Israel: 'Ironclad information' White House behind UN rebuke

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Perhaps when you'd stop with the "colonial" nonsense, but then you are trying to make this a one sided issue, so not holding my breath. If you think that the views of either side are unrelated to actions and views of the other, or that it works one-way, there's little to discuss. Deflect away.

You think it's deflection?  How is the establishment of jewish settlements throughout the West Bank not colonialism?  I don't even mean that as some kind of left wing rhetoric. How is this not colonialism?  What critical difference do you see between this and other colonial situations?  

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

You think it's deflection?  How is the establishment of jewish settlements throughout the West Bank not colonialism?  I don't even mean that as some kind of left wing rhetoric. How is this not colonialism?  What critical difference do you see between this and other colonial situations?  

 

This is where we're in disagreement - I doubt that you do not mean it is anything but left wing rhetoric. I also very much doubt that you are not attempting yet another off topic deflection and derailing of topic.

[up-country_sinclair]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

How is the establishment of jewish settlements throughout the West Bank not colonialism?

 

Of course it's colonialism.  The apologists for the occupiers get very uneasy when people recognize the "settlements" for what they are.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

This is where we're in disagreement - I doubt that you do not mean it is anything but left wing rhetoric. I also very much doubt that you are not attempting yet another off topic deflection and derailing of topic.

I don't think I'm being off topic at all.  You keep on insisting that Israelis and Palestinians share the blame. But the fact is that Israel is colonizing the west bank. Not only do they expropriate property and allow Israeilis to settle there illegally but they enforce laws unequally,  which is another characteristic of colonial rule. I know that  for many years the Israeilis had laws in effect that were designed to discourage Palestinian development. Another characteristic of colonial rule.  And the fact is, you can't come up with an example of people who were treated this way who didn't become more extreme in their actions. And of course, you can't come up with a case where the colonizers also don't grow more extreme in their attitudes towards the people whose land they are colonizing.  You know as well as I do that Israeli public opinion polls show a steadily hardening attitude towards Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. This is what happens to colonizers. And all you can do is question my motives because the facts of the case are on my side.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's a fine post, and a fine sentiment.

 

It just fails to acknowledge that similar denials of legitimacy, denial of definition, right to exist and all the rest are also routinely applied to Israel and Jews, whether referencing the state, the nation, the people, their views and whatnot. In one way or the other, these are all ongoing themes with regard to certain posters. Moreover, such positions are not alien, nor even rare among Palestinians (probably to a lesser extent in the company you keep, though).

 

It is, indeed, a major issue, but hardly a one sided one. Treating it as such misses the point - which is, IMO, both sides largely unwilling to recognize the other as legitimate.

 

Quite a few posters have their heads stuck in the past. The religious nut I was engaged with today, seemed to be stuck in the 70's with his references to the PLO. One of your prime antagonists seems to be stuck in 1947 and nitpicking about borders and agreements. Others are stuck in the 15thC BC with the Exodus or the 1stC AD with the 2nd destruction of the Temple.

 

I comment on today's reality. You say that I fail to mention the people who deny the right of Israel to exist. They are as guilty of genocidal thoughts as are the ones who promote the denial of Palestinians. There is a de facto two state, well more accurately a 3 state situation although the Fatah/Hamas thing should be resolved politically. If people want that to change, then they will have to be ready for significant upheaval and civil unrest. Most of the World endorses the current reality and it should be a starting point for negotiation, not 1967 or 1947 or 66AD or 1446BC.

 

Just as no-one is going to get rid of Israel and I believe that there is a majority of people who believe that the establishment and ongoing existence and viability of that country is a good thing, no-one is going to get rid of the Palestinians. There is a functioning government, at least in the West Bank, a system of laws and investment in infrastructure. Gaza is problematic but I tend to approach things by dealing with one problem at a time in a priority order. Assuming that the mad Right do not inflame another Intafada, there are good foundations for negotiation. There are some quite seriously wrong-headed things that the Israelis are doing, particularly in the areas of security and public finance but there are also some seriously wrong-headed things that the Palestinians are doing.

 

The Palestinian State will continue to consolidate and evolve with laws being passed, investments being made in infrastructure and civilians going about their business to improve their lives. This will be done in spite of the oppression of right wing Israeli policies. On the other side, as a functioning Democracy, there is no guarantee that the Right Wing view will prevail all the time. Further, it can be hoped that influence-makers in Israel may listen to the messages from the rest of the World such as the recent UN vote or the spectacle of their current PM rolling around in the muck with donald and his band of bigots.

 

I believe that Israeli may bear most of the burden of compromise because it advertises itself as a liberal democracy, while Palestine is still quite a young and not fully formed entity and we perhaps should not expect the same standards of them. They are the under dog in this situation. A position occupied by the Israelis 60 - 70 years ago but which was lost through the corruption brought about by arrogance and power derived from their inability to achieve concordant with the Palestinian polity.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I don't think I'm being off topic at all.  You keep on insisting that Israelis and Palestinians share the blame. But the fact is that Israel is colonizing the west bank. Not only do they expropriate property and allow Israeilis to settle there illegally but they enforce laws unequally,  which is another characteristic of colonial rule. I know that  for many years the Israeilis had laws in effect that were designed to discourage Palestinian development. Another characteristic of colonial rule.  And the fact is, you can't come up with an example of people who were treated this way who didn't become more extreme in their actions. And of course, you can't come up with a case where the colonizers also don't grow more extreme in their attitudes towards the people whose land they are colonizing.  You know as well as I do that Israeli public opinion polls show a steadily hardening attitude towards Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. This is what happens to colonizers. And all you can do is question my motives because the facts of the case are on my side.

 

You can state "facts" to your little heart's desire. I suggest that you consult your history books, and make sure the terms you use apply. That is, beyond being catchy politically correct phrases. Your usage is intended for one thing, and one thing only - to draw a line between Israel and the practices of powers from another era, in an effort to include the current situation in the assumed collective guilt of the West. Not buying into any of it.

 

As you cannot discuss your original statement in any meaningful way without resorting to this bogus argument, and repeatedly using an out of context term, which makes your whole point suspect - pretty much as was asserted. Not the first time we did this dance.

 

The bottom line stays the same - there are mutual effects on positions of sides in a conflict, which are based on perceptions of each others views. You somehow seem to claim that this is a one sided process or that chicken and egg questions are material.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Quite a few posters have their heads stuck in the past. The religious nut I was engaged with today, seemed to be stuck in the 70's with his references to the PLO. One of your prime antagonists seems to be stuck in 1947 and nitpicking about borders and agreements. Others are stuck in the 15thC BC with the Exodus or the 1stC AD with the 2nd destruction of the Temple.

 

I comment on today's reality. You say that I fail to mention the people who deny the right of Israel to exist. They are as guilty of genocidal thoughts as are the ones who promote the denial of Palestinians. There is a de facto two state, well more accurately a 3 state situation although the Fatah/Hamas thing should be resolved politically. If people want that to change, then they will have to be ready for significant upheaval and civil unrest. Most of the World endorses the current reality and it should be a starting point for negotiation, not 1967 or 1947 or 66AD or 1446BC.

 

Just as no-one is going to get rid of Israel and I believe that there is a majority of people who believe that the establishment and ongoing existence and viability of that country is a good thing, no-one is going to get rid of the Palestinians. There is a functioning government, at least in the West Bank, a system of laws and investment in infrastructure. Gaza is problematic but I tend to approach things by dealing with one problem at a time in a priority order. Assuming that the mad Right do not inflame another Intafada, there are good foundations for negotiation. There are some quite seriously wrong-headed things that the Israelis are doing, particularly in the areas of security and public finance but there are also some seriously wrong-headed things that the Palestinians are doing.

 

The Palestinian State will continue to consolidate and evolve with laws being passed, investments being made in infrastructure and civilians going about their business to improve their lives. This will be done in spite of the oppression of right wing Israeli policies. On the other side, as a functioning Democracy, there is no guarantee that the Right Wing view will prevail all the time. Further, it can be hoped that influence-makers in Israel may listen to the messages from the rest of the World such as the recent UN vote or the spectacle of their current PM rolling around in the muck with donald and his band of bigots.

 

I believe that Israeli may bear most of the burden of compromise because it advertises itself as a liberal democracy, while Palestine is still quite a young and not fully formed entity and we perhaps should not expect the same standards of them. They are the under dog in this situation. A position occupied by the Israelis 60 - 70 years ago but which was lost through the corruption brought about by arrogance and power derived from their inability to achieve concordant with the Palestinian polity.

 

Fair enough, I was just pointing out that these attitudes are a bane, and that they exist with regard to either side.

 

I probably see the Palestinian Authority as a less solid construct, economically, politically and socially - and that, in my mind, casts a heavy shadow the prospects for conflict resolution. That one problem at a time approach is the way to go, but not clear how it applies to Hamas and the Gaza Strip. Abbas's expected departure (one way or another) and its aftermath yet another big question mark.

 

The situation within Israel is also messy on these fronts, but even without global trends being what they are, seeing the rise of a coalition government ready and willing to go anywhere on peace is doubtful.

 

Was "burden of compromise" a reference to the perceived responsibility of a side to make concessions? Don't know that this plays a whole lot more than a PR angle. If one was to listen to politicians on either side, there's no such thing as burden of compromise". Every inch conceded is treated as monumental. Every gesture made is overblown out of proportion. Every transgression the ultimate proof of evil. Sort of how these topics go on TVF.  The elements to be included in most realistic formulations of agreements are rather obvious, and been that way for a long time. If such an agreement will materialize, the "burden of compromise" will be rather marginal compared to things already suggested.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.   Stop baiting and trolling.   One person is now on suspension.  

 

 

[Goingmad]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, so you're trying to fully equate between political groups and the people they supposedly represent? Doubt if it sticks. Your original comment was that the political group does not deserve a country. Perhaps so, but the people do.

 

Palestinians do produce, and do export - there are them restriction presented by living under a military occupation, but don't let facts confuse you. Details and figures are readily available on these issues. This is not denying that the Palestinians do receive considerable aid from foreign sources - but not from Israel.

 

Not all the Palestinians promote terrorism, and bringing it up without context is a rather hollow argument.

Sorry, you are wrong Israel has given a lot of money to this so called country.

They stop, when they get bombed. Go Figure !

[dexterm]

12 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

 

Of course it's colonialism.  The apologists for the occupiers get very uneasy when people recognize the "settlements" for what they are.

Not only do they try to rewrite events in the narrative of European colonialism that is the history of Palestine, they try to control one's thoughts too with such feel good cuddly words as "settlements" as though no-one suffered  in the process.

 

All a bit 1984 ish.

Edited December 30, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Goingmad said:

Sorry, you are wrong Israel has given a lot of money to this so called country.

They stop, when they get bombed. Go Figure !

 

No, I'm not. Israel did not "give" the Palestinians money. The money transferred (and sometimes, withheld) by Israel, is usually related to social security and taxes collected by Israel. This issues are regulated through agreed upon terms.

 

Israel withheld the transfer of these funds on several occasions. The reasons cited (Palestinian outstanding debts, breaching unrelated agreements) were poignant, but legally doubtful by any measure. In all instances, Israel finally released related funds. There is little Israel will gain by the economic collapse of the Palestinian Authority.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Not only do they try to rewrite events in the narrative of European colonialism that is the history of Palestine, they try to control one's thoughts too with such feel good cuddly words as "settlements" as though no-one suffered  in the process.

 

All a bit 1984 ish.

 

As opposed to your hyperbolic nonsense, the attempt at shaping narrative is by introducing an European concept aimed at resonating a supposed Western collective guilt. This is most definitely something related to left wing political thought, rather than an accurate telling of history. By and large, bringing it up is nothing but propaganda, and in an indirect way, yet another attack on Israel's legitimacy.

 

And "settlements" is not a "cuddly" word, especially seen as it is usually coupled with "illegal". Most of the world does use this term rather than your own baiting and inflammatory rhetoric, which apart from being inaccurate contributes little to addressing current issues.

[dexterm]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As opposed to your hyperbolic nonsense, the attempt at shaping narrative is by introducing an European concept aimed at resonating a supposed Western collective guilt. This is most definitely something related to left wing political thought, rather than an accurate telling of history. By and large, bringing it up is nothing but propaganda, and in an indirect way, yet another attack on Israel's legitimacy.

 

And "settlements" is not a "cuddly" word, especially seen as it is usually coupled with "illegal". Most of the world does use this term rather than your own baiting and inflammatory rhetoric, which apart from being inaccurate contributes little to addressing current issues.

I completely disagree with every single one of your sentences. I would love to respond in detail now but it would probably get me suspended. Perhaps another thread sometime related to the subject of colonialism/Zionism/history of Israel would be more suitable.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

4 hours ago, Goingmad said:

Sorry, you are wrong Israel has given a lot of money to this so called country.

They stop, when they get bombed. Go Figure !

 

It would be useful if you could stop peddling information tainted by prejudice and ignorance. Your bogus claims are easily debunked by actual facts.

 

Israel does not 'give' money to Palestine. It remits Clearance Revenues which are revenues collected by Israel on behalf of Palestine according to the Paris Protocol of Economic Relations in the 1994 Oslo Accord whereby Israel and Palestine form a customs union. The main components of Clearance Revenues are customs duties, value added tax and petrol excises. This is clearly explained in the following IMF paper https://www.imf.org/external/country/WBG/RR/2011/102711.pdf

 

So it is the Palestinians' own money that is being transferred.

 

A significant problem for fiscal management in Palestine is the practice of Net Lending implemented by Israel. Nearly 90% of electricity is purchased from the Israel Electric Company. Electricity rates are paid by consumers to Palestine Municipalities who then transfer the money to the Palestine MOF for onward transfer to the IEC. Where there is non payment of electricity rates by private consumers, Israel deducts the outstanding money from the Clearance Revenues. They also delay payment of Clearance Revenues for political reasons. This means that Israel is disrupting the fiscal stability of Palestine since revenues for both national and local government activities are not predictable or consistent. A similar situation occurs with water supply.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/04/08/electricity-non-payment-and-arrears-destabilize-the-palestinian-economy

 

Normal practice for electricity utilities is for them to deal with non payment issues directly with customers.

 

Perhaps you might deign to refer to fact based scenarios instead of your usual bigotry.

 

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Fair enough, I was just pointing out that these attitudes are a bane, and that they exist with regard to either side.

 

I probably see the Palestinian Authority as a less solid construct, economically, politically and socially - and that, in my mind, casts a heavy shadow the prospects for conflict resolution. That one problem at a time approach is the way to go, but not clear how it applies to Hamas and the Gaza Strip. Abbas's expected departure (one way or another) and its aftermath yet another big question mark.

 

The situation within Israel is also messy on these fronts, but even without global trends being what they are, seeing the rise of a coalition government ready and willing to go anywhere on peace is doubtful.

 

Was "burden of compromise" a reference to the perceived responsibility of a side to make concessions? Don't know that this plays a whole lot more than a PR angle. If one was to listen to politicians on either side, there's no such thing as burden of compromise". Every inch conceded is treated as monumental. Every gesture made is overblown out of proportion. Every transgression the ultimate proof of evil. Sort of how these topics go on TVF.  The elements to be included in most realistic formulations of agreements are rather obvious, and been that way for a long time. If such an agreement will materialize, the "burden of compromise" will be rather marginal compared to things already suggested.

 

Israel is the occupying power. It has the most power in the current situation. To me, it is abusing that power primarily because they believe they can get away with it. Perhaps the response by the rest of the World can start to constrain further abuses. Irrespective of points of view on the use and/or the abuse of power, to me it stands to reason that Israel has the burden of compromise if it wants to maintain the reputation as a liberal democracy. I think it is quite obvious that a non Right Wing, imperialistic government would probably see a way clear to such compromise as did Rabin in the Oslo Accords.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Israel is the occupying power. It has the most power in the current situation. To me, it is abusing that power primarily because they believe they can get away with it. Perhaps the response by the rest of the World can start to constrain further abuses. Irrespective of points of view on the use and/or the abuse of power, to me it stands to reason that Israel has the burden of compromise if it wants to maintain the reputation as a liberal democracy. I think it is quite obvious that a non Right Wing, imperialistic government would probably see a way clear to such compromise as did Rabin in the Oslo Accords.

Maybe the majority of Israelis aren't that concerned about what Israel demonizers  (especially the type that doesn't accept Israel's right to exist at all in the first place) think about how "liberal" their democracy is.

 

I don't accept that Israel has all the power in this situation. Palestinians don't have the power to stop inciting violence against Jews ... Palestinians don't have the power to give up the rhetoric denying the legitimacy of the existence of Israel as a Jewish identified nation state ... Palestinians don't have the power to focus more on direct negotiations with Israel rather than international showboating that only serves to strengthen the Israeli right wing? 

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Maybe the majority of Israelis aren't that concerned about what Israel demonizers  (especially the type that doesn't accept Israel's right to exist at all in the first place) think about how "liberal" their democracy is.

 

I don't accept that Israel has all the power in this situation. Palestinians don't have the power to stop inciting violence against Jews ... Palestinians don't have the power to give up the rhetoric denying the legitimacy of the existence of Israel as a Jewish identified nation state ... Palestinians don't have the power to focus more on direct negotiations with Israel rather than international showboating that only serves to strengthen the Israeli right wing? 

 

By Palestinians do you mean the government or individuals? If you mean the government (and referring to the West Bank government), I believe that they can be held responsible for the 2nd and 3rd elements of your post, but that is polemic - political speech and people can and do argue about its relevance, appropriateness and impact. But my understanding of the motivations of the recent violence against Israel is that there is not a declaration of armed conflict by the Government of Palestine against Israel (again, leaving out Hamas).

 

Both the 2nd Intafada and the recent knife attacks have been grass roots responses to Israeli actions, is that not correct?

 

“At the beginning, [the violence] was aboutal-Aqsa,” said a senior Israeli military official involved in overseeing day-to-day operations in the West Bank. “But in the last few months we have seen that change to being about revenge.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/31/israel-palestine-violence-knife-attacks-west-bank-gaza

 

Support among Palestinians for the knife attacks is lessening.

 

it seems to me that Palestinians in the West Bank would like to have stability. In which case, I believe there is an argument that the policies of the Right Wing Israeli Government are impeding chances for negotiation and compromise. A more confident, less thin skinned Israeli Prime Minister might ignore showboating and extravagant political rhetoric in favor of workable day to day agreements on small issues such as fiscal policies, transportation, power supply etc at least between Israel and the West Bank.

 

I took an Israeli registered taxi from Ramallah to Tel Aviv last month and nobody threw rocks at me. Of course it was pelting down with rain so everyone was inside. Not to be pretentious but 'A journey of a thousand miles...' and all that.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

It would be useful if you could stop peddling information tainted by prejudice and ignorance. Your bogus claims are easily debunked by actual facts.

 

Israel does not 'give' money to Palestine. It remits Clearance Revenues which are revenues collected by Israel on behalf of Palestine according to the Paris Protocol of Economic Relations in the 1994 Oslo Accord whereby Israel and Palestine form a customs union. The main components of Clearance Revenues are customs duties, value added tax and petrol excises. This is clearly explained in the following IMF paper https://www.imf.org/external/country/WBG/RR/2011/102711.pdf

 

So it is the Palestinians' own money that is being transferred.

 

A significant problem for fiscal management in Palestine is the practice of Net Lending implemented by Israel. Nearly 90% of electricity is purchased from the Israel Electric Company. Electricity rates are paid by consumers to Palestine Municipalities who then transfer the money to the Palestine MOF for onward transfer to the IEC. Where there is non payment of electricity rates by private consumers, Israel deducts the outstanding money from the Clearance Revenues. They also delay payment of Clearance Revenues for political reasons. This means that Israel is disrupting the fiscal stability of Palestine since revenues for both national and local government activities are not predictable or consistent. A similar situation occurs with water supply.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/04/08/electricity-non-payment-and-arrears-destabilize-the-palestinian-economy

 

Normal practice for electricity utilities is for them to deal with non payment issues directly with customers.

 

Perhaps you might deign to refer to fact based scenarios instead of your usual bigotry.

 

 

There are issues related to Palestinian municipalities lax collection practices when it comes to electricity bills, which are not quite to do with Israel. And in the same way, practical realities which preclude Israel's electric company from micro managing its service the way it does within Israel proper. Be that as it may, hopefully the new agreement signed recently will help solve some of the problems:

 

Israel, PA sign deal on massive Palestinian electricity bill

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-pa-sign-deal-on-massive-palestinian-electricity-bill/

 

But we're probably getting a bit too specific and drifting off topic.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There are issues related to Palestinian municipalities lax collection practices when it comes to electricity bills, which are not quite to do with Israel. And in the same way, practical realities which preclude Israel's electric company from micro managing its service the way it does within Israel proper. Be that as it may, hopefully the new agreement signed recently will help solve some of the problems:

 

Israel, PA sign deal on massive Palestinian electricity bill

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-pa-sign-deal-on-massive-palestinian-electricity-bill/

 

But we're probably getting a bit too specific and drifting off topic.

 

Thank you for the link. A good step forward. Palestine should be managing its electricity supply and distribution better. That is new information for me and helpful for my work.

 

I think that the way the power sector is managed in Palestine is quite bad. Since the municipalities collect the power rates, they use the 'net lending' principle applied by Israel and many of them deduct monies owed to them from the Clearance Revenues received by MOF. I forget the figures but this practice contributes significantly to the size of the debt.

 

I agree it is drifting off topic but if I see more inaccurate posts about fiscal management in Palestine, I will have to respond.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Israel is the occupying power. It has the most power in the current situation. To me, it is abusing that power primarily because they believe they can get away with it. Perhaps the response by the rest of the World can start to constrain further abuses. Irrespective of points of view on the use and/or the abuse of power, to me it stands to reason that Israel has the burden of compromise if it wants to maintain the reputation as a liberal democracy. I think it is quite obvious that a non Right Wing, imperialistic government would probably see a way clear to such compromise as did Rabin in the Oslo Accords.

 

More power, yes. All the power, as one of our regular and persistent posters claims, no. I don't know that the abuse of power is due to a belief that" they can get away with it" or down to the inertia and "normalization" of an abnormal reality. I think more the latter, which IMO, makes it worse for both sides.

 

Still not clear what is exactly meant by "burden of compromise". International perception? Larger concessions?

 

Israel is not free of the trends seen in other countries - a surge of right wing politics, extremism, populism, isolationism coupled with a religious bent. These make maintenance of "reputation as a liberal democracy" less of an relevant proposition.

 

Quote

I think it is quite obvious that a non Right Wing, imperialistic government would probably see a way clear to such compromise as did Rabin in the Oslo Accords.

 

Well, it isn't nearly as obvious as you may think. Governments in Israel are coalition based, which means any party contending to form the government needs to appeal to voter base and still be able to from political alliances with potential partners. Left wing and Centrist parties are at a disadvantage as they often carry two flags - pro-peace and liberal (or rather, sacrilegious). This tends to limit the room available for political maneuvering.

 

Further, a right wing politician with an earnest aim to address such issues will have it easier - a measure of right wing supporters (the less extreme variety, they do exist) will go along and the opposition will provide a back up. Whereas a left wing (or centrist) leader will get no support from his opposition. That's even without the tendency of right wing politicians to harp on nationalistic sentiment, which, like it or not, hits a spot due to the ongoing conflict.

 

While Rabin was willing to compromise, a few things to bear in mind. He was in a unique position as enjoying both militaristic repute of heroic proportions (as far as Israel goes, that is), which contributed to his perceived credibility. He did not actually promote a full blown (no pun intended) Palestinian state. And ultimately, the political margin he had was rather slim. There is currently no leader enjoying a similar prestige on either side of the Israeli political divide.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

By Palestinians do you mean the government or individuals? If you mean the government (and referring to the West Bank government), I believe that they can be held responsible for the 2nd and 3rd elements of your post, but that is polemic - political speech and people can and do argue about its relevance, appropriateness and impact. But my understanding of the motivations of the recent violence against Israel is that there is not a declaration of armed conflict by the Government of Palestine against Israel (again, leaving out Hamas).

 

Both the 2nd Intafada and the recent knife attacks have been grass roots responses to Israeli actions, is that not correct?

 

“At the beginning, [the violence] was aboutal-Aqsa,” said a senior Israeli military official involved in overseeing day-to-day operations in the West Bank. “But in the last few months we have seen that change to being about revenge.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/31/israel-palestine-violence-knife-attacks-west-bank-gaza

 

Support among Palestinians for the knife attacks is lessening.

 

it seems to me that Palestinians in the West Bank would like to have stability. In which case, I believe there is an argument that the policies of the Right Wing Israeli Government are impeding chances for negotiation and compromise. A more confident, less thin skinned Israeli Prime Minister might ignore showboating and extravagant political rhetoric in favor of workable day to day agreements on small issues such as fiscal policies, transportation, power supply etc at least between Israel and the West Bank.

 

I took an Israeli registered taxi from Ramallah to Tel Aviv last month and nobody threw rocks at me. Of course it was pelting down with rain so everyone was inside. Not to be pretentious but 'A journey of a thousand miles...' and all that.

 

The PA (or as you call it, perhaps appropriately, the West Bank government) reactions to the ongoing violence comprising the not-quite-Intifada are not uniform. There were numerous instances of high level officials expressing support, praising and egging on violence. At the same time, the official position was to renounce (with varying levels of strength and conviction) violence, while paying tribute to the necessities of domestic politics and public sentiment. It should be noted, however, that by and large, Palestinian security forces did aid in curbing the violence, something which was acknowledged by the IDF, if rejected by right wing politicians. Could Abbas have done more? I don't know. His political clout is limited, and going against the grain is a difficult course of action when it comes to Palestinian politics. Could he have avoided some of his statement and rhetoric, definitely. That's pretty much something afflicting leadership on both sides though - cannot appear to be perceived as "weak".

 

Grass roots would apply to the First Intifada, somewhat debated with regard to the Second. At the very least, Arafat was quick to get on the bus and push things along. The current phase? Not a government thing for sure, but took its sweet time until it realized it might get out of hand and bite it in the backside.

 

Quote

it seems to me that Palestinians in the West Bank would like to have stability. In which case, I believe there is an argument that the policies of the Right Wing Israeli Government are impeding chances for negotiation and compromise. A more confident, less thin skinned Israeli Prime Minister might ignore showboating and extravagant political rhetoric in favor of workable day to day agreements on small issues such as fiscal policies, transportation, power supply etc at least between Israel and the West Bank.

 

This. Yes.

 

Quote

...leaving out Hamas

 

But that....doesn't make much sense.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/30/2016 at 4:27 AM, ilostmypassword said:

Here's a link to a real news source about Kerry's contacts with not the North Vietnamese - but a South Vietnamese group allied with the North Vietnamese:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39744-2004Sep21.html

Good luck getting a court to uphold a treason verdict against him. You would need a lot of it.

 

And by the way, unlike the patriotic Donald Trump, John Kerry somehow managed not to acquire bone spurs and did serve in Vietnam

John Kerry served as a Lieutenant in the United States Navy during the period from 1966 to 1970. His last tour in Vietnam was four months as officer in charge of a Swift boat in 1969. Kerry received several combat medals during this tour, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. 

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

 

I remember well the vile misinformation campaign waged against Kerry when he stood for president. Shameful.