again, that's how it came about in the first place. For the sake of clarity, the state owned land title does not confer that the land is part of the state of Israel.

 

The question of whether Israel is heading toward a one-state future is still an open one. Currently, there is one party (and the most vocal coalition partner on these matters) which mentions annexation. As usual with Israeli right wing politicians - no real answers as to how this is supposed to work. So far, not a whole lot of traction for this, as most Israelis can count. This too, was extensively posted about on previous topics.

I agree with you that Amona is a side issue compared with the proposed Legalisation Bill retrospectively legalizing colonists' outposts on seized Palestinian owned land.

 

But to say that this new bill does not even imply annexation is totally disingenuous. When every single member of the current Israeli cabinet has either openly supported annexation or stated never a Palestinian state on my watch. Although Netanyahu flip flopped on that one too. That is just pure semantic acrobatics.

 

Even if we use your euphemism "expropriation", any new colonies would be subject to the present legislation which generously approves construction expansion on current illegal Jewish only settlements, while denying Palestinians in neighboring villages similar building permits on land they have owned for generations.

 

It will be annexation in all but name only. You would just have to join the ever increasing and expanding dots on the map, where all the inhabitants of these Jewish only colonies are Israeli citizens, while the Palestinians in the valleys below are not.

 

Although you say "not a whole lot of traction" for this one state solution, the current electorate...well their elected coaliton government ... seem to be sleepwalking in that direction.

Edited December 15, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

48 minutes ago, DavidVincent said:

Ahhh vanity... Mother of all sins my grandmother used to say. But for this I agree. You see i come on tv on nearly daoly basis for 6 years, and yet i lost my email password so i had to make a new account.. So be sure i know your posts. Posts which want to look balanced, coming from a superior guidance and "who knows". And yet you don't look at the facts. I will not post the well known map of the west bank falling year after year under the land stealing and settlements but this map worth a 1000 words and clearly show THE problem. Guess what? I am sure if this was resolved and the palestinians continued to provoke israel they wouldn't have such support from their current fans. 

You point "a specific time frame" as not being a reliable opinion, but yet all the supporters of the settlements.and against a palestinian state use it : there was no such thing as palestine they say.. So should we or shouldn t we use a time line as a factor?should we only start at the Judaism emergence?

Saying that boycott bot organized by government couldn't work is either a lack of information or pure denial. Do you want a list of companies, communities and  others which falled under a popular boycott. Ignoring the power of social media to qccomplish the same thing toward a country is foolish.

Israeli vote for political partiea, you re right. Don't those.political parties have a political agenda to show to the voters? Are the israeli maintained in ignorance of what the party they votw for intenda to do once in charge? I doubt it.

Lieberman lost all credibility when he told publiclh he wanted to "deport" the arabs outside israel, and having is home in a west bank settlement do not help to be seeing as a cool guy.

It is not really me who take a personnal side on this exchange. I just find it amusing that, even on the internet, a number under a small profile pic, is a sign of reliability... Ahhh vanity...

 

I see. The dog ate your homework. In that case, you are playing games instead of simply mentioning your previous forum name.

It's a pity grandmother didn't teach you about editing your posts so that they'd be easier to read, though.

 

The glorious map you mentioned is a propaganda construct, been debunked long ago. Even on this forum. The "time frame" reference was exactly this - the conflict is not just about the settlements, or not just about this or other terrorist attack by Palestinians. Using such arbitrary time frames and "start" dates is unhelpful. I had the same issues with posters holding opposite opinions to yours. Once again you either fail to comprehend my words or consciously attempt to twist them. Same goes for the boycott thing - never said there weren't successful non-government boycotts targeting specific organizations, companies or products. I did question whether there are "numerous" examples of similar boycotts effecting foreign government policies.

 

Political parties in Israel do have charters, or at least, voters are reasonably aware of agenda. These things become meaningless once elections are over, and coalition negotiations commence. A good example would be the head of  the main opposition party conducting such secret negotiations, against party and voter opinion. Never said Lieberman is a "cool guy", that's just more nonsense. Same goes for living in the West Bank, hardly the first Israeli politician to reside there.

 

And once again, credibility is not a function of post count or how long one been on a forum, but rather of their posting history. Again, twisting words.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think your reply here is quite disingenuous. While it's true that in a nation of more than 8 million people there will be a wide diversity of opinion, the fact is that Israeli opinions on Palestinians and the West Bank have veered sharply to the right.  And what's more, the younger a voter is, the more likely she or he is to be right wing.

 

I rather think disingenuous is an apt description of your own comment. As you are well aware, I have commented to Israel's electorate shift to the right, and elaborated on the factors involved.

 

Most posters are taking the easy route by applying general ideological and political labels, without much care for the differentiating the various views involved. This seems to be the norm with regard to pretty much any political discussion involving a country posters aren't overly familiar with, but still hold strongly opinionated views on.

 

Accordingly, Netanyahu, while serving as the obvious target for criticism is hardly the rightmost marker of his coalition. Same goes for the aforementioned Lieberman. Considering extra-parliamentary forces, this is even more pronounced.

 

Coalitions are a necessity in Israeli politics, and the sad truth is that Left wing (and to a lesser degree, centrist) parties have painted themselves into a corner making rapport with potential partners problematic (and that's without getting into the backstabbing and petty rivalries among themselves). Sort of like the US elections, it's not just how many votes a party gets. Theoretically, there could have been left/centrist lead coalitions in past years - they didn't come about because they couldn't hook up with potential partners.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, DavidVincent said:

"...inflicting their view..."  this is enough to mark my point toward you and your view of the people who don't agree to swallow your writings as the only truth...

 

Ignorance is not an opinion.

 

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I agree with you that Amona is a side issue compared with the proposed Legalisation Bill retrospectively legalizing colonists' outposts on seized Palestinian owned land.

 

But to say that this new bill does not even imply annexation is totally disingenuous. When every single member of the current Israeli cabinet have either openly supported annexation or stated never a Palestinian state on my watch. Although Netanyahu flip flopped on that one too.

 

Even if we use your euphemism "expropriation", any new colonies would be subject to the present legislation which generously approves construction expansion on current illegal Jewish only settlements, while denying Palestinians in neighboring villages similar building permits on land they have owned for generations.

 

It will be annexation in all but name only. You would just have to join the ever increasing and expanding dots on the map, where all the inhabitants of these Jewish only colonies are Israeli citizens, while the Palestinians in the valleys below are not.

 

Although you say "not a whole lot of traction" for this one state solution, the current electorate and their elected government seem to be sleepwalking in that direction.

 

Again, disingenuous is a descriptive of the above.

 

The proposed bill does not imply annexation.This is your interpretation, and considering your well known views, your interpretations are suspect. Supporting annexation (which is not as popular a stand as you aim to present) is not the same as rejecting Palestinian independence. If this is too hard to digest, consider that even the late Rabin talked about "less than a state". This is not my personal view, just dispelling some of the usual nonsense.

 

Expropriation is not a euphemism. Colonial references,  on the other hand, are. The proposed bill deals with existing illegal settlements, not with adding new ones. That it might be used as precedent is indeed a worry, but not a reality. The legislation will not increase the land area of existing illegal settlements.

 

Sleepwalking they may be, but that's not the same as having a whole lot of traction.

[DavidVincent]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ignorance is not an opinion.

 

Neither is acceptance of a unique view.

My post was made on a phone, attacking someone about a post formatting is clearly a form of weakness.

The map showing the progression of settlements in west bank being "debunked" .. I am curious to see by who?

YOur posting history has nothing which has more weight than mine unfortunatly.

I stand by my point, your opinion and sense of superior knowledge about the israeli conflict, the refusal to see that settlement is a major problem,while saying posts not going your way are "inflicted" to you says a lot.

 

Opinion are like nipples, everybody got one (pun intended,...just in case)

Edited December 15, 2016 by DavidVincent

[Scott]

One post removed.   I very strongly suggest staying on topic.