How do you feel about this?

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Trump did not actively encourage anything, that's your own interpretation. There were at least two instances in his speech which reflected an understanding that a certain give-and-take is in order. Wouldn't make a mountain out of that too - just pointing out that like many of his public statements, there's something for everyone.

 

And still you cannot address anything pertaining to the Palestinian side. Telling.

>>Trump did not actively encourage anything, that's your own interpretation.
...err...not just mine! You'd better tell Netanyahu's cabinet

 

'Palestinian Flag Has Been Taken Off the Flagpole': Right-wing Israeli Politicians Hail Trump-Netanyahu Meet
After Netanyahu-Trump press conference, lawmakers from Bennett's Habayit Hayehudi party and Netanyahu's Likud celebrate end of two-state solution.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.772074

Edited February 17, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

>>Trump did not actively encourage anything, that's your own interpretation.
...err...not just mine! You'd better tell Netanyahu's cabinet

 

'Palestinian Flag Has Been Taken Off the Flagpole': Right-wing Israeli Politicians Hail Trump-Netanyahu Meet
After Netanyahu-Trump press conference, lawmakers from Bennett's Habayit Hayehudi party and Netanyahu's Likud celebrate end of two-state solution.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.772074

 

Yeah, as said in earlier post, interested parties, especially those holding extreme partisan views will no doubt present Trump's speech as proof for this or that. One reason is that a certain amount of political hype was invested (whether praise or disparage) and some result needs to be marked. Thanks for drawing another parallel between yourself and others holding partisan views.

[dexterm]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, as said in earlier post, interested parties, especially those holding extreme partisan views will no doubt present Trump's speech as proof for this or that. One reason is that a certain amount of political hype was invested (whether praise or disparage) and some result needs to be marked. Thanks for drawing another parallel between yourself and others holding partisan views.

err..we are talking about the interpretation of Trump's comments by the Israeli Cabinet here..you know, the ones in charge of Israel at the moment. Hardly irrelevant. Seems to me they have been encouraged by Trump's words in their quest for a one state solution...precisely as I said.

 

Of course Netanyahu's cabinet, I and you are partisan. Anyone who has an opinion on an issue is partisan.

Edited February 17, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

err..we are talking about the interpretation of Trump's comments by the Israeli Cabinet here..you know, the ones in charge of Israel at the moment. Hardly irrelevant. Seems to me they have been encouraged by Trump's words in their quest for a one state solution...precisely as I said.

 

Of course Netanyahu's cabinet, I and you are partisan. Anyone who has an opinion on an issue is partisan.

 

Again - interpretations of POTUS statements, especially when referring to Trump are not facts, but interpretations. They do not mean things actually changed in a very meaningful way. This is all the more to the point when addressing interpretations by those pushing extreme agendas, which fits both Netanyahu's cabinet and yourself.

 

No, having an opinion does not necessarily make one partisan. That would imply strong support for one set of views and rejecting the possibility of compromise or concessions. Hardly describes my position.

[dexterm]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Again - interpretations of POTUS statements, especially when referring to Trump are not facts, but interpretations. They do not mean things actually changed in a very meaningful way. This is all the more to the point when addressing interpretations by those pushing extreme agendas, which fits both Netanyahu's cabinet and yourself.

 

No, having an opinion does not necessarily make one partisan. That would imply strong support for one set of views and rejecting the possibility of compromise or concessions. Hardly describes my position.

So lets get this right. Everyone else's interpretation of what Trump said is partisan and wrong. But yours is the only one objective and correct. 

 

I think you had better read Trump's words again:

"I'm looking at two-state and one-state" (first time ever mentioned by a US President in a break of decades of diplomacy). Don't you think to have said this he just may have discussed it with Netanyahu as a distinct possibility. I'm sure Bibi must have brought it up. Trump wouldn't be clever enough to think it up on his own.

 

The words that the OP UN Ambassador obviously misinterpreted too, because she is in damage control to get the debate focused back again on the road to nowhere...allowing Israel to manage the conflict by pretending to be supporting a two state solution while Israel establishes irreversible facts on the ground.

 

Maybe this is your partisan agenda too...to steer the debate back to a two state solution, the one you favor.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

So lets get this right. Everyone else's interpretation of what Trump said is partisan and wrong. But yours is the only one objective and correct. 

 

I think you had better read Trump's words again:

"I'm looking at two-state and one-state"

The words that the OP UN Ambassador obviously misinterpreted too, because she is in damage control to get the debate focused back again on the road to nowhere...allowing Israel to manage the conflict by pretending to be supporting a two state solution while Israel establishes irreversible facts on the ground.

 

 

 

Does "everyone" stand for yourself and Netanyahu's cabinet?

 

I'm not the one trying to find hidden meanings in Trump's words. As said before, he says a whole lot of things, many of them do not indicate a clear set of ideas or even a clear grasp of facts. He's apt making contradictory, controversial and incorrect statements. If someone wishes to try and delve into the way his mind and mouth engage, that's fine - just doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of consistency there. Insisting to build concrete interpretations on these statements, or expecting them to be solid promises doesn't seem to hold water.

 

But even if this path is chosen, one would have to question why ignore the parts of Trump's speech which did not neatly align with the Israeli right wing views? Or why ignore the discrepancy between earlier predictions regarding the level of Trump willingness to accommodate Israeli right wing views? Not even talking about the silence regarding the CIA director meeting with Abbas a day earlier, and the apparently different message he bore. Guess that as with other instances, anything out of sync with your agenda and narrative gets dismissed.

 

I think you may consider that Trump isn't much of an orator, and that over-interpreting his nonsense is nonsense. The same act was already repeated countless times. He says something, and his underlings scramble to explain, interpret, ease minds and apply the necessary damage control. This is not unique to his words on this occasion.

[Jingthing]

Yes but he's not backing down on his pro settlement far right wing pick for ambassador that refuses to apologize for calling liberal American Jews kapos is he?

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes but he's not backing down on his pro settlement far right wing pick for ambassador that refuses to apologize for calling liberal American Jews kapos is he?

 

Of course not, after all he picks the "best" people. Same way he didn't publicly back down from supporting Flynn. But interestingly enough, the future ambassador did tow the (daily?) party line and said he'll be fine with a two-state solution if one was to materialize. And no, that doesn't change my view that he's a poor choice bound to raise the levels of animosity and antagonism, even without this despicable comparison.

 

I'm not saying Trump is good news for the chances of this conflict being resolved, and I do not hope for anything much to advance during his term in office. But that was something which was assessed early on, so not much of a surprise there. So long as he doesn't mess things up more, that's already a bonus.

[dexterm]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Does "everyone" stand for yourself and Netanyahu's cabinet?

 

I'm not the one trying to find hidden meanings in Trump's words. As said before, he says a whole lot of things, many of them do not indicate a clear set of ideas or even a clear grasp of facts. He's apt making contradictory, controversial and incorrect statements. If someone wishes to try and delve into the way his mind and mouth engage, that's fine - just doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of consistency there. Insisting to build concrete interpretations on these statements, or expecting them to be solid promises doesn't seem to hold water.

 

But even if this path is chosen, one would have to question why ignore the parts of Trump's speech which did not neatly align with the Israeli right wing views? Or why ignore the discrepancy between earlier predictions regarding the level of Trump willingness to accommodate Israeli right wing views? Not even talking about the silence regarding the CIA director meeting with Abbas a day earlier, and the apparently different message he bore. Guess that as with other instances, anything out of sync with your agenda and narrative gets dismissed.

 

I think you may consider that Trump isn't much of an orator, and that over-interpreting his nonsense is nonsense. The same act was already repeated countless times. He says something, and his underlings scramble to explain, interpret, ease minds and apply the necessary damage control. This is not unique to his words on this occasion.

>>Does "everyone" stand for yourself and Netanyahu's cabinet?
..not quite..much of the world's media too, but maybe you regard that as fake news. Seems to me you are the one out of touch with the reality of what Trump said. You certainly seem as anxious as the UN ambassador to sweep his comment under the carpet.

 

Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian State
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

 

US ambassador contradicts Donald Trump on two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Senior figures involved in the Middle East peace process continue to voice concerns at the American President's policy U-turn
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-ambassador-donald-trump-two-state-solution-contradicts-israel-palestine-conflict-latest-a7584386.html

 

Trump casts aside decades of Middle East diplomacy in one sentence
Speaking with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, president says US is not committed to two-state solution, showing alarming lack of understanding
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/israel-palestine-donald-trump-two-state-solution-netanyahu

 

Trump's 'one-state' remarks embolden rightwing Zionists – Jewish and Christian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/two-state-solution-one-trump-rightwing-zionists

 

Trump: Two-state solution not only way to achieve peace
In a major policy shift, US president says he would back a single-state solution, after meeting Israeli PM Netanyahu.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/trump-state-solution-achieve-peace-170215183746868.html

 

Clearly the one state solution was discussed. Where it came from before it leapt out of Trump's mouth interests me... Bibi, his son-in-law, his ambassador, Bannon?

 

The genie's out of the bottle now. Ideas, once aired..and especially when endorsed by a POTUS..tend to gain a life of their own.

[Jingthing]

Hopefully it's a very short term in office.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

>>Does "everyone" stand for yourself and Netanyahu's cabinet?
..not quite..much of the world's media too, but maybe you regard that as fake news. Seems to me you are the one out of touch with the reality of what Trump said. You certainly seem as anxious as the UN ambassador to sweep his comment under the carpet.

 

Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian State
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

 

US ambassador contradicts Donald Trump on two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Senior figures involved in the Middle East peace process continue to voice concerns at the American President's policy U-turn
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-ambassador-donald-trump-two-state-solution-contradicts-israel-palestine-conflict-latest-a7584386.html

 

Trump casts aside decades of Middle East diplomacy in one sentence
Speaking with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, president says US is not committed to two-state solution, showing alarming lack of understanding
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/israel-palestine-donald-trump-two-state-solution-netanyahu

 

Trump's 'one-state' remarks embolden rightwing Zionists – Jewish and Christian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/two-state-solution-one-trump-rightwing-zionists

 

Trump: Two-state solution not only way to achieve peace
In a major policy shift, US president says he would back a single-state solution, after meeting Israeli PM Netanyahu.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/trump-state-solution-achieve-peace-170215183746868.html

 

Clearly the one state solution was discussed. Where it came from before it leapt out of Trump's mouth interests me... Bibi, his son-in-law, his ambassador, Bannon?

 

The genie's out of the bottle now. Ideas, once aired..and especially when endorsed by a POTUS..tend to gain a life of their own.

 

Nah, I don't call it fake news, but over-interpretation. Suggest you read my posts again. Not surprised that many outlets (and I do note which ones were chosen...) will engage in this. That's how they make a living.

 

I wasn't denying what Trump said, by the way, or ignoring the reference to a one-state solution, I just don't thing that there's a whole lot of actual policy behind it. A quick survey of Trump's foreign policy statements would indicate that such controversies are the norm for this administration. It could also be noted that on a fair number of cases, there was evident backtracking.

 

There was no clear indication of what was meant by a "one state solution" in Trump's statement, and neither in Netanyahu's words. So most of what is spewed is just a re-hash of "we don't know". IMO, neither do Trump, Netanyahu, Bannon, or Kushner. I doubt that there was anything resembling concrete discussion of possible solutions at their meeting, but you're free to fantasize, of course.

 

And again, may want to read this:

 

CIA Chief Meets Palestinian President Abbas Ahead of Netanyahu-Trump Summit
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/1.771886

 

Finally, if and when you demonstrate that you can address issues such as the Palestinian point of view or Palestinian accountability for past choices (or anything else reflecting less than positively on the Palestinians side), nonsense references to my post as "sweep under the rug" may hold some merit. Until then....

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Hopefully it's a very short term in office.

Do you think Pence will be better on this front?

[Jingthing]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

Do you think Pence will be better on this front?

Not likely, but at least he wouldn't so something as bizarre as  putting his totally unqualified son-in-law in charge of negotiations just because he's Jewish. 

[thaihome]

I truly think there is very little point in trying to see any coherence in any thing Trump says about foreign policy  (or any policy for that matter). This is a guy that has never read an entire book, insists on triple spaced, large font,  bullet points only, single page briefing material on every subject, and then often ignores that before speaking in public on the issue.  His understanding of world affairs is equivalent to a 5th grade bully.

 

Classic example, which has only been given passing exposure due to some many other things going on, is the way the Chinese have completly owned Trump on his supposed change in the One China policy of the last 50 years. All  Xi Jinping had to do was refuse to talk to Donald until  Donald announced full support for the One China policy.  Donald caved in within hours. 

 

Do not believe any thing Trump says or tweets. The only meaning to anything from him is how it feeds his self perception and ego.

TH 

Edited February 17, 2017 by thaihome

[Jingthing]

Agree there. Very incoherent and very destabilizing.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Not likely, but at least he wouldn't so something as bizarre as  putting his totally unqualified son-in-law in charge of negotiations just because he's Jewish. 

 Not defending Kushner's appointment, but again, which one is better - a clueless buffoon or a more capable zealot? Note that while Netanyahu's meeting with Trump got most of the headlines, the issues were discussed in a more thorough manner a day later, on a meeting held with Pence:

 

Netanyahu, Pence look for ways to coordinate on settlements

http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-pence-look-for-ways-to-coordinate-on-settlements/

 

So far, bogus as Kushner's appointment may be, there was apparently no direct damage done. It even seems he's been doing a certain amount of homework, even predating Trump's elections victory, holding meeting with the likes of Yousef al-Otaiba, the ambassador of the UAE.