Israel's right wing has grand plans for Trump era

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Another old myth.

 

Yasser Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist as far back as 1988, and repeated it in writing in 1993 at the Oslo Accords. 
The world is still waiting for Israel to reciprocate.

 

Here is Arafat's 1993 letter recognizing Israel...

"Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: 
- The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
- The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. 
- The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

 

Still pushing that propaganda bit? Thought we've been over this often enough on previous topics.

 

Arafat and the Palestinians actually did no such things. They promised to. Whether or not the actual changes in relevant charters were implemented is debatable, at best. Arafat's letter is not, and was not, in lieu of the official amendments agreed to. There were enough instances of PLO and Fatah officials making contradictory statements, and that's without getting into Hamas's position. 

 

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

 

   The PLO are no longer in control, Hamas are now in control and they have vowed to destroy Israel .

  What the PLO said is now irrelevant , Arafat is dead and the PLO are not in control anymore

 

Abbas, the Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are essentially the PLO. Their power certainly diminished, but "not in control anymore" is an exaggeration. If this was the case, there would be non-stop fighting between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank.

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Abbas, the Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are essentially the PLO. Their power certainly diminished, but "not in control anymore" is an exaggeration. If this was the case, there would be non-stop fighting between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank.

 

   Although I was referring to Hamas in the Gaza strip , who would have to involved in any negotiations if the whole issue is to be resolved

[Kiwiken]

8 hours ago, sanemax said:

 

   Everyone in Israel do have equal rights now, whichever Religion they follow .

Israel is also Jewish and a democracy , it can and is both

A Democracy does not seize the Land of its Citizens or refuse some the right to build on their own land just because they are not of the same Religion. In this Israel is not a Democracy but a Nation already with divides of apartheid, And you cannot have a Jewish state when the majority are non Jewish.

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

A Democracy does not seize the Land of its Citizens or refuse some the right to build on their own land just because they are not of the same Religion. In this Israel is not a Democracy but a Nation already with divides of apartheid, And you cannot have a Jewish state when the majority are non Jewish.

 

    Israeli Palestinian Arab Muslims /Christians do have the right to build houses on their own land , as citizens of Israel .

    You are getting Israeli Arab citizens  mixed up with non Israeli citizens .

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

A Democracy does not seize the Land of its Citizens or refuse some the right to build on their own land just because they are not of the same Religion. In this Israel is not a Democracy but a Nation already with divides of apartheid, And you cannot have a Jewish state when the majority are non Jewish.

 

Democracy is a matter of degree, not necessarily a black and white checklist. Israel's democracy is far from perfect, but then it also faces challenges which are not routine for Western countries.

 

As posted above, there is a difference when referencing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Palestinians, or Israel's large Arab minority (which for the most part also identifies as Palestinian). Generally speaking, your commentary does not apply to the latter - albeit in terms of civil rights, their situation could be better (but the same would apply for other groups). 

 

If and when Israel does annex the West Bank, without giving full rights to the Palestinians, you would have a better argument. Until then, there is still a difference between the reference points.

[Thorgal]

 
    Israeli Palestinian Arab Muslims /Christians do have the right to build houses on their own land , as citizens of Israel .
    You are getting Israeli Arab citizens  mixed up with non Israeli citizens .

Israeli Declaration of Independence clearly indicated the creation of a Jewish state.

Israel has in fact no constitution. Implementing a real de facto constitution would mean that all citizens would be equal. No segregation of religion and/or ethnicity.

Up till 2005 Israeli citizens had an ID card wich mentioned Jew, Arab, Druze, etc origin. The laws on the other hand never changed.

OP is just a confirmation of all this. Let's not forget that Trump 'promised' to open a US embassy in...Jerusalem...and no more in Tel Aviv...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I suggest you would familiarize yourself with both reality and prevailing attitudes before attempting to "solve" anything.

 

Actual support for a one-state solution is minimal among both Israelis and Palestinians. There is no brotherly love, goodwill or even trust. And there is no reason to expect that this will change under conditions such as your fantasize about - doubt that Palestinians will go for "gradually gaining voting rights", or that the peace could be kept until such a time as your kumbaya nonsense  will be applicable.

 

Your "vision" is not the Palestinian vision, nor the Israeli one. It is simply a Western left wing fantasy, which ignores reality in favor of an ideological position. Essentially, this is not that much different from Israel's right wing politicians burying their heads in the sand. Same same but different. And as usual, all your hot air ignores the Palestinian side - or do you thing they all subscribe to your civic and sacrilegious notions?

Sort of knew you would pour scorn on my idealism. Mai ben rai krap. I agree it would be a very hard sell in the present environment.
 
But I have a feeling that the formula I suggest of earning one's citizenship and educating the young to get along with each other in mixed secular schooling, would have worked very well to avert years of civil strife in countries where political power was historically based on religion or ethnicity...think S Africa, N Ireland, Zimbabwe, Fiji, India and many others.

 

Would take some very bold charismatic leaders to introduce such a plan. But stranger things have happened. The man who has just finished 8 years in office as President of the USA as a child would have been forced to drink at a separate drinking fountain and sit at the back of the bus.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Israeli Declaration of Independence clearly indicated the creation of a Jewish state.

Israel has in fact no constitution. Implementing a real de facto constitution would mean that all citizens would be equal. No segregation of religion and/or ethnicity.

Up till 2005 Israeli citizens had an ID card wich mentioned Jew, Arab, Druze, etc origin. The laws on the other hand never changed.

OP is just a confirmation of all this. Let's not forget that Trump 'promised' to open a US embassy in...Jerusalem...and no more in Tel Aviv...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

The Israeli Deceleration of Independence also mentions minorities and their rights. Not having a constitution doesn't have anything to do with anything - a constitution, by itself, doesn't mean equal rights.

 

The OP is not a "confirmation" of any of the above, it is a report on current affairs, and a partial one at that.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Sort of knew you would pour scorn on my idealism. Mai ben rai krap. I agree it would be a very hard sell in the present environment.
 
But I have a feeling that the formula I suggest of earning one's citizenship and educating the young to get along with each other in mixed secular schooling, would have worked very well to avert years of civil strife in countries where political power was historically based on religion or ethnicity...think S Africa, N Ireland, Zimbabwe, Fiji, India and many others.

 

Would take some very bold charismatic leaders to introduce such a plan. But stranger things have happened. The man who has just finished 8 years in office as President of the USA as a child would have been forced to drink at a separate drinking fountain and sit at the back of the bus.

 

I don't pour scorn on your "idealism", which is a sham anyway. I pour scorn on your lack of knowledge with regard to a topic you keep posting about.

 

Could you point out, for example, any credible and viable leaders on either side which would fit the bill?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dexterm]

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't pour scorn on your "idealism", which is a sham anyway. I pour scorn on your lack of knowledge with regard to a topic you keep posting about.

 

Could you point out, for example, any credible and viable leaders on either side which would fit the bill?

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>I don't pour scorn on your "idealism", which is a sham anyway. 
Your arrogance knows no bounds.

 

I did qualify my optimistic suggestion with "Yes, all John Lennon "Imagine" stuff". No harm in floating an idea. That's how change begins.

 

You just carry on concerning yourself with the minutiae of why things can't be done, while I do the opposite.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

>>I don't pour scorn on your "idealism", which is a sham anyway. 
Your arrogance knows no bounds.

 

I did qualify my optimistic suggestion with "Yes, all John Lennon "Imagine" stuff". No harm in floating an idea. That's how change begins.

 

You just carry on concerning yourself with the minutiae of why things can't be done, while I do the opposite.

 

Nothing to do with arrogance. More about someone posing as a humanist idealist while justifying violence when it fits his agenda. And the comment with regard to knowledge (or rather, scarcity of) stands. Change cannot happen in disconnect with reality, which you treat as something you can pick and choose from. And whenever you start going on about "minutiae", that's a clear sign you have no answer.

[dexterm]

54 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nothing to do with arrogance. More about someone posing as a humanist idealist while justifying violence when it fits his agenda. And the comment with regard to knowledge (or rather, scarcity of) stands. Change cannot happen in disconnect with reality, which you treat as something you can pick and choose from. And whenever you start going on about "minutiae", that's a clear sign you have no answer.

>>More about someone posing as a humanist idealist while justifying violence when it fits his agenda. 
No dichotomy. I would suggest most wars fought by western democracies in the last century adhere to the same principle..defeat evil by any (peaceful and violent) means in order to create a better world. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

 

Oh but I do have an answer. Let the fanatical Israeli right supported by Trump blunder blindly into a one state solution, let them dig themselves a deeper hole. And when the dust settles the whole world will realize crystal clearly what we already know:  that Zionism is a racist ideology designed to subjugate another people in an apartheid situation. Better than the present phony lets all pretend we are negotiating a meaningful dialog towards a two state solution.

 

In the meantime, I would suggest that Palestinians keep their heads down, practise non violent resistance, and record every moment of Israeli injustice, brutality and humiliation and flood the social media with it to create the most powerful weapon of all...public opinion.

 

Of course some Palestinians in anger will violently resist the illegal occupiers. I don't condone it  (as the preferred method of resistance)...they will simply get themselves killed..but I don't condemn it; I can understand their frustrations after 50 years of illegal occupation.

Edited January 20, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>More about someone posing as a humanist idealist while justifying violence when it fits his agenda. 
No dichotomy. I would suggest most wars fought by western democracies in the last century adhere to the same principle..defeat evil by any (peaceful and violent) means in order to create a better world. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

 

Oh but I do have an answer. Let the fanatical Israeli right supported by Trump blunder blindly into a one state solution, let them dig themselves a deeper hole. And when the dust settles the whole world will realize crystal clearly what we already know:  that Zionism is a racist ideology designed to subjugate another people in an apartheid situation.

 

In the meantime, I would suggest that Palestinians keep their heads down, practise non violent resistance, and record every moment of Israeli injustice, brutality and humiliation and flood the social media with it to create the most powerful weapon of all...public opinion.

 

Of course some Palestinians in anger will violently resist the illegal occupiers. I don't condone it..they will simply get themselves killed..but I don't condemn it; I can understand their frustrations after 50 years of illegal occupation.

 

What a load. Always a tantrum when one of your fantasy bubbles goes "pop".

 

You justified violence against civilians, provided they belonged to the side you oppose. That got nothing to do with babbling about wars waged by Western countries and other off topic ramblings. Cliches notwithstanding.

 

The question was rather simple, and yet you choose to deflect with another typical rant. Here it is again:

 

Quote

Could you point out, for example, any credible and viable leaders on either side which would fit the bill?

 

I'm aware that the main aim of your posts is to push as many negative description of anything related to Israel. But let me posit again, that you have little actual sympathy for the Palestinians, and very little by way of clue as to their wishes. I cannot, off hand come up with any Palestinian of consequence who shares your alternating views of a one state solution.

 

Your lofty suggestions to the Palestinians is destined to fall on deaf ears. That's an assessment based on actually knowing the people, their culture and their political aims. Alleging that "some" Palestinians will embrace violence, as if this is some minor trend relative to your "non violence" fantasy, and as if this isn't happening at present - these are just more of the same deflection and dishonesty one gets used to reading your diatribes.

[Ahab]

Giving up land has not resulted in peace, but has only provided a safe base for terrorists to launch rockets into civilian areas of Israel. Ask yourself (and answer honestly) What would happen if tomorrow Israel put down all their weapons and welcomed peace with the Palestinians with open arms? Now ask yourself what would happen if the Palestinians put down their weapons and embraced peace with the state of Israel? 

 

In one case the Eastern Mediterranean Sea would turn red with blood as one side was slaughtered, in the other case there is a chance that peace could finally be achieved.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by Ahab
corrected grammar

[dexterm]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What a load. Always a tantrum when one of your fantasy bubbles goes "pop".

 

You justified violence against civilians, provided they belonged to the side you oppose. That got nothing to do with babbling about wars waged by Western countries and other off topic ramblings. Cliches notwithstanding.

 

The question was rather simple, and yet you choose to deflect with another typical rant. Here it is again:

 

 

I'm aware that the main aim of your posts is to push as many negative description of anything related to Israel. But let me posit again, that you have little actual sympathy for the Palestinians, and very little by way of clue as to their wishes. I cannot, off hand come up with any Palestinian of consequence who shares your alternating views of a one state solution.

 

Your lofty suggestions to the Palestinians is destined to fall on deaf ears. That's an assessment based on actually knowing the people, their culture and their political aims. Alleging that "some" Palestinians will embrace violence, as if this is some minor trend relative to your "non violence" fantasy, and as if this isn't happening at present - these are just more of the same deflection and dishonesty one gets used to reading your diatribes.

No tantrum, buddy. I am calmly sipping on a Scotch and dry, just about to sign off and watch a good movie. You seem to be the one fantasizing about my motivations.

 

>>You justified violence against civilians, provided they belonged to the side you oppose.
You misrepresent me yet again. I said I do not condemn violence against illegal Israeli colonizers in the West Bank and the army of illegal occupation that supports them. As you know full well, I have expressed sympathy for civilians killed within the 67 lines of Israel proper

 

>>Could you point out, for example, any credible and viable leaders on either side which would fit the bill?
..Can't you read? I didn't say there was a credible leader at the moment with such vision.

That's why I prefaced my suggestion with..

"Yes, all John Lennon "Imagine" stuff"
"Would take some very bold charismatic leaders to introduce such a plan."

It was just floating an idea. Get it?

 

Give you pedantic Israeli apologists an inch, and you will take a mile.

 

>> I cannot, off hand come up with any Palestinian of consequence who shares your alternating views of a one state solution.

... the one state solution will be foisted upon Palestinians as a fait accomplit, like everything else Israel does. They won't have a say in the matter. I am suggesting Palestinians come to terms with that new post Trump reality, and make the most of it...the Trojan horse method to undermine Zionism.

[dexterm]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Giving up land has not resulted in peace, but has only provided a safe base for terrorists to launch rockets into civilian areas of Israel. Ask yourself (and answer honestly) What would happen if tomorrow Israel put down all their weapons and welcomed peace with the Palestinians with open arms? Now ask yourself what would happen if the Palestinians put down their weapons and embraced peace with the state of Israel? 

 

In one case the Eastern Mediterranean Sea would turn red with blood as one side was slaughtered, in the other case there is a chance that peace could finally be achieved.

 

 

Just a rehash of an old canard.

 

Rather than the hypothetical black or white, take it or leave it scenario you suggest, how about the gray:   a gradual detente between the two sides as they get used to seeing the benefits of co-existing in peace.

Edited January 20, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

No tantrum, buddy. I am calmly sipping on a Scotch and dry, just about to sign off and watch a good movie. You seem to be the one fantasizing about my motivations.

 

>>You justified violence against civilians, provided they belonged to the side you oppose.
You misrepresent me yet again. I said I do not condemn violence against illegal Israeli colonizers in the West Bank and the army of illegal occupation that supports them. As you know full well, I have expressed sympathy for civilians killed within the 67 lines of Israel proper

 

>>Could you point out, for example, any credible and viable leaders on either side which would fit the bill?
..Can't you read? I didn't say there was a credible leader at the moment with such vision.

That's why I prefaced my suggestion with..

"Yes, all John Lennon "Imagine" stuff"
"Would take some very bold charismatic leaders to introduce such a plan."

It was just floating an idea. Get it?

 

Give you pedantic Israeli apologists an inch, and you will take a mile.

 

>> I cannot, off hand come up with any Palestinian of consequence who shares your alternating views of a one state solution.

... the one state solution will be foisted upon Palestinians as a fait accomplit, like everything else Israel does. They won't have a say in the matter. I am suggesting Palestinians come to terms with that new post Trump reality, and make the most of it...the Trojan horse method to undermine Zionism.

 

I do not misrepresent you the least bit. We've been over this too, on previous topics - first denials, then calls for "proof", when confronted with quotes from your own posts - tantrum and accusations of stalking. So yes, you did justify murder of civilians, not necessarily soldiers, and not necessarily illegal settlers. Whenever an "awkward" situation arises, and a Palestinian commits such violence, there are always justifications, possible explanations and other deflections.

 

So you air ideas which got nothing to do with reality, argue when this is pointed out and finally retreat using another deflection. Not very impressive. And there it is, on cue, "pedantic" - meaning, again, that you haven't got much to offer, other than hot air.

 

As usual, the Palestinians are depicted as passive watchers - if one was to believe your nonsense, nothing that happens got anything to do with their actions, decisions and political aspirations. As someone crusading for the Palestinian cause, don't you think you ought to actually know what are their positions on this, before dismissing them out of hand? Your "suggestions" got nothing to do with the way Palestinian think about the conflict. Guess these are more disconnected "just ideas".

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Just a rehash of an old canard.

 

Rather than the hypothetical black or white, take it or leave it scenario you suggest, how about the gray:   a gradual detente between the two sides as they get used to seeing the benefits of co-existing in peace.

 

From someone expressly seeing the conflict as a black and white matter, this must be a tongue in cheek comment. Co-existing requires two parties to make concessions. You routinely deny this, which sort of trashes the whole proposition.

[dexterm]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I do not misrepresent you the least bit. We've been over this too, on previous topics - first denials, then calls for "proof", when confronted with quotes from your own posts - tantrum and accusations of stalking. So yes, you did justify murder of civilians, not necessarily soldiers, and not necessarily illegal settlers. Whenever an "awkward" situation arises, and a Palestinian commits such violence, there are always justifications, possible explanations and other deflections.

 

So you air ideas which got nothing to do with reality, argue when this is pointed out and finally retreat using another deflection. Not very impressive. And there it is, on cue, "pedantic" - meaning, again, that you haven't got much to offer, other than hot air.

 

As usual, the Palestinians are depicted as passive watchers - if one was to believe your nonsense, nothing that happens got anything to do with their actions, decisions and political aspirations. As someone crusading for the Palestinian cause, don't you think you ought to actually know what are their positions on this, before dismissing them out of hand? Your "suggestions" got nothing to do with the way Palestinian think about the conflict. Guess these are more disconnected "just ideas".

>>So yes, you did justify murder of civilians, not necessarily soldiers, and not necessarily illegal settlers
...baloney. Put up or shut up, when you make false accusations.

 

2nd paragraph. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. I am fed up of trying to explain it to you.

 

3rd paragraph. So what realistically proactively can Palestinians do to prevent Bennetts OP bill to annex parts of the West Bank being enacted? How can Palestinians prevent Trump from moving the US embassy to Jerusalem thus undermining a major condition of the Oslo Accords and a two state solution? ..err....Appeal to the countries who attended the Paris conference who will shake their heads sagely and say "yes, all deeply unsettling..not conducive to the peace process..blah blah". Pray do tell us how Palestinians can take a more active role in preventing these encroachments on their future state?

 

I am suggesting they dont bother. Just let Israel shoot itself in the foot, and wake up to a binational state.

[dexterm]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

From someone expressly seeing the conflict as a black and white matter, this must be a tongue in cheek comment. Co-existing requires two parties to make concessions. You routinely deny this, which sort of trashes the whole proposition.

The Palestinians have already made enough concessions. If Israel wants a two state solution, it's time they reciprocated..borders based on 67 green line with land swaps, share Jerusalem, compensation or right of return for Palestinian refugees.

 

If they don't want a two state solution as seems to be favorite in the OP, so be it. Let the chips fall where they will in a one state solution, which will eventually undermine the racist ideology of Zionism. Good riddance to it.

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

You can simply look up the last time you claimed "false accusations", and was supplied with a bunch of quotes from your own posts. Not much changed, perhaps a few more quotes to the list. And don't forget to whine about being "stalked" afterwards. That one always gets a chuckle.

 

A mountain out of a molehill. Really. May want to apply this to your own posts on this topic, treating a suggestion by a right wing political party as reality.

 

The Palestinian can do quite a few effective things, but it is doubtful that they will. They could have opted for mass non violent resistance, as you "suggest", which would have been infinitely more productive than their futile violence. They could have made much better efforts to bridge their own divisions, and present a legitimate unified front.  They could play their cards at the UN and UNSC more smartly, and with less consideration of their own domestic politics. They could have tried to make headway to the Israeli public. But, as pointed out earlier, they lack the leadership.

 

The Palestinians predicament is also a product of their own choices and actions. There will be no change in their circumstances unless this is accepted. Someone who spends that many words on demanding Israel come to terms with its past, should surely be able to grasp that this applies to the Palestinians as well.

 

What you suggest is irrelevant - it is out of tune with the Palestinian psych, culture and political ambitions. If your aim was to air out of touch "just ideas", by all means - expecting that these would be treated seriously, is another matter. The Palestinians are not interested in a bi-national state, and are not too keen on the waiting time. Of course, you'd suggest this, as it doesn't effect you one bit and will give ample opportunity to bash Israel - which, bottom line, is the core of your posting.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The Palestinians have already made enough concessions. If Israel wants a two state solution, it's time they reciprocated..borders based on 67 green line with land swaps, share Jerusalem, compensation or right of return for Palestinian refugees.

 

If they don't want a two state solution as seems to be favorite in the OP, so be it. Let the chips fall where they will in a one state solution, which will eventually undermine the racist ideology of Zionism. Good riddance to it.

 

 

More drivel.

 

Read your previous post. It talks about "co-existence". Not seeing things in black and white. Now go back to this post - and notice how you're back to your usual routine.

 

The Palestinians are currently a divided people, with a leadership that cannot guarantee anything and cannot enforce anything. Ignore this all you like, it would still remain a fact. And it will not change by virtue of your "just ideas".

 

The OP does not talk about what Israel "wants" but about the views of right wing politicians. Equating it with Israel as a whole is off mark.

 

And as usual, no interest whatsoever in the Palestinian point of view, and the usual crass "let the chips fall where they will" - always easy to gamble when you have nothing on the line. Pitiful, really.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Rather than the hypothetical black or white, take it or leave it scenario you suggest, how about the gray:   a gradual detente between the two sides as they get used to seeing the benefits of co-existing in peace.

I love gray, and while we are living in a fantasy world why don't we give everyone a puppy or a kitten also. 

 

Peace will not ever be possible between Israel and the Palestinians as long as one side wants to kill the other. When this is not longer true a gradual détente may be possible. In my opinion, until that time comes efforts to force a peace is a fools errand. 

 

Hey where is my puppy?

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

The man who has just finished 8 years in office as President of the USA as a child would have been forced to drink at a separate drinking fountain and sit at the back of the bus.

Obama grew up in Hawaii, where (as is the case for many states outside of the south) segregation was never an institution and where water fountains and busses were not ever segregated. So your rhetorical flourish is not accurate as written. If President Obama grew up in Mississippi then you would have been correct.

[Kiwiken]

18 hours ago, sanemax said:

 

    Israeli Palestinian Arab Muslims /Christians do have the right to build houses on their own land , as citizens of Israel .

    You are getting Israeli Arab citizens  mixed up with non Israeli citizens .

No not at all I am quoting complaints from Arab Israelis who have lived in what is now called Israel some longer than before 1948 who have their homes bulldozed because the Israelis refuse them permits to build on their own land. That is happening now and in Israel proper

[uptheos]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What a load. Always a tantrum when one of your fantasy bubbles goes "pop".

 

You justified violence against civilians, provided they belonged to the side you oppose. That got nothing to do with babbling about wars waged by Western countries and other off topic ramblings. Cliches notwithstanding.

 

The question was rather simple, and yet you choose to deflect with another typical rant. Here it is again:

 

 

I'm aware that the main aim of your posts is to push as many negative description of anything related to Israel. But let me posit again, that you have little actual sympathy for the Palestinians, and very little by way of clue as to their wishes. I cannot, off hand come up with any Palestinian of consequence who shares your alternating views of a one state solution.

 

Your lofty suggestions to the Palestinians is destined to fall on deaf ears. That's an assessment based on actually knowing the people, their culture and their political aims. Alleging that "some" Palestinians will embrace violence, as if this is some minor trend relative to your "non violence" fantasy, and as if this isn't happening at present - these are just more of the same deflection and dishonesty one gets used to reading your diatribes.

 

Dexterm only creeps out when there's anything to do with Israel and then quotes same old stuff ad nauseam.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, Kiwiken said:

No not at all I am quoting complaints from Arab Israelis who have lived in what is now called Israel some longer than before 1948 who have their homes bulldozed because the Israelis refuse them permits to build on their own land. That is happening now and in Israel proper

 

   Yes, but that happens everywhere .

In most Countries you need to obtain  a permit from the Government to build a building .

    If you build a building without a Gov permit, the building will get knocked down, happens in Countries all over the World , 

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

No not at all I am quoting complaints from Arab Israelis who have lived in what is now called Israel some longer than before 1948 who have their homes bulldozed because the Israelis refuse them permits to build on their own land. That is happening now and in Israel proper

 

To tie that with the Palestinian issue is quite a stretch though. But a convenient talking point, for sure. The problems related to building permits and city planning within Arab communities in Israel are rather more complex than a two bit "apartheid" claim.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

 

   Yes, but that happens everywhere .

In most Countries you need to obtain  a permit from the Government to build a building .

    If you build a building without a Gov permit, the building will get knocked down, happens in Countries all over the World , 

And in some countries it's a lot harder for citizens of a certain ethnic or religious group to get permission than for citizens of another ethnic or religious group. Happens in countries all over the world. Therefore, it must be okay.