Are Older Men in Thailand Trading Love for Financial Ruin

[webfact]

Netanyahu blasts U.N. 'hypocrisy', Australian PM opposes 'one-sided resolutions'

By Colin Packham

REUTERS

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull arrive at their bilateral meeting at Admiralty House in Sydney, Australia, February 22, 2017. REUTERS/Jason Reed

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull offered a staunch defence of Israel on Wednesday, criticising the United Nations and vowing never to support "one-sided resolutions" calling for an end to Israeli settlement building on occupied land.

 

Turnbull welcomed Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday as the first Israeli prime minister to visit Australia and reiterated Australia's support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

 

However, he also made it clear Australia would not support any resolutions such as the one approved by the United Nations Security Council in December calling for an end to Israeli settlement building on land occupied by Palestinians.

 

"My government will not support one-sided resolutions criticising Israel of the kind recently adopted by the U.N Security Council and we deplore the boycott campaigns designed to delegitimise the Jewish state," Turnbull wrote in an editorial in The Australian newspaper.

 

The U.N. resolution was approved in the final weeks of Barack Obama's administration, which broke with a long tradition of shielding Israel diplomatically and chose not to wield its veto power.

 

"Australia has been courageously willing to puncture U.N. hypocrisy more than once," Netanyahu said.

 

"The U.N. is capable of many absurdities and I think it's important that you have straightforward and clear-eyed countries like Australia that often bring it back to earth," he said after meeting Turnbull.

 

Israel has long pursued a policy of constructing Jewish settlements on territory it captured in a 1967 war with its Arab neighbours including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

 

Most countries view such activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and an obstacle to peace but Israel disagrees, citing a biblical connection to the land.

 

Washington's ambassador to the United Nations has said the United States still supports a two-state solution to the conflict, although new U.S. President Donald Trump has also said he is open to new ways to achieve peace.

 

The two-state solution has long been the bedrock of the international community's policy for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians but Trump's apparent loosening of that main tenet, at a joint news conference with Netanyahu last week, stunned the international community.

 

"We support an outcome which has two states where Israelis, the Israeli people, the Palestinian people live side-by-side as a result of direct negotiations between them," Turnbull told reporters in Sydney.

 

Netanyahu said any solution would need Palestine to recognise Israel, which would also have security control of the territories.

 

While in Australia, Netanyahu is scheduled to sign agreements fostering closer economic and defence cooperation.

 

(Reporting by Colin Packham; Editing by Paul Tait)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-23

[boomerangutang]

I know it's non-PC to support Israel, but I think Netanyahu is the right man for the head job.  

Borderlines and ownership of territories have changed in nearly every country ww for 5,000+ years.  Currently, Israel has a foothold on a small amount of territory in the volatile M.East.  They fought for it and won.  You may not like it, any more than I like China militarity taking over Tibet, but that's the way the cookie has crumbled.  M.East country boundaries have changed 1,000 times in the past 3,000 years, and will continue to change in the future.   

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I know it's non-PC to support Israel, but I think Netanyahu is the right man for the head job.  

Borderlines and ownership of territories have changed in nearly every country ww for 5,000+ years.  Currently, Israel has a foothold on a small amount of territory in the volatile M.East.  They fought for it and won.  You may not like it, any more than I like China militarity taking over Tibet, but that's the way the cookie has crumbled.  M.East country boundaries have changed 1,000 times in the past 3,000 years, and will continue to change in the future.   

>>They fought for it and won.

...Maybe OK for Genghis Khan, but under international law in the 21st century you can't conquer territory, occupy it and transfer your own population there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

..to which Israel is a signatory.

Israel's illegal occupation and colonization is the crux of the whole problem.

[dexterm]

The Australian PM seems to be playing the unctuous diplomat game. The UN resolution he criticizes stated precisely Australia's long standing views on settlements and the two state solution. Still if gilding the lily is what it takes for so-called friends of Bibi to be able to put pressure on him, then maybe some good will come of it.

 

"The Australian government would not support “one-sided resolutions” (which was simply a reiteration of Australia’s position at the time, but helpfully dressed up by the Australian newspaper for propaganda purposes as a blistering repudiation of the UN) or boycotts."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/22/get-on-with-it-bibi-turnbulls-message-to-netanyahu-on-peace-deal

Edited February 23, 2017 by dexterm

[Baerboxer]

Turnbull, head of the Government of Australia which represents the successors of people who a couple of hundred years ago did the same thing. Invaded someone else's land, removed and oppressed the incumbents with force and simply applied their own laws whilst ignoring the rights of those they conquered.

 

Yep, the Aussies can teach Israel a thing or to about occupying someone else's land.

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Turnbull, head of the Government of Australia which represents the successors of people who a couple of hundred years ago did the same thing. Invaded someone else's land, removed and oppressed the incumbents with force and simply applied their own laws whilst ignoring the rights of those they conquered.

 

Yep, the Aussies can teach Israel a thing or to about occupying someone else's land.

I quite agree with you.

 

Although Australia has recognized the wrongs it committed, made a formal apology to the Aboriginal people and tried to make amends.

 

Whereas Israel is still in the oppressive colonization stage, and is in a state of denial of what it is actually doing.

[maoro2013]

9 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I know it's non-PC to support Israel, but I think Netanyahu is the right man for the head job.  

Borderlines and ownership of territories have changed in nearly every country ww for 5,000+ years.  Currently, Israel has a foothold on a small amount of territory in the volatile M.East.  They fought for it and won.  You may not like it, any more than I like China militarity taking over Tibet, but that's the way the cookie has crumbled.  M.East country boundaries have changed 1,000 times in the past 3,000 years, and will continue to change in the future.   

Head job is right 

[boomerangutang]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>They fought for it and won.

...Maybe OK for Genghis Khan, but under international law in the 21st century you can't conquer territory, occupy it and transfer your own population there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

..to which Israel is a signatory.

Israel's illegal occupation and colonization is the crux of the whole problem.

It's a big bad world out there sometimes.  Below is a partial list of some territories that have been fought for in the past century, and claimed by the winner:

 

Rhodesia became Zimbabwe

German SW Africa became Namibia

Tanganyka became Tanzania

Panama broke away from Colombia

Singapore split from Malaya

Tibet became part of China

E.Timor broke away from Indonesia

Bosnia Herzogovenia broke away from Yugoslavia/Serbia

South Sudan broke away from Sudan

and most recently, Crimea became part of Russia

 

At various times, the territories which we today call Israel and Palestine were owned by; the Philistines, Assyrians, Jews, Egyptians, Ottomans, Palestinians, France, UK and others.  

[Grubster]

Are they building on Israeli land occupied by Palestinians or Palestinian land occupied by Israeli's. I guess I am a little unclear on this.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>They fought for it and won.

...Maybe OK for Genghis Khan, but under international law in the 21st century you can't conquer territory, occupy it and transfer your own population there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

..to which Israel is a signatory.

Israel's illegal occupation and colonization is the crux of the whole problem.

 

Can always be counted upon to make inane historical references. Considering even the post your replied to contained a modern day example, I'll chuck it up to the usual ignore mode for anything that doesn't fit with your propagandist agenda. The bogus and worn touted "colonization" narrative is nothing but nonsense, seeking to capitalize on a supposed Western guilt trip.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

I quite agree with you.

 

Although Australia has recognized the wrongs it committed, made a formal apology to the Aboriginal people and tried to make amends.

 

Whereas Israel is still in the oppressive colonization stage, and is in a state of denial of what it is actually doing.

 

The only relevance of "colonialism" exists in your hateful diatribes, and the same goes for comparisons between Australia's history and Israel. Even if one was to take your misguided hyperbole seriously, then Israel would be afforded several more decades before such an "apology" would be forthcoming - think Australia kinda took its time about it. And obviously, Israel is not "in denial" of the situation, as would be evident from the presence of an opposition as well as the many links you yourself post on this forum, originating from Israeli media sources.

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Are they building on Israeli land occupied by Palestinians or Palestinian land occupied by Israeli's. I guess I am a little unclear on this.

 

That would probably depend who's asked. However, the more widely accepted view is that Israel builds on land it occupied since 1967. In the 1947 partition plan, the land in question was designated as part of the  Palestinian state. However, as this was rejected by the neighboring Arab countries and the Palestinians, no such state materialized. Thus, the Israeli conquest and ongoing occupations was not of a land controlled by the Palestinians, but by Egypt and Jordan. International law does not permit usage of conquered territories in the way applied by Israel - setting up settlements and encouraging population movement to the area.

 

Mind, that's a very short version.

[Grubster]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would probably depend who's asked. However, the more widely accepted view is that Israel builds on land it occupied since 1967. In the 1947 partition plan, the land in question was designated as part of the  Palestinian state. However, as this was rejected by the neighboring Arab countries and the Palestinians, no such state materialized. Thus, the Israeli conquest and ongoing occupations was not of a land controlled by the Palestinians, but by Egypt and Jordan. International law does not permit usage of conquered territories in the way applied by Israel - setting up settlements and encouraging population movement to the area.

 

Mind, that's a very short version.

Yeah and I think both sides of that mess are to blame, I think John Lennon might have had an Idea they should try.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Yeah and I think both sides of that mess are to blame, I think John Lennon might have had an Idea they should try.

 

Like I said, a very short version, and one which touches upon one facet (or element) of this conflict. There are others, of course, and various level of accountability, blame or responsibility can be applied to each. With reference to the settlement issue, though, Israel is rather obviously in the wrong, though.

 

Whenever someone mentions Lennon's "Imagine", I'm always reminded of a quote from Elvis Costello's song "The Other Side of Summer": "...Was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions"?"...

 

 

[zaZa9]

The two-state solution has long been the bedrock of the international community's policy for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians..."

 

Yes , and how  well has that worked  so far ?

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

It's a big bad world out there sometimes.  Below is a partial list of some territories that have been fought for in the past century, and claimed by the winner:

 

Rhodesia became Zimbabwe

German SW Africa became Namibia

Tanganyka became Tanzania

Panama broke away from Colombia

Singapore split from Malaya

Tibet became part of China

E.Timor broke away from Indonesia

Bosnia Herzogovenia broke away from Yugoslavia/Serbia

South Sudan broke away from Sudan

and most recently, Crimea became part of Russia

 

At various times, the territories which we today call Israel and Palestine were owned by; the Philistines, Assyrians, Jews, Egyptians, Ottomans, Palestinians, France, UK and others.  

In the instances you quote, some were consensual separations [no problem], some were a case of the majority succcessfully resisting attempts by a minority to impose minority rule [no problem... I am glad the majority successfully resisted]...as is the case in the OP, where the majority in Mandated Palestine were an indigenous Palestinian majority in the late 19th century  ( over 10:1 !!) when Zionism started its colonial enterprise, and still are a amjority to this day. That is the fatal flaw in Zionism's overall plan..how can a minority rule a majority, which will ultimately prove its downfall.

 

Some of the instances you quote are of powerful foreign colonizers attempting to occupy someone else's land and swamp their culture, which I disapprove of. If this forum news item selectors ever post such discussion topics, I will gladly contribute, and we will probably find ourselves on the same side of the argument.

 

As it is, to discuss such now would be off topic, and would get deleted. We are discussing Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank.

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The only relevance of "colonialism" exists in your hateful diatribes, and the same goes for comparisons between Australia's history and Israel. Even if one was to take your misguided hyperbole seriously, then Israel would be afforded several more decades before such an "apology" would be forthcoming - think Australia kinda took its time about it. And obviously, Israel is not "in denial" of the situation, as would be evident from the presence of an opposition as well as the many links you yourself post on this forum, originating from Israeli media sources.

>>The only relevance of "colonialism" exists in your hateful diatribes, and the same goes for comparisons between Australia's history and Israel.
...Absolute baloney. You, along with all Zionists, are clearly still in a state of denial (or more likely deliberate obfuscation) about Israel's European colonization history, unlike the OP Australia.

 

The Jewish population in the 19th century prior to Zionism according to the Jewish Virtual Library was 24,000, while indigenous Palestinians outnumbered them a massive 11 to 1 with 268,100 population.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html

 

By approximately the time of partition, even after waves of sometimes illegal Jewish immigration, Palestinians still outnumbered Jews  2 to 1. 1,210,460 Palestinian non Jews to 553,600 Jews. That's one of the reasons partition was so unfair and was rejected by the Palestinians ...foreigners giving away 55% of the land to a Jewish minority who owned a mere 6% of the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#British_censuses_and_estimations.

 

And these Zionists arrived in Palestine not as invited guests, but intent on establishing a Jewish State where a non Jewish majority already existed. All along supported (via the originally secret Sykes Picot agreement and later the Balfour Declaration) by a UK government embarrassingly favorable to Zionist aspirations while disempowering Palestinians, because UK wanted a proxy British friendly nation buffering the East bank of the Suez canal, UK's vital waterway to India. Plus a Mediterranean port, Haifa, to be linked by rail to the British controlled oil rich Persian Gulf. A very nice cosy arrangement completely disregarding the resident Palestinian population.

 

Go figure how the Jewish population of Palestine went from being outnumbered 11 to 1, to being the ruling power today?

Far from your denial, Israel's is actually a classic case of European colonialism.

 

And please explain how come 36 of the 37 signatories of Israel's Declaration of Independence were born outside Palestine mainly in Eastern Europe. Go figure.
 
And that despite all the ethnic cleansings of Palestinians creating a10 million Palestinian diaspora, and all the Israeli discriminatory laws not allowing them to return to their homes stolen from them and all the Jewish immigration, that Palestinians are today still the majority.
 
Go figure who the invaders and colonialists are!

 

>>Even if one was to take your misguided hyperbole seriously, then Israel would be afforded several more decades before such an "apology" would be forthcoming - think Australia kinda took its time about it.

 

Australia has come to terms with its brutal oppressive colonialist past, Israel is still to get there. But Israel too one day will be offering its apologies for the crimes it has committed against the resident Palestinian population. One would hope that it has learnt from other European colonizers' mistakes and I agree tardy admissions of guilt.

 

I suspect in his heart of hearts the Australian PM Turnbull knows all this, and publicly is being as diplomatic as possible for whatever reasons..domestic economy or hope of influence on the current Israeli government.

 

I also suspect that Australia abstained in the OP UN vote out of diplomatic politeness, because Netanyahu's visit had already been arranged. Neighboring New Zealand (who are usually on the same page as Australia) who sponsored the UN resolution had no such qualms about voting for the truth.

Edited February 23, 2017 by dexterm

[Jingthing]

Not a big fan of Bibi though it could be worse, but it's very encouraging to see Israel expand its sphere of friendship in the world.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not a big fan of Bibi though it could be worse, but it's very encouraging to see Israel expand its sphere of friendship in the world.

 

 

Just wait till Bibi has to face awkward questions in an arranged meeting from the Australian Labor opposition with regards to settlement expansion,  a faction of which wants Australia to recognize the Palestinian state. And they may not always be in opposition.

Edited February 23, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Can always be counted upon to make inane historical references. Considering even the post your replied to contained a modern day example, I'll chuck it up to the usual ignore mode for anything that doesn't fit with your propagandist agenda. The bogus and worn touted "colonization" narrative is nothing but nonsense, seeking to capitalize on a supposed Western guilt trip.

I would love to discuss each one of the poster's modern day examples, but of course that would be off topic. We are discussing the Israeli illegal occupation of the West Bank.

 

The West, in particular UK, should indeed feel guilty for its proxy colonialist project and the suffering it has caused. They are ultimately responsible for the whole mess and conflict.

 

[Grubster]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Like I said, a very short version, and one which touches upon one facet (or element) of this conflict. There are others, of course, and various level of accountability, blame or responsibility can be applied to each. With reference to the settlement issue, though, Israel is rather obviously in the wrong, though.

 

Whenever someone mentions Lennon's "Imagine", I'm always reminded of a quote from Elvis Costello's song "The Other Side of Summer": "...Was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions"?"...

 

 

Yes, a millionaire with very few possessions.

[Cats4ever]

15 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

German SW Africa became Namibia

You moissed a step - German SW Africa became SW Africa and then became Namibia. Couple of other glitches also.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

21 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Turnbull, head of the Government of Australia which represents the successors of people who a couple of hundred years ago did the same thing. Invaded someone else's land, removed and oppressed the incumbents with force and simply applied their own laws whilst ignoring the rights of those they conquered.

 

Yep, the Aussies can teach Israel a thing or to about occupying someone else's land.

 

Turnbull in no way, shape or form represents the BRITISH colonialists who seized the Australian continent through a legal fiction and established a number of colonies there. Turnbull is the PM of Australia, which came into existence in 1901. Until then, there was no Australia, merely a number of colonies directly ruled by the British from London.

 

If you can demonstrate any instance of Australia replicating Irael's illegal actions in the period from 1901, your specious argument might have tenuous equivalence. You can provide such examples?

 

In a similar vein, the 4th Protocol of the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. Since this is the law that governs the settlement of lands seized in war, your accusations against Australia are only valid from the time that Australia became a signatory.

 

So can you provide any example that supports your frankly stupid and ignorant accusation?

 

Australia's only colonialist experience was with Papua New Guinea since taking over the German colony of Rabaul after WWI and subsequently governing PNG until independence in 1975. You will not find any satisfaction in examining that experience. Australia's relationship with PNG and its people was cemented in national folklore during WWII and the support provided by PNG to Australia soldiers fighting along the Kokoda Trail.

 

Your attempted attack on Australia's position on this issue is measly and a clear example of the right wing's celebration of ignorance.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, dexterm said:

I would love to discuss each one of the poster's modern day examples, but of course that would be off topic. We are discussing the Israeli illegal occupation of the West Bank.

 

The West, in particular UK, should indeed feel guilty for its proxy colonialist project and the suffering it has caused. They are ultimately responsible for the whole mess and conflict.

 

 

That's your usual cop out. If examples are brought forth which put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a context unfavorable to your agenda they are announced as "off topic". On the other hand, every opportunity to is taken to compare Israel with examples supporting the pushed narrative. Talk about double standards...

 

The supposed guilt trip alluded to is an extreme left wing notion, as is are the attached dialectics. Subscribing to this school of thinking is not compulsory nor are the arguments all that compelling. Taken in its full blown forms, doubt it is acceptable to most moderate left wingers, taken out of context and used for as your bashing tool, it losses even the little merit it holds.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Grubster said:

Yes, a millionaire with very few possessions.

 

Right-O...

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

As opposed to most colonial powers, the Jews actually had a connections and heritage associated with the land in question, as well as unbroken (if meager) presence. The ones in a state of denial are those, who like yourself, seek to belittle, erase, and ignore this. This insistence is nothing more than an affirmation of what the body of your posting revolves around - mindless de-legitimization of anything to do with Israel.

 

Further, disregarding your simplistic yet decisive account, the modern times Jewish settlement of the land was not an endeavor taken on behalf of an existing colonial power. And at times, ran contrary to such interests and wishes. That there were European interests involved is a given, but that goes for pretty much anywhere around the globe at the time. Making it into the driving force is just another way of denying the themes raised in the first paragraph.

 

You're obviously not interested in anything but repeating your usual diatribes, which for lack of substance rely on denouncing anyone not accepting your extreme point of view. Bringing up again old familiar nonsense re-hashed on many a past topics (such as the Israeli Deceleration of Independence signatories "argument") - all have been countered, regardless of your inflammatory rhetoric and disregard for anything resembling a reasoned discussion.

 

What you envision for the future is immaterial.  Just another deflection. Even countries with more obvious issues in their past took a long while coming to terms with them. Usually, this is tackles long after these become non-issues, and when addressing them does not pose a threat to the cohesion or survival of the country in question. Considering the numerous times you have quoted various Israeli sources addressing such issues, asserting now that they are being denied or ignored is a bit on the rich side.

 

Same goes for your "suspicions". Obviously, countries and politicians representing them usually act according to national and personal interests. Often, there are discrepancies between publicly pronounced ethical, ideological or moral points of view, and how international relations actually work out. It's called reality, and I'm aware you're not a fan.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Morch

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

That's your usual cop out. If examples are brought forth which put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a context unfavorable to your agenda they are announced as "off topic". On the other hand, every opportunity to is taken to compare Israel with examples supporting the pushed narrative. Talk about double standards...

 

The supposed guilt trip alluded to is an extreme left wing notion, as is are the attached dialectics. Subscribing to this school of thinking is not compulsory nor are the arguments all that compelling. Taken in its full blown forms, doubt it is acceptable to most moderate left wingers, taken out of context and used for as your bashing tool, it losses even the little merit it holds.

"Cop out"...your usual inflammatory baiting troll to encourage me to contravene forum rules. Not playing.

 

However much you would like to deflect from the OP topic, I will not be discussing the transfer of power from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, nor East Timor's struggle for independence, all worthy subjects but not in this thread.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

"Cop out"...your usual inflammatory baiting troll to encourage me to contravene forum rules. Not playing.

 

However much you would like to deflect from the OP topic, I will not be discussing the transfer of power from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, nor East Timor's struggle for independence, all worthy subjects but not in this thread.

 

Err, no. As pointed out, you usually blurt out some nonsense-bite supposedly implying that you have a case, then withdraw claiming off topic. Been there done that on many topics. If you don't wish to discuss something, just don't. The game playing is entirely your act. And as further pointed out, you're usually concerned about going off topic by discussing other countries, unless the comparisons serve to promote your views, in which case, you're all for it.

 

The one doing his best to derail the topic is yourself. Note how it doesn't have much to do with your routine diatribes? Yeah...

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

As opposed to most colonial powers, the Jews actually had a connections and heritage associated with the land in question, as well as unbroken (if meager) presence. The ones in a state of denial are those, who like yourself, seek to belittle, erase, and ignore this. This insistence is nothing more than an affirmation of what the body of your posting revolves around - mindless de-legitimization of anything to do with Israel.

 

Further, disregarding your simplistic yet decisive account, the modern times Jewish settlement of the land was not an endeavor taken on behalf of an existing colonial power. And at times, ran contrary to such interests and wishes. That there were European interests involved is a given, but that goes for pretty much anywhere around the globe at the time. Making it into the driving force is just another way of denying the themes raised in the first paragraph.

 

You're obviously not interested in anything but repeating your usual diatribes, which for lack of substance rely on denouncing anyone not accepting your extreme point of view. Bringing up again old familiar nonsense re-hashed on many a past topics (such as the Israeli Deceleration of Independence signatories "argument") - all have been countered, regardless of your inflammatory rhetoric and disregard for anything resembling a reasoned discussion.

 

What you envision for the future is immaterial.  Just another deflection. Even countries with more obvious issues in their past took a long while coming to terms with them. Usually, this is tackles long after these become non-issues, and when addressing them does not pose a threat to the cohesion or survival of the country in question. Considering the numerous times you have quoted various Israeli sources addressing such issues, asserting now that they are being denied or ignored is a bit on the rich side.

 

Same goes for your "suspicions". Obviously, countries and politicians representing them usually act according to national and personal interests. Often, there are discrepancies between publicly pronounced ethical, ideological or moral points of view, and how international relations actually work out. It's called reality, and I'm aware you're not a fan.

Para 1. The early Zionists were not even religious and had considered a Zion in several countries other than Palestine. So much for their connection to the Holy Land. And for the religious Zionists, the Bible is not a real estate ownership deed, entitling European colonizers to displace resident Palestinians.

 

Para 2. Zionism needed the permission and support of the Mandatory power Britain to introduce European Jewish migrants on a large scale into Palestine. Zionism could not have succeeded in Palestine without British collaboration. Britain thought it was encouraging a Jewish Anglo friendly proxy colony. But the Zionists had their own agenda. They wanted a Jewish only state, not just a haven or homeland. Both were colonialists and treated Palestinians as invisible people, just as colonial Australia regarded the continent as terra nullius "the land of no-one".

 

Para 3 ad hominem attack. You have debunked nothing. Link please.

 

Para 4 You are saying Israel need not address its brutal opppression, because other countries took a long time to admit theirs. Two wrongs don't make a right. You'd think Israel would have learned from others' mistakes.

 

Para 5 I pretty much agree with your long winded version of what I said. Politicians, such as the Aussie and Israeli PMs, can be diplomatic, pragmatic and deceptive when it suits them.

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Err, no. As pointed out, you usually blurt out some nonsense-bite supposedly implying that you have a case, then withdraw claiming off topic. Been there done that on many topics. If you don't wish to discuss something, just don't. The game playing is entirely your act. And as further pointed out, you're usually concerned about going off topic by discussing other countries, unless the comparisons serve to promote your views, in which case, you're all for it.

 

The one doing his best to derail the topic is yourself. Note how it doesn't have much to do with your routine diatribes? Yeah...

I stayed on topic saying international law should be followed to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The poster then tried to deflect discussing conflicts in other countries. At that point I declined to drift off topic, which you are still trying to bait me into doing.