New Israeli law bars entry to foreigners supporting Israel boycott

[Jingthing]

I identify as an atheist Zionist although since trump was elected I've been saying God help us a lot so my atheist cred may be softening.

Zionist does not automatically mean supporting right wing Israeli government policies in any way.

Again it's about support for the continued existence of Israel that has the wonderful star of David flag.

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There is no equivalency whatsoever between our approaches. That's one of the shoddiest deflections you ever engaged in. I rarely engage in anything but realistic consideration based on facts and knowledge of relevant conditions. Most of what you offer does not.

 

And yet more deflections. Your opinions on matters of moral are not relevant. What was pointed out is that the failure to actually address these issues stems from lack of knowledge and a uncompromising stance - both not very conductive to anything required for dealing with the topic discussed.

 

That you choose to call negotiations nonsense, just drives home the previous point home. You have no real interest in conflict resolution. And again, your reply does not actually relate to what I posted - namely, that at least on this front, both sides are aware of the possibilities and requirements. No mention of how choosing uncharted stormy seas is an improvement.

 

Israel is not solely responsible for negotiations not coming to a conclusion. This is a false narrative. The Palestinian side refused to commit on some occasions, broke agreed negotiation guidelines on others. Not expecting you to acknowledge any of it, as per your insistence of not discussing anything projecting negatively on the Palestinian side.

 

For all your words, nothing much by way of addressing how a peaceful, one-state solution could be promoted or what it involves from either side of the conflict. That is, nothing realistic, practical or factual. The only thing on offer is complete rejection of one side, while pretending to favor a "peaceful" solution. If such a one-state solution is to materialize, the Palestinians would have to let go of their narrative as well. Not a feature in your posts.

It is people like me who are the true friends of Israel who desire a peaceful and prosperous future for all the peoples in the region. But I do indeed despise the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism, and there will be no peace until that hateful dogma is consigned to the trash heap of history.

 

Unfortunately it is people like you who are israel's worst enemies who have no suggestions how realistically to achieve a two state solution, apart from urging Palestinians to compromise yet again and accept any crumbs that fall from the Zionist masters' table.

 

It serves yours and Israel's purpose very well to go through the motions of a peace process, when every day they are planning and building more facts on the ground to make that impossible. Negotiations are indeed a nonsense. We've had 24 years on the road to nowhere. Netanyahu's entire cabinet and Bibi himself have said never on my watch a Palestinian state. 

Well, BDS can see through that charade, and prefer direct people power action, which I wholeheartedly support. 

 

And BDS is far more effective than you claim. Hence the OP and Netanyahu's government in panic mode trying to prevent it from drawing attention to Israel's ongoing crimes against the Palestinians , and your hypocritical attempt to defend the indefensible even though you admit the occupation of the West Bank is illegal and counterproductive to peace.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

It is people like me who are the true friends of Israel who desire a peaceful and prosperous future for all the peoples in the region. But I do indeed despise the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism, and there will be no peace until that hateful dogma is consigned to the trash heap of history.

 

Unfortunately it is people like you who are israel's worst enemies who have no suggestions how realistically to achieve a two state solution, apart from urging Palestinians to compromise yet again and accept any crumbs that fall from the Zionist masters' table.

 

It serves yours and Israel's purpose very well to go through the motions of a peace process, when every day they are planning and building more facts on the ground to make that impossible. Negotiations are indeed a nonsense. We've had 24 years on the road to nowhere. Netanyahu's entire cabinet and Bibi himself have said never on my watch a Palestinian state. 

Well, BDS can see through that charade, and prefer direct people power action, which I wholeheartedly support. 

 

And BDS is far more effective than you claim. Hence the OP and Netanyahu's government in panic mode trying to prevent it from drawing attention to Israel's ongoing crimes against the Palestinians , and your hypocritical attempt to defend the indefensible even though you admit the occupation of the West Bank is illegal and counterproductive to peace.

 

That you try to portray yourself as a "friend of Israel" fools no one. You have repeatedly denounced pretty much anything to do with Israel and Israelis. I daresay most Israelis would not identify you as a friend, to put it mildly. Considering that to one extent or the other, most Israeli do identify as Zionist (though not necessarily in a way conforming to your extreme twisted concept of it) - the whole argument is nonsensical.

 

In the same vain, I'm hardly Israel's worst enemy, not even if you'll try to troll it on. Saying that I have not suggested and discussed realistic ways pertaining to ways of achieving a two state solution is a straight out lie. You have, in the past, even acknowledged and thanked me for at least one very detailed account. You portrayal of what I proposed is blatantly false as well.

 

You routinely refuse to acknowledge that it was the Palestinians who refused, for years on end, to negotiate. And that when such negotiations did fail or stall, it was not always due to Israel's actions or refusal to commit. Again, "alternative facts" galore. 

 

I have already challenged supporters of the BDS to provide proof that there are actual major detrimental effects on Israel's economy. That is, not anecdotal "success" stories, no projected possible losses, but something tangible . No such luck. Similarly, I have even on this topic, reviewed how the BDS actually plays into Netanyahu and his cronies' hands (from a political point of view).

 

I have no idea what "defend the indefensible"  refers to this time. Kinda gets messy with all your catchphrases and lies.

 

Like I said earlier, there is no contradiction between objecting to the Israeli government's policies (including the illegal settlement effort in the West Bank) and rejecting the BDS thing. One does not have to fully adopt your extreme stance in order to oppose something.

 

IMO your whole response was a clumsy attempt to dodge simple questions, by trying to turn the tables. Fail. To recount - still nothing realistic, practical or factual on how a peaceful, one-state solution is to be achieved. Still nothing on how hateful views such as you spew are conductive to better relations and understanding between the sides. Still nothing on what the Palestinians will have to let go off if such a solution is to be fulfilled. Nada.Just vehement outpouring of hate, lies and blame. Very Trumpian.

 

[binjalin]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'm sure you realize that even them "evil" Zionists come in different shapes and sizes. For reference, one of the main opposition parties goes under The Zionist Camp. That would be the opposition mentioned in the OP as voting against the law. So no, not all Zionists are "fundamental" or "radical", and even if you wished to uphold the inept comparison to Muslim extremists, you'll have to acknowledge that they do not tend to export their violence. Also, not all Zionists are religious, and not all religious Jews are Zionists.

 

 

well it's true, they do not 'export' their violence, but then nor did Pol Pot or Mugabe they all kept it all  'in-house' so I guess that's ok then??? 

 

BTW until Kuala Lumpa nor did that despot in North Korea but it seeps out when they get desperate and what does the West do?  NOTHING so your Zionist state is safe enough

Edited March 8, 2017 by binjalin

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, binjalin said:

well it's true, they do not 'export' their violence, but then nor did Pol Pot or Mugabe they all kept it all  'in-house' so I guess that's ok then??? 

 

BTW until Kuala Lumpa nor did that despot in North Korea but it seeps out when they get desperate and what does the West do?  NOTHING so your Zionist state is safe enough

 

Yeah, let's go for hyperbole. Pile it up. Any other nonsense comparisons on your mind?

Notably, not so feisty with regard to the first faux point raised and corrected.

 

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, binjalin said:

Ah the 'Love the Sinner but not the Sin' defence. No one is totally Evil as no one is totally Righteous but the Zionists (I don't like using the term 'Israelis' for the reason you allude too) are as fundamental and radical as most Muslim extremists.  

 

Religion, per se, should be kept out of politics but they use it constantly (that and guilt) to justify atrocities. Let them ban and become insular it just focuses those of reasonable mind on what they really are. 

What "they" really are?

Proud, strong Jewish people that finally had enough with being persecuted for thousands of years and decided the most rational next step was to seek the power of a nation state associated with the Jewish people as a matter of both physical survival and to preserve Jewish culture. 

Yeah, that's so horrible. 

Dude, please stop putting all "Zionists" in the same boat as right wing Zionist extremists. They are a faction and that is sadly true, but trashing all Zionists in the inflammatory way you do, you attack the majority of Jewish people in the world.

If that's your actual intention ... just say it, and don't bother pussyfooting around. 

[dexterm]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That you try to portray yourself as a "friend of Israel" fools no one. You have repeatedly denounced pretty much anything to do with Israel and Israelis. I daresay most Israelis would not identify you as a friend, to put it mildly. Considering that to one extent or the other, most Israeli do identify as Zionist (though not necessarily in a way conforming to your extreme twisted concept of it) - the whole argument is nonsensical.

 

In the same vain, I'm hardly Israel's worst enemy, not even if you'll try to troll it on. Saying that I have not suggested and discussed realistic ways pertaining to ways of achieving a two state solution is a straight out lie. You have, in the past, even acknowledged and thanked me for at least one very detailed account. You portrayal of what I proposed is blatantly false as well.

 

You routinely refuse to acknowledge that it was the Palestinians who refused, for years on end, to negotiate. And that when such negotiations did fail or stall, it was not always due to Israel's actions or refusal to commit. Again, "alternative facts" galore. 

 

I have already challenged supporters of the BDS to provide proof that there are actual major detrimental effects on Israel's economy. That is, not anecdotal "success" stories, no projected possible losses, but something tangible . No such luck. Similarly, I have even on this topic, reviewed how the BDS actually plays into Netanyahu and his cronies' hands (from a political point of view).

 

I have no idea what "defend the indefensible"  refers to this time. Kinda gets messy with all your catchphrases and lies.

 

Like I said earlier, there is no contradiction between objecting to the Israeli government's policies (including the illegal settlement effort in the West Bank) and rejecting the BDS thing. One does not have to fully adopt your extreme stance in order to oppose something.

 

IMO your whole response was a clumsy attempt to dodge simple questions, by trying to turn the tables. Fail. To recount - still nothing realistic, practical or factual on how a peaceful, one-state solution is to be achieved. Still nothing on how hateful views such as you spew are conductive to better relations and understanding between the sides. Still nothing on what the Palestinians will have to let go off if such a solution is to be fulfilled. Nada.Just vehement outpouring of hate, lies and blame. Very Trumpian.

 

Plenty of very warm air and nasty personal flaming as usual but short on actual facts.

 

Clearly a one state solution is on the cards. Donald Trump told us so a couple of weeks ago. Netanyahu obviously outlined to him how it will happen. Perhaps you should ask them.

 

But no need. I will tell you. The Zionists both Netanyahu and the opposition have no intention of ever allowing a Palestinian state. They insist:
..we must have [for security reasons- baloney!] the Jordan Valley= 30% of West Bank
..we must have Jerusalem which seems to keep growing and has now become Greater Jerusalem = 33% of the West Bank
..the Separation Barrier built mainly on the Palestinian side of the Green line has expropriated another 10% of the West Bank
..oh and we must keep the large settlement blocs = 15% of West Bank
..oh and we must allow natural growth of these settlements.

 

There is nothing left for a Palestinian state! In all but name only it's all Greater Israel already.

 

This year the consolidation of these facts on the ground will continue and I can't see anyone stopping them. Netanyahu will propose his state-minus. All those Palestinians in Area C who will not swear allegiance to the Jewish State of Israel as a ploy to disenfranchise them will be threatened with removal to the state minus bantustan. Trump will nod approval. It will be apartheid. That is when BDS will come into its own having built up an infrastructure already. At that stage the fight will be for one man one vote in a single state.

 

You have told us in the past how ideally you would like a two state solution to happen, and blamed failure of negotiations on lack of charismatic leaders to carry it through. We still do not have the strong leaders and events on the ground are now changing the picture rapidly.

 

So now you tell us how you propose realistically to undo all the above land grab for your two state solution... a viable contiguous Palestinian State based on the 67 lines with land swaps and a capital in East Jerusalem.

How are some 500,000 settlers in the West Bank to be evacuated?
How are 350,000 settlers in occupied East Jerusalem to be evacuated?

 

If as you say, BDS is ineffective, why Netanyahu's concern in the OP?
And the movement is growing.

80 percent of Canadians back Israel boycott.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/80-percent-canadians-back-israel-boycott-poll-0

[binjalin]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What "they" really are?

Proud, strong Jewish people that finally had enough with being persecuted for thousands of years and decided the most rational next step was to seek the power of a nation state associated with the Jewish people as a matter of both physical survival and to preserve Jewish culture. 

Yeah, that's so horrible. 

Dude, please stop putting all "Zionists" in the same boat as right wing Zionist extremists. They are a faction and that is sadly true, but trashing all Zionists in the inflammatory way you do, you attack the majority of Jewish people in the world.

If that's your actual intention ... just say it, and don't bother pussyfooting around. 

If i meant that I would say that and we differ on perspective as, I intuit, you are Jewish and more than a little biased. It is what it is and for peace there needs to be a compromise. BTW many others have been persecuted but don't steal other sovereign country's land as 'recompense'.   

[binjalin]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, let's go for hyperbole. Pile it up. Any other nonsense comparisons on your mind?

Notably, not so feisty with regard to the first faux point raised and corrected.

 

is this your best shot? other despotic regimes kept it 'in-house' right?  a perfectly correct response to your assertions said in a polite way but you persist in insults and attacking posters not the content an so I can only conclude you are a Zionist right-winger living in Israel? 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, binjalin said:

is this your best shot? other despotic regimes kept it 'in-house' right?  a perfectly correct response to your assertions said in a polite way but you persist in insults and attacking posters not the content an so I can only conclude you are a Zionist right-winger living in Israel? 

 

Err, no. The generalization and comparison, both incorrect, were made by you. My comment was addressing their obvious flaws.The reference to "despotic regimes" was, again, yours.  If you don't like the content of your posts being called hyperbole, perhaps refrain from using it? As for getting personal - that would be your last remark.

[binjalin]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Err, no. The generalization and comparison, both incorrect, were made by you. My comment was addressing their obvious flaws.The reference to "despotic regimes" was, again, yours.  If you don't like the content of your posts being called hyperbole, perhaps refrain from using it? As for getting personal - that would be your last remark.

*sigh*

[Galactus]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt that you're an expert, especially considering this pearl "no atheist Zionist" in the world. If you consult the post you replied to, there was an example given right there. Quite a bit of the anti-religious legislation attempts come from politicians defining themselves as Zionist.

 

And no, I do not see Zionists regularly carrying terrorists attacks world wide, as opposed to Muslim related terrorism. For the most part, it's the violence is localized.

 

 

 

i doubt you are an expert either and anyway, i never said i am an expert.

Of course, you dont even know clearly what Zionism stands for and as a jewish person! and your contradiction with yourself while saying not all zionists are hardliners and not all of them are religious blew my mind, priceless:)

i am sure if zionists hear your comments about zionism they throw you out of that club:)

 

Zionism is a term revolves around judaism. Its aim is protecting judaists in an nationalistic way (in a fascist way to be exact). You cant be a jew if you dont believe in judaism! who are you fooling guys? or are you trying to fool yourselves? 

Please never tell me like 'i am a light zionist, i dont believe in judaism and i am leftist' there is no light or dark here in this concept. like you believe in a religion or not. there is nothing like i half believe half not!

 

Because, zionists dont need to bomb around. their agenda and enemies are in middle east. so they bomb locals in middle east instead and i am sure more Palestinian are died in the hands and under the bombs of Israel than all radical f ing muslim suicide bombers combined in human history!

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Plenty of very warm air and nasty personal flaming as usual but short on actual facts.

 

Clearly a one state solution is on the cards. Donald Trump told us so a couple of weeks ago. Netanyahu obviously outlined to him how it will happen. Perhaps you should ask them.

 

But no need. I will tell you. The Zionists both Netanyahu and the opposition have no intention of ever allowing a Palestinian state. They insist:
..we must have [for security reasons- baloney!] the Jordan Valley= 30% of West Bank
..we must have Jerusalem which seems to keep growing and has now become Greater Jerusalem = 33% of the West Bank
..the Separation Barrier built mainly on the Palestinian side of the Green line has expropriated another 10% of the West Bank
..oh and we must keep the large settlement blocs = 15% of West Bank
..oh and we must allow natural growth of these settlements.

 

There is nothing left for a Palestinian state! In all but name only it's all Greater Israel already.

 

This year the consolidation of these facts on the ground will continue and I can't see anyone stopping them. Netanyahu will propose his state-minus. All those Palestinians in Area C who will not swear allegiance to the Jewish State of Israel as a ploy to disenfranchise them will be threatened with removal to the state minus bantustan. Trump will nod approval. It will be apartheid. That is when BDS will come into its own having built up an infrastructure already. At that stage the fight will be for one man one vote in a single state.

 

You have told us in the past how ideally you would like a two state solution to happen, and blamed failure of negotiations on lack of charismatic leaders to carry it through. We still do not have the strong leaders and events on the ground are now changing the picture rapidly.

 

So now you tell us how you propose realistically to undo all the above land grab for your two state solution... a viable contiguous Palestinian State based on the 67 lines with land swaps and a capital in East Jerusalem.

How are some 500,000 settlers in the West Bank to be evacuated?
How are 350,000 settlers in occupied East Jerusalem to be evacuated?

 

If as you say, BDS is ineffective, why Netanyahu's concern in the OP?
And the movement is growing.

80 percent of Canadians back Israel boycott.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/80-percent-canadians-back-israel-boycott-poll-0

 

Of course - anything which exposes the contradictions, exaggerations, twisting of facts, bile and lies often featuring in your post is promptly labeled hot air and personal.

 

To remind, the current ongoing stream of deflections stems the inability (or unwillingness) to address questions raised regarding posts you made on this topic. Nothing realistic, practical or factual on how a peaceful, one-state solution is to be achieved. Nothing on how hateful rhetoric and extreme views such as you hold are conductive to better relations and understanding between the sides. Nothing whatsoever on how such a peaceful one-state solution relates to the Palestinian narrative and position. But do talk about "hot air".

 

Mind, the question was not whether the one-state solution was on the cards, but how it can be brought about in a way which will not make things even worse. That neither yourself, nor Israeli right wingers have any constructive and realistic ideas on the matter, is a quite telling - zealots often prefer visions of how things are ought to be, less so when it comes to dealing with actual, reasonable ways of making them materialize.

 

As said on previous topics, what Trump says is up for grabs with respect to interpretations. Doubt he has a clear clue of what he's about, at times. With reference to your depiction of things, though, there's this:

 

Donald Trump administration warns Israel annexation of occupied West Bank would cause 'immediate crisis'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-israel-warn-annexation-occupied-west-bank-crisis-palestinian-territory-gaza-strip-a7615811.html

 

That you choose to twist or pile together various elements, comments and ideas floated (under different circumstances, at different times and by different people) as a supposed unified Israeli position is the norm. Ignoring that some of these issues have been agreed upon (vs. the Palestinians, and vs. the US), or labeling them "baloney"  is not a reasoned discussion, but more like another propaganda rant. Expecting that you would objectively review various Palestinian positions and responses is futile.

 

Israel's position usually elates to security presence along the Jordan Valley, not total control. In later phases of negotiation, there was even talk about positioning of foreign troops, and Israel keeping early warning stations at certain points, for a limited time. The issue of Jerusalem was met with difficulties from both sides, neither willing to give up much of their respective claims. By and large, though, the problems relate more to the Jerusalem's Old City and the holy places. Adjustments to the security barrier's layout in favor of the Palestinians are are a given, considering probable territorial exchanges. In the same vain, Israel keeping some of the larger settlement blocs would be conditional on equivalent territorial exchanges. All of these were discussed, and even acknowledged by yourself on previous topics. What you describe above is a worst case scenario which does not conform to the actual content of the negotiations held by sides. Treating it as a given is not reality, but a choice made in order to push an anti-peace, anti-compromise agenda and narrative. In  the same vain of your BDS fantasies - it relates to what might come to pass, not what is.

 

And then this gem from you rant...

 

Quote

You have told us in the past how ideally you would like a two state solution to happen,

 

Which calls for a quick trip down memory lane:

 

Quote

Thank you, Morch, for your well considered practical implementation of a solution to the conflict. I actually agree with you on many of your points: I can understand the demilitarization and Israel's current concerns about border control.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785296-israel-dismisses-palestinian-peace-deal-plan-as-gimmick/?page=2#comment-8828938

 

And from the same post:

 

Quote

Meanwhile perhaps more courageous politicians will emerge to make the painful compromises.

 

So no, I haven't reffed to ideals, but to realities. And yes, there is an ongoing leadership crisis, that's another reality. Surely you had a point there. Or not.

 

With regard to the illegal settlers - those living in settlements which will remain under Israeli control are not an problem, and that will account for the majority. The rest, will either be offered compensation (by the Israeli government, to be clear) and other incentives to move. Those that won't - will be evacuated as done on other occasions (though obviously, more difficult circumstances). Another line of thinking, which I'd support but doubt will materialize, will be to notify them that if they choose to stay, they'll have to deal with the new Palestinian state or fend for themselves. The same issues, pertaining to Jerusalem, are pretty much the same.

 

With regard to the BDS effectiveness, and Netanyahu's stance - I've repeated the explanation across multiple topics and even on this one. Portraying it as a major threat serves him politically. In terms of actual effect and economic damage done, still nothing that amounts to demonstration. Quoting a survey conducted by a BDS supporting Jewish organization, and appearing on Electronic Intifada does not spell out actual wide ranging and damaging effects. Again, that difference between what you wish for and what is.

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, Galactus said:

i doubt you are an expert either and anyway, i never said i am an expert.

Of course, you dont even know clearly what Zionism stands for and as a jewish person! and your contradiction with yourself while saying not all zionists are hardliners and not all of them are religious blew my mind, priceless:)

i am sure if zionists hear your comments about zionism they throw you out of that club:)

 

Zionism is a term revolves around judaism. Its aim is protecting judaists in an nationalistic way (in a fascist way to be exact). You cant be a jew if you dont believe in judaism! who are you fooling guys? or are you trying to fool yourselves? 

Please never tell me like 'i am a light zionist, i dont believe in judaism and i am leftist' there is no light or dark here in this concept. like you believe in a religion or not. there is nothing like i half believe half not!

 

Because, zionists dont need to bomb around. their agenda and enemies are in middle east. so they bomb locals in middle east instead and i am sure more Palestinian are died in the hands and under the bombs of Israel than all radical f ing muslim suicide bombers combined in human history!

 

 

Once again - read the OP. It mentions an opposition voting against the law. A substantial part of this opposition is a party which goes by the name of "The Zionist Union". They are not pro-settlement, they are not pro-religious. Quite the opposite. There are other such parties as well. Those parties are in parliament because Israelis voted for them. Hence, your generalizations remain obvious nonsense.

 

Your rendering of Zionist goals, and Jewish faith are about as clueless as it comes, and are also not what this topic is about. Suffice to say that there are many sacrilegious Jews, whether you care to admit it or not. If you have trouble with the concept, consult some of the previous posts by others quoting such people. That you choose to declare there are not shades with regard to political stance, ideological and religious beliefs, is out of touch with reality.

 

You can be sure of many things, you seem to be. It doesn't make them factual or true. If you were trying to demonstrate your bigotry and ignorance, well done.

[pegman]

Boycott the apartheid state of Israel!!!

[Wallander4]

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 7:12 AM, ezzra said:

 

Long overdue act, should have been implemented many years ago, I don't know of any other country in the whole wide world that will keep silence and allow bad mouthing, calling for boycotts, derogative  remarks and acts against a country and still will be allowed to be a welcome guest in that country...

 

Unfortunately that happens all over Europe with the "guest invaders" from ME etc.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Of course - anything which exposes the contradictions, exaggerations, twisting of facts, bile and lies often featuring in your post is promptly labeled hot air and personal.

 

To remind, the current ongoing stream of deflections stems the inability (or unwillingness) to address questions raised regarding posts you made on this topic. Nothing realistic, practical or factual on how a peaceful, one-state solution is to be achieved. Nothing on how hateful rhetoric and extreme views such as you hold are conductive to better relations and understanding between the sides. Nothing whatsoever on how such a peaceful one-state solution relates to the Palestinian narrative and position. But do talk about "hot air".

 

Mind, the question was not whether the one-state solution was on the cards, but how it can be brought about in a way which will not make things even worse. That neither yourself, nor Israeli right wingers have any constructive and realistic ideas on the matter, is a quite telling - zealots often prefer visions of how things are ought to be, less so when it comes to dealing with actual, reasonable ways of making them materialize.

 

As said on previous topics, what Trump says is up for grabs with respect to interpretations. Doubt he has a clear clue of what he's about, at times. With reference to your depiction of things, though, there's this:

 

Donald Trump administration warns Israel annexation of occupied West Bank would cause 'immediate crisis'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-israel-warn-annexation-occupied-west-bank-crisis-palestinian-territory-gaza-strip-a7615811.html

 

That you choose to twist or pile together various elements, comments and ideas floated (under different circumstances, at different times and by different people) as a supposed unified Israeli position is the norm. Ignoring that some of these issues have been agreed upon (vs. the Palestinians, and vs. the US), or labeling them "baloney"  is not a reasoned discussion, but more like another propaganda rant. Expecting that you would objectively review various Palestinian positions and responses is futile.

 

Israel's position usually elates to security presence along the Jordan Valley, not total control. In later phases of negotiation, there was even talk about positioning of foreign troops, and Israel keeping early warning stations at certain points, for a limited time. The issue of Jerusalem was met with difficulties from both sides, neither willing to give up much of their respective claims. By and large, though, the problems relate more to the Jerusalem's Old City and the holy places. Adjustments to the security barrier's layout in favor of the Palestinians are are a given, considering probable territorial exchanges. In the same vain, Israel keeping some of the larger settlement blocs would be conditional on equivalent territorial exchanges. All of these were discussed, and even acknowledged by yourself on previous topics. What you describe above is a worst case scenario which does not conform to the actual content of the negotiations held by sides. Treating it as a given is not reality, but a choice made in order to push an anti-peace, anti-compromise agenda and narrative. In  the same vain of your BDS fantasies - it relates to what might come to pass, not what is.

 

And then this gem from you rant...

 

 

Which calls for a quick trip down memory lane:

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785296-israel-dismisses-palestinian-peace-deal-plan-as-gimmick/?page=2#comment-8828938

 

And from the same post:

 

 

So no, I haven't reffed to ideals, but to realities. And yes, there is an ongoing leadership crisis, that's another reality. Surely you had a point there. Or not.

 

With regard to the illegal settlers - those living in settlements which will remain under Israeli control are not an problem, and that will account for the majority. The rest, will either be offered compensation (by the Israeli government, to be clear) and other incentives to move. Those that won't - will be evacuated as done on other occasions (though obviously, more difficult circumstances). Another line of thinking, which I'd support but doubt will materialize, will be to notify them that if they choose to stay, they'll have to deal with the new Palestinian state or fend for themselves. The same issues, pertaining to Jerusalem, are pretty much the same.

 

With regard to the BDS effectiveness, and Netanyahu's stance - I've repeated the explanation across multiple topics and even on this one. Portraying it as a major threat serves him politically. In terms of actual effect and economic damage done, still nothing that amounts to demonstration. Quoting a survey conducted by a BDS supporting Jewish organization, and appearing on Electronic Intifada does not spell out actual wide ranging and damaging effects. Again, that difference between what you wish for and what is.

I did indeed praise your outline for a two state solution at the time, because your thoughts coincided with several of mine. Although your plan was idealistic in that you peppered it with many hedging phrases  "all of this is obviously easier said than done". "hopefully" "no one said it would be easy." I too was optimistic then. But that was in 2014.

 

Since then Israel has veered sharply to the right when Netanyahu's extreme nationalist government came to power, and a nutjob rubber stamp with strong ties to Netanyahu and his cronies entered the White House. And there are even fewer charismatic leaders around today to oppose them.

 

Today your plan of 3 years ago is in the realms of fantasy and impracticality that you often accuse me of.

 

I outlined in detail above the reasons why the huge expansion of settlements, retroactive laws to legalize the confiscation of privately owned Palestinian land, demolition of Palestinian homes and villages and refusal to grant building permits, continued evictions of Palestinians by fanatical settlers in East Jerusalem, Bennet's proposal to formally annex large settlement blocs are creating so many facts on the ground that a Palestinian state is now impossible. The current Israeli government is making that happen all by itself. 

 

Yes, at the moment my suggestions of how to create a peaceful one state solution (if people of good will on both sides really want it to work )are as fanciful as your current evacuation plans for West Bank settlers and from East Jerusalem (no numbers mentioned or areas of the huge land swaps needed I noticed). But I did not make those suggestions as part of an instant roadmap to peace from where we are now. I said I was simply floating ideas of how a one state might work. But of course, you have distorted that.

 

I will dust off my ideas again once Israel digs a deep enough apartheid hole in a year or so's time and we start discussing on this forum how to create a workable single state. By then Palestinians will realize they are powerless and their dreams of a two state solution are hopeless, and they will start agitating for equal rights, echoed by BDS. It's already happening in the Palestinian media.

 

In the meantime the pressure for change in Israel is not going to come from inside, but from outside from groups such as BDS. Israel is hardly going to publish figures as to how damaging the impact of BDS is. Their action in the OP banning them and freedom of speech speaks volumes about their concerns. 

 

And as Israel sleepwalks further towards full blown apartheid, foreign governments will be forced to respond to the voices of their electorate and groups such as BDS. Don't forget it was 33 years ago that a single Irish woman at a supermarket check out who refused to process a customer's S. African fruit purchase that started the whole boycott movement which eventually brought down that other hateful racist ideology.

 

Time is on the side of the Palestinians. They are outbreeding Israeli Jews, and there will be no further large Jewish immigrations while Israel remains such a belligerent and unpopular place to live.

Edited March 9, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

On 3/9/2017 at 1:04 PM, dexterm said:

I did indeed praise your outline for a two state solution at the time, because your thoughts coincided with several of mine. Although your plan was idealistic in that you peppered it with many hedging phrases  "all of this is obviously easier said than done". "hopefully" "no one said it would be easy." I too was optimistic then. But that was in 2014.

 

Since then Israel has veered sharply to the right when Netanyahu's extreme nationalist government came to power, and a nutjob rubber stamp with strong ties to Netanyahu and his cronies entered the White House. And there are even fewer charismatic leaders around today to oppose them.

 

Today your plan of 3 years ago is in the realms of fantasy and impracticality that you often accuse me of.

 

I outlined in detail above the reasons why the huge expansion of settlements, retroactive laws to legalize the confiscation of privately owned Palestinian land, demolition of Palestinian homes and villages and refusal to grant building permits, continued evictions of Palestinians by fanatical settlers in East Jerusalem, Bennet's proposal to formally annex large settlement blocs are creating so many facts on the ground that a Palestinian state is now impossible. The current Israeli government is making that happen all by itself. 

 

Yes, at the moment my suggestions of how to create a peaceful one state solution (if people of good will on both sides really want it to work )are as fanciful as your current evacuation plans for West Bank settlers and from East Jerusalem (no numbers mentioned or areas of the huge land swaps needed I noticed). But I did not make those suggestions as part of an instant roadmap to peace from where we are now. I said I was simply floating ideas of how a one state might work. But of course, you have distorted that.

 

I will dust off my ideas again once Israel digs a deep enough apartheid hole in a year or so's time and we start discussing on this forum how to create a workable single state. By then Palestinians will realize they are powerless and their dreams of a two state solution are hopeless, and they will start agitating for equal rights, echoed by BDS. It's already happening in the Palestinian media.

 

In the meantime the pressure for change in Israel is not going to come from inside, but from outside from groups such as BDS. Israel is hardly going to publish figures as to how damaging the impact of BDS is. Their action in the OP banning them and freedom of speech speaks volumes about their concerns. 

 

And as Israel sleepwalks further towards full blown apartheid, foreign governments will be forced to respond to the voices of their electorate and groups such as BDS. Don't forget it was 33 years ago that a single Irish woman at a supermarket check out who refused to process a customer's S. African fruit purchase that started the whole boycott movement which eventually brought down that other hateful racist ideology.

 

Time is on the side of the Palestinians. They are outbreeding Israeli Jews, and there will be no further large Jewish immigrations while Israel remains such a belligerent and unpopular place to live.

 

Another batch of bluster and deflection.

 

The link provided to previous posts was but an example. There were numerous occasions were detailed accounts of how things may by addressed were presented. One have to be a resident of Dextermworld is order to consider acknowledging real life difficulties and possible snags to agreements as "idealistic". No sale. Rather, it is glossing over rough spots, ignoring flaws and disregarding reality, all often found in your rants, which answer to this description. What I refer to relates to what IS and what can be realistically done, as opposed to your constant barrage of what ought to be. Qualifying suggestions does not make them less realistic, but more so.

 

As usual, no reference whatsoever to the Palestinian side, nothing about their own political situation. Nothing about hardliners on their side. Nothing about Abbas's inability and unwillingness to commit. Nothing about breaking faith during negotiations or going back on agreements. For someone supposedly supporting the Palestinian side you seem either reluctant to discuss them or not to actually know much about their circumstances. 

 

Most of what I posted then, is relevant even today - as far as the details of arrangements between the sides go. Despite appearances, labels and hot air, these are still the building blocks of any possible agreement. The changes are less to do with these, and but are rather more related to political and popular attitudes, weak leaderships on both sides and the dynamic of the Middle East and World affairs. Any agreement will take into consideration, by one way or another, Israel's security needs along the Jordanian border,  a demilitarized Palestinian state, mutual territorial exchanges which will minimize the number of Jewish settlers to be evacuated, and a mechanism to manage Jerusalem's holy places. As much as these seem to difficult to surmount, the real obstacles are more to do with attitudes and leadership.

 

All of the things you supposedly "outlined in detail" (we must have a different concept of what that means) were countered on many occasions. Even on this topic. On the other hand, you keep avoiding, deflecting, dodging and obfuscating whenever questions are raised regarding the Palestinian side and anything that might reflect less than positively on "their" position, goals and situation. That is not a a realistic approach to dealing with the conflict. It is not even much of a reasonable approach for an online discussion.

 

Israel's right wing political shift, real as it is, did not happen in a vacuum. It is also less of an absolute or well-defined matter than you regularly suggest in your posts. That such hardliner, religious or extremist trends are well in force on the Palestinian side is true as well, even if you choose to gloss over the fact. A point repeatedly made, and never addressed is that rhetoric and position such as you hold are not helpful in changing this climate, and if anything, make things worse.

 

There is nothing in your "suggestions" which tells how a peaceful one-state solution is to be achieved and maintained. And no, alluding to supposed "people of good will" is wishful thinking, not a realistic, detailed outline. It does not relate in any concrete manner to the reality of what is, but to how things ought to be. It cannot be anything other than "fanciful" if one is not even willing to discuss things in an objective, even-handed manner. It cannot revolve on blame games, point scoring and disregard for fact. That is, if such social engineering is to be of any value. Pointing out the flaws in your "suggestions", or their disconnect with reality is not "distorting".

 

With regard to  your usual predictions and pronouncements - doubt it. There is no massive public support within Israel for the moves advocated by Bennet & Co. or anything exceeding that. So far, the Trump administration is less accommodating than some expected. That's without even getting into Netanyahu's own shaky position. As expected, the depiction of the possible Palestinian response is rather mild - "realize they are powerless", "agitate for equal rights". Nothing about violence, rejection or any of the more probably outcomes. Nothing alluding to political divisions, different views - nothing that makes for a hard sale. But do talk about how your "take" of things is realistic.

 

And here's another tell - "pressure for change in Israel is not going to come from inside". No explanation of why that is assumed. And for an obvious reason. It makes the narrative less straightforward. It also means, that no changes (from within or without) are to be expected from the Palestinian side.

 

There is no need for the Israeli government to publish anything about the BDS supposed effects. If there was such a discernible effect usual parameters would point out to it, and to be sure - the BDS supporters would gladly relate them. As far as I'm aware, there are none. Not going into details plays into both Netanyahu & Co's, and the BDS's hands - both have a vested interest in inflating the "threat"/"effect".

 

So to sum what's lacking - anything resembling a realistic, practical approach to achieving and a maintaining a peaceful one-state solution, anything resembling objective discussion of issues pertaining to Palestinian politics and society, and anything resembling promotion of peace through better understanding and bringing sides together. Same old.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Another batch of bluster and deflection.

 

The link provided to previous posts was but an example. There were numerous occasions were detailed accounts of how things may by addressed were presented. One have to be a resident of Dextermworld is order to consider acknowledging real life difficulties and possible snags to agreements as "idealistic". No sale. Rather, it is glossing over rough spots, ignoring flaws and disregarding reality, all often found in your rants, which answer to this description. What I refer to relates to what IS and what can be realistically done, as opposed to your constant barrage of what ought to be. Qualifying suggestions does not make them less realistic, but more so.

 

As usual, no reference whatsoever to the Palestinian side, nothing about their own political situation. Nothing about hardliners on their side. Nothing about Abbas's inability and unwillingness to commit. Nothing about breaking faith during negotiations or going back on agreements. For someone supposedly supporting the Palestinian side you seem either reluctant to discuss them or not to actually know much about their circumstances. 

 

Most of what I posted then, is relevant even today - as far as the details of arrangements between the sides go. Despite appearances, labels and hot air, these are still the building blocks of any possible agreement. The changes are less to do with these, and but are rather more related to political and popular attitudes, weak leaderships on both sides and the dynamic of the Middle East and World affairs. Any agreement will take into consideration, by one way or another, Israel's security needs along the Jordanian border,  a demilitarized Palestinian state, mutual territorial exchanges which will minimize the number of Jewish settlers to be evacuated, and a mechanism to manage Jerusalem's holy places. As much as these seem to difficult to surmount, the real obstacles are more to do with attitudes and leadership.

 

All of the things you supposedly "outlined in detail" (we must have a different concept of what that means) were countered on many occasions. Even on this topic. On the other hand, you keep avoiding, deflecting, dodging and obfuscating whenever questions are raised regarding the Palestinian side and anything that might reflect less than positively on "their" position, goals and situation. That is not a a realistic approach to dealing with the conflict. It is not even much of a reasonable approach for an online discussion.

 

Israel's right wing political shift, real as it is, did not happen in a vacuum. It is also less of an absolute or well-defined matter than you regularly suggest in your posts. That such hardliner, religious or extremist trends are well in force on the Palestinian side is true as well, even if you choose to gloss over the fact. A point repeatedly made, and never addressed is that rhetoric and position such as you hold are not helpful in changing this climate, and if anything, make things worse.

 

There is nothing in your "suggestions" which tells how a peaceful one-state solution is to be achieved and maintained. And no, alluding to supposed "people of good will" is wishful thinking, not a realistic, detailed outline. It does not relate in any concrete manner to the reality of what is, but to how things ought to be. It cannot be anything other than "fanciful" if one is not even willing to discuss things in an objective, even-handed manner. It cannot revolve on blame games, point scoring and disregard for fact. That is, if such social engineering is to be of any value. Pointing out the flaws in your "suggestions", or their disconnect with reality is not "distorting".

 

With regard to  your usual predictions and pronouncements - doubt it. There is no massive public support within Israel for the moves advocated by Bennet & Co. or anything exceeding that. So far, the Trump administration is less accommodating than some expected. That's without even getting into Netanyahu's own shaky position. As expected, the depiction of the possible Palestinian response is rather mild - "realize they are powerless", "agitate for equal rights". Nothing about violence, rejection or any of the more probably outcomes. Nothing alluding to political divisions, different views - nothing that makes for a hard sale. But do talk about how your "take" of things is realistic.

 

And here's another tell - "pressure for change in Israel is not going to come from inside". No explanation of why that is assumed. And for an obvious reason. It makes the narrative less straightforward. It also means, that no changes (from within or without) are to be expected from the Palestinian side.

 

There is no need for the Israeli government to publish anything about the BDS supposed effects. If there was such a discernible effect usual parameters would point out to it, and to be sure - the BDS supporters would gladly relate them. As far as I'm aware, there are none. Not going into details plays into both Netanyahu & Co's, and the BDS's hands - both have a vested interest in inflating the "threat"/"effect".

 

So to sum what's lacking - anything resembling a realistic, practical approach to achieving and a maintaining a peaceful one-state solution, anything resembling objective discussion of issues pertaining to Palestinian politics and society, and anything resembling promotion of peace through better understanding and bringing sides together. Same old.

>> It does not relate in any concrete manner to the reality of what is, but to how things ought to be.

..which is exactly what I said:

 

"But I did not make those suggestions [eg desegregation of education; earning the right to vote through community service] as part of an instant roadmap to peace from where we are now. I said I was simply floating ideas of how a one state might work. But of course, you have distorted that."

.. and looks like you continue to distort.

 

You want reality, it's this:

 

The creation of a single state will be all of Israel's own doing (the Palestinians won't have a say in the matter..Israel has all the weapons and power)..probably via a period of full blown apartheid and an international backlash against that.

or,

Maybe Trump's initiative will produce some form of acceptable, fair two state solution, because the parties realize the alternative above is fast becoming a probability. Personally, I think there are already too many facts on the ground and entrenched right wing attitudes in the Israeli electorate to make a viable two state solution possible, but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

 

Times are changing. The mantra of Netanyahu and others on this forum a couple of years ago was Israel has no-one to negotiate with. I said at the time: well why not negotiate separately with the PA, and leave Gazans to join the peace train later when they can see the benefits. Contrary to your its all too hard lets be realistic approach, it looks like suddenly the impossible separate negotiations at least are becoming the possible. You may still be right about the lack of charismatic leaders, but maybe Trump's ego will override all that and win the day...I'm doubtful, but who knows.

 

The continued pressure from BDS highlighting Israel's illegal occupation, and now this OP silly over the top reaction from Israel trying to silence them, keeps the conflict in the spotlight and the bad PR boosts awareness in the social and international media of Israeli injustice and hypocrisy re freedom of speech.

 

I wish the future peace talks well. Maybe the brash narcissist in the White House will somehow force a peace if only to massage his own ego.

 

If talks fail, and Netanyahu succumbs to his right wing simply to stay in power by annexing some of the large illegal settlement blocs, then the infrastructure of BDS is in place to protest against de facto apartheid. And the struggle may then change to   one man, one vote.

 

Or if talks succeed, and all parties achieve a peaceful two state solution and Israel abandons its discriminatory laws against its own Israeli Palestinian citizens, BDS will need to disband having achieved its objectives.

Edited March 12, 2017 by dexterm

[Scott]

A post in violation of Fair Use Policy has been removed.   Only quote the first three sentences and a link to the remainder of the article.  

 

 

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>> It does not relate in any concrete manner to the reality of what is, but to how things ought to be.

..which is exactly what I said:

 

"But I did not make those suggestions [eg desegregation of education; earning the right to vote through community service] as part of an instant roadmap to peace from where we are now. I said I was simply floating ideas of how a one state might work. But of course, you have distorted that."

.. and looks like you continue to distort.

 

You want reality, it's this:

 

The creation of a single state will be all of Israel's own doing (the Palestinians won't have a say in the matter..Israel has all the weapons and power)..probably via a period of full blown apartheid and an international backlash against that.

or,

Maybe Trump's initiative will produce some form of acceptable, fair two state solution, because the parties realize the alternative above is fast becoming a probability. Personally, I think there are already too many facts on the ground and entrenched right wing attitudes in the Israeli electorate to make a viable two state solution possible, but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

 

Times are changing. The mantra of Netanyahu and others on this forum a couple of years ago was Israel has no-one to negotiate with. I said at the time: well why not negotiate separately with the PA, and leave Gazans to join the peace train later when they can see the benefits. Contrary to your its all too hard lets be realistic approach, it looks like suddenly the impossible separate negotiations at least are becoming the possible. You may still be right about the lack of charismatic leaders, but maybe Trump's ego will override all that and win the day...I'm doubtful, but who knows.

 

The continued pressure from BDS highlighting Israel's illegal occupation, and now this OP silly over the top reaction from Israel trying to silence them, keeps the conflict in the spotlight and the bad PR boosts awareness in the social and international media of Israeli injustice and hypocrisy re freedom of speech.

 

I wish the future peace talks well. Maybe the brash narcissist in the White House will somehow force a peace if only to massage his own ego.

 

If talks fail, and Netanyahu succumbs to his right wing simply to stay in power by annexing some of the large illegal settlement blocs, then the infrastructure of BDS is in place to protest against de facto apartheid. And the struggle may then change to   one man, one vote.

 

Or if talks succeed, and all parties achieve a peaceful two state solution and Israel abandons its discriminatory laws against its own Israeli Palestinian citizens, BDS will need to disband having achieved its objectives.

 

More dextermlogic.

 

Your "ideas" floated are worthless unless grounded in some reality. When asked how they relate to such, you deflect and obfuscate. Apparently, it's perfectly legit to constantly blame other for having no answers, while counting made-up fantasies as relevant "ideas".

Nothing distorted, expect for the ongoing twisting of anything which might cause you to face the issues you avoid.

 

What you describe as "reality" is not. Ajlkjlkj the things you listed aren't "real.

 

There is no single-state. Israel's actions do not occur in a vacuum, but are related to those of the Palestinians. How this imaginary scenario will go down - it's not real, either. It didn't even happen. It may not happen at all. Or it may happen otherwise. Not reality.

 

The same goes for the supposed "Trump's initiative". What initiative? Any specific details on what is actually discussed? (If at all). While you seem to have a lot of strong opinions about Israeli political trends, hardly any input on how Palestinians see things. Again, not reality.

 

The times are changing, but your nonsense posts do not. If Abbas does not represent the Palestinians, or even the majority of the Palestinians, what is the value of signing agreements with him, knowing he'll be out of office in a short while? What is the value of your "sage" opinion, if the reluctance from separate negotiations is shared by both Israel and the PA? Who are the "Gazans"? Are they a separate entity? Does Hamas have no presence and support in the West Bank? Do the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip have a viable democratic way of dislodging the Hamas? Or the interest in doing so? Hard to take you seriously when you exhibit such lack of insight. There were always "separate" talks, ever since Hamas's ascent. One of the reasons not much came out of them is exactly because of this - the PA lacks political and popular support, and has no way to guarantee Hamas's acceptance of terms.

 

There is no "its all too hard lets be realistic approach". That's either failed reading comprehension or intentionally being obtuse. That you constantly try to pin this as relevant to my posts just shows the desperation.

 

It was already agreed that from an international PR point of view, the legislation is a bad move. It was also explained how in terms of domestic politics and support, it fits rather well with Netanyahu & Co.'s narrative. That this path (preference of domestic political gain over actual national interest) is taken, is nothing new.

 

Going back to reality - there are no peace talks. They haven't even failed yet. And this hypothetical failure was not even attributed to the Israeli side. And that hypothetical failure didn't cause any hypothetical annexation. But that doesn't stop you from asserting the conclusion, which implies the relevance of the BDS. That is not talking about facts, or reality.

 

But as it often does, everything is outed in the last bit (as was with the post that originated this tiresome series of deflections) and we come, once more, to the crux. The BDS (or at least, your version of it) is not about a two-state solution, nor does it stop there. The ultimate goal is to  dismantle the State of Israel. The foundations for the next chapter are outlined. Thanks for making my point.

[dexterm]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More dextermlogic.

 

Your "ideas" floated are worthless unless grounded in some reality. When asked how they relate to such, you deflect and obfuscate. Apparently, it's perfectly legit to constantly blame other for having no answers, while counting made-up fantasies as relevant "ideas".

Nothing distorted, expect for the ongoing twisting of anything which might cause you to face the issues you avoid.

 

What you describe as "reality" is not. Ajlkjlkj the things you listed aren't "real.

 

There is no single-state. Israel's actions do not occur in a vacuum, but are related to those of the Palestinians. How this imaginary scenario will go down - it's not real, either. It didn't even happen. It may not happen at all. Or it may happen otherwise. Not reality.

 

The same goes for the supposed "Trump's initiative". What initiative? Any specific details on what is actually discussed? (If at all). While you seem to have a lot of strong opinions about Israeli political trends, hardly any input on how Palestinians see things. Again, not reality.

 

The times are changing, but your nonsense posts do not. If Abbas does not represent the Palestinians, or even the majority of the Palestinians, what is the value of signing agreements with him, knowing he'll be out of office in a short while? What is the value of your "sage" opinion, if the reluctance from separate negotiations is shared by both Israel and the PA? Who are the "Gazans"? Are they a separate entity? Does Hamas have no presence and support in the West Bank? Do the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip have a viable democratic way of dislodging the Hamas? Or the interest in doing so? Hard to take you seriously when you exhibit such lack of insight. There were always "separate" talks, ever since Hamas's ascent. One of the reasons not much came out of them is exactly because of this - the PA lacks political and popular support, and has no way to guarantee Hamas's acceptance of terms.

 

There is no "its all too hard lets be realistic approach". That's either failed reading comprehension or intentionally being obtuse. That you constantly try to pin this as relevant to my posts just shows the desperation.

 

It was already agreed that from an international PR point of view, the legislation is a bad move. It was also explained how in terms of domestic politics and support, it fits rather well with Netanyahu & Co.'s narrative. That this path (preference of domestic political gain over actual national interest) is taken, is nothing new.

 

Going back to reality - there are no peace talks. They haven't even failed yet. And this hypothetical failure was not even attributed to the Israeli side. And that hypothetical failure didn't cause any hypothetical annexation. But that doesn't stop you from asserting the conclusion, which implies the relevance of the BDS. That is not talking about facts, or reality.

 

But as it often does, everything is outed in the last bit (as was with the post that originated this tiresome series of deflections) and we come, once more, to the crux. The BDS (or at least, your version of it) is not about a two-state solution, nor does it stop there. The ultimate goal is to  dismantle the State of Israel. The foundations for the next chapter are outlined. Thanks for making my point.

I am wasting my time continuing talking to a brick wall, and probably upsetting the mods as we drift off topic.

I have answered your points several times, then you dish them up again, and pilpul away I think simply for the sake of hot air.

 

So back on topic, referring to BDS and your last paragraph.

>>The BDS (or at least, your version of it) is not about a two-state solution, nor does it stop there. The ultimate goal is to  dismantle the State of Israel. The foundations for the next chapter are outlined. Thanks for making my point.

 

..Sheer hyperbole and fake facts. I suggest you read the BDS aims.

"1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; 
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Goals_of_the_campaign

 

There is nothing in the BDS aims which would dismantle the State of Israel or prevent a two state solution. 

1. Return to 67 borders incl land swaps
2. End discriminatory laws and practices against Israeli Palestinian citizens.
3. In every peace initiative I am aware of, a combination of a token return of Palestinian refugees and compensation for the rest would address this goal.

 

In fact from your previous outline above of an ideal 2 state solution, you would appear to agree with BDS's goals. Or do tell us which ones of the 3 you disagree with.

Edited March 12, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am wasting my time continuing talking to a brick wall, and probably upsetting the mods as we drift off topic.

I have answered your points several times, then you dish them up again, and pilpul away I think simply for the sake of hot air.

 

So back on topic, referring to BDS and your last paragraph.

>>The BDS (or at least, your version of it) is not about a two-state solution, nor does it stop there. The ultimate goal is to  dismantle the State of Israel. The foundations for the next chapter are outlined. Thanks for making my point.

 

..Sheer hyperbole and fake facts. I suggest you read the BDS aims.

"1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; 
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Goals_of_the_campaign

 

There is nothing in the BDS aims which would dismantle the State of Israel or prevent a two state solution. 

1. Return to 67 borders incl land swaps
2. End discriminatory laws and practices against Israeli Palestinian citizens.
3. In every peace initiative I am aware of, a combination of a token return of Palestinian refugees and compensation for the rest would address this goal.

 

In fact from your previous outline above of an ideal 2 state solution, you would appear to agree with BDS's goals. Or do tell us which ones of the 3 you disagree with.

 

This does get old. You raise an off-topic issue, rant on and on about it, then cop out with claims of off-topic. You haven't answered anything, but deflected and obfuscated as usual.

 

No realistic, practical or well grounded ideas on how to bring about and maintain a peaceful one-state solution. Lack of reference to anything objectively relating to the Palestinian positions and situation. Nothing which demonstrates how the sort of rhetoric or views touted is conductive to better relations between the sides.

 

It would appear that you are set to ignore something often stated, and (if memory serves) even appearing on the general Wikipedia value. That is, the BDS, being a decentralized effort, hosts all sorts of opinions. Some more extreme than others. This serves to create both an inclusive environment (and thus, bolstering numbers) and as a handy deflection tool for PR purposes.

 

I do not, in fact, agree with the BDS goals, kindly cease the lame trolling. Go co-opt some politician or the other, as you do, instead. If the goals of the BDS do not stop with Palestinian statehood, but rather expand to re-defining Israel, then yes - it does come down to dismantling the State of Israel. I dunno if all supporters of BDS are into that, I'm sure you do. Wrap it out in whatever shiny paper you like. Fooling no one. 

 

With regard to the very limited realization of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return - you may find that while offers were made, ideas floated and figures aired - there was no actual agreement. In most negotiations where this came up, the Palestinian leadership and representatives were unwilling to commit. It might seem the logical way to go, but very problematic when it comes to Palestinian domestic politics. As opposed to your absent rendering, the Palestinian side is just as shackled by it's own rhetoric, hardliners and petty political survival considerations.

 

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

This does get old. You raise an off-topic issue, rant on and on about it, then cop out with claims of off-topic. You haven't answered anything, but deflected and obfuscated as usual.

 

No realistic, practical or well grounded ideas on how to bring about and maintain a peaceful one-state solution. Lack of reference to anything objectively relating to the Palestinian positions and situation. Nothing which demonstrates how the sort of rhetoric or views touted is conductive to better relations between the sides.

 

It would appear that you are set to ignore something often stated, and (if memory serves) even appearing on the general Wikipedia value. That is, the BDS, being a decentralized effort, hosts all sorts of opinions. Some more extreme than others. This serves to create both an inclusive environment (and thus, bolstering numbers) and as a handy deflection tool for PR purposes.

 

I do not, in fact, agree with the BDS goals, kindly cease the lame trolling. Go co-opt some politician or the other, as you do, instead. If the goals of the BDS do not stop with Palestinian statehood, but rather expand to re-defining Israel, then yes - it does come down to dismantling the State of Israel. I dunno if all supporters of BDS are into that, I'm sure you do. Wrap it out in whatever shiny paper you like. Fooling no one. 

 

With regard to the very limited realization of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return - you may find that while offers were made, ideas floated and figures aired - there was no actual agreement. In most negotiations where this came up, the Palestinian leadership and representatives were unwilling to commit. It might seem the logical way to go, but very problematic when it comes to Palestinian domestic politics. As opposed to your absent rendering, the Palestinian side is just as shackled by it's own rhetoric, hardliners and petty political survival considerations.

 

So, lets get this straight, I give you the referenced wikipedia definition of BDS's goals that I support. But that's not good enough for you. 

 

So you create your more extreme hypothetical straw man version of BDS to attack... with the lame obfuscatory excuse
"BDS, being a decentralized effort, hosts all sorts of opinions. Some more extreme than others."

 "If the goals of the BDS do not stop with Palestinian statehood, but rather expand to re-defining Israel, then yes - it does come down to dismantling the State of Israel."

 

Of course much easier for you to attack your hypothetical alternative fact version than reality ..gimme a break. 

 

Look, if the day comes when Palestinians decide to formally agree to a peace treaty with Israel, be it a two state solution or a one state solution, my activism and that of BDS is done. Who am I or BDS to disagree with Palestinians who are suffering daily the injustice of an Israeli occupation.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, dexterm said:

So, lets get this straight, I give you the referenced wikipedia definition of BDS's goals that I support. But that's not good enough for you. 

 

So you create your more extreme hypothetical straw man version of BDS to attack... with the lame obfuscatory excuse
"BDS, being a decentralized effort, hosts all sorts of opinions. Some more extreme than others."

 "If the goals of the BDS do not stop with Palestinian statehood, but rather expand to re-defining Israel, then yes - it does come down to dismantling the State of Israel."

 

Of course much easier for you to attack your hypothetical alternative fact version than reality ..gimme a break. 

 

Look, if the day comes when Palestinians decide to formally agree to a peace treaty with Israel, be it a two state solution or a one state solution, my activism and that of BDS is done. Who am I or BDS to disagree with Palestinians who are suffering daily the injustice of an Israeli occupation.

 

If by "not good enough" you mean "not believe", yeah. But that's something learned from long acquaintance with your posts and posting style.

 

I did not create any straw man. It's all right there. Skip down to the part referring to criticism, and look things up again (as if this is the first time this topic is discussed...). BDS activists deflecting criticism regarding unsavory or non-PC views as representing only personal opinions of supporters, or rarely taking responsibility for such elements involvement. It is a fact that there are different views within the movement, and that some are more extreme than others. 

 

And I was directly referring to what you posted and linked. Again, all right there. According to both your version and the quoted BDS creed, the good fight doesn't stop with Palestinian statehood. It also claims to take up another supposed cause,  that of Israel's Arab minority. If my reading of BDS literature and propaganda is not terribly out of date, this is usually translated into imagining Israel as something other that a national home for the Jewish people. Or in other words, re-defining Israel.
 

Your last bit does not fit with what you claim the BDS goals are. Especially when it comes to a two-state solution. It also doesn't fit with things posted in the past. Or with your "current" narrative of a one-state solution.

 

So no, no break given.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If by "not good enough" you mean "not believe", yeah. But that's something learned from long acquaintance with your posts and posting style.

 

I did not create any straw man. It's all right there. Skip down to the part referring to criticism, and look things up again (as if this is the first time this topic is discussed...). BDS activists deflecting criticism regarding unsavory or non-PC views as representing only personal opinions of supporters, or rarely taking responsibility for such elements involvement. It is a fact that there are different views within the movement, and that some are more extreme than others. 

 

And I was directly referring to what you posted and linked. Again, all right there. According to both your version and the quoted BDS creed, the good fight doesn't stop with Palestinian statehood. It also claims to take up another supposed cause,  that of Israel's Arab minority. If my reading of BDS literature and propaganda is not terribly out of date, this is usually translated into imagining Israel as something other that a national home for the Jewish people. Or in other words, re-defining Israel.
 

Your last bit does not fit with what you claim the BDS goals are. Especially when it comes to a two-state solution. It also doesn't fit with things posted in the past. Or with your "current" narrative of a one-state solution.

 

So no, no break given.

I tell you the 3 goals I support in BDS. You say you don't believe me. Clearly, your problem not mine.

 

You have indeed created a straw man ..your words "If the goals of the BDS do not stop with Palestinian statehood" was a dead giveaway...and then point to your so called proof of BDS insincerity laughably as a string of Zionists such as..

Gil Troy  author of the book "Why I am a Zionist"
Alan Dershowitz  a very nasty piece of work and arch Zionist , who once advised Lidice type reprisals for Palestinian resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Criticism

 

Just an attempt to besmirch and censor BDS. Any legitmate criticism of Israeli policies suddenly becomes demonization or anti semitism.

Edited March 12, 2017 by dexterm
typo

[sirineou]

 

On 3/6/2017 at 7:12 PM, ezzra said:

 

Long overdue act, should have been implemented many years ago, I don't know of any other country in the whole wide world that will keep silence and allow bad mouthing, calling for boycotts, derogative  remarks and acts against a country and still will be allowed to be a welcome guest in that country...

 

LOL

I hope Thailand don't enact the same.  TVF will loose 75% of it's membership.

Edited March 12, 2017 by sirineou

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies, reported and removed.   I think we can stop with the history lessons.   Stick to the current topic, please.  

[Morch]

13 hours ago, dexterm said:

I tell you the 3 goals I support in BDS. You say you don't believe me. Clearly, your problem not mine.

 

You have indeed created a straw man ..your words "If the goals of the BDS do not stop with Palestinian statehood" was a dead giveaway...and then point to your so called proof of BDS insincerity laughably as a string of Zionists such as..

Gil Troy  author of the book "Why I am a Zionist"
Alan Dershowitz  a very nasty piece of work and arch Zionist , who once advised Lidice type reprisals for Palestinian resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Criticism

 

Just an attempt to besmirch and censor BDS. Any legitmate criticism of Israeli policies suddenly becomes demonization or anti semitism.

 

There are differences between your version of BDS goals and the quoted BDS goals. The quoted version does not refer to the 1967 lines or even to Palestinian territories, but to "all Arab lands". There is no mention of land swaps, and the physical barrier between the sides is to be dismantled. These goals could be interpreted in more than one way. The second "precept" is aimed at fundamentally changing the character of Israel as a Jewish national home, which was the core purpose of its creation. On the so-called Palestinian Right of Return bit, again, the quoted version does not refer to "token", but rather to the full blown variety. Hence, two issues present:

Taken as a whole, the quoted BDS goals do indicate it aims to re-define Israel, rather than limiting itself to promoting Palestinian statehood. The other issue relates to the gaps discussed above between your claimed position and the quoted BDS goals. Such gaps serve to highlight the point made earlier, with regard to the BDS movement nature as somewhat of an "ideological supermarket".

 

The last part of your post is incoherent, at best. Editing troubles, again? Selectively quoting from sources is a bit of thing with you, but honestly, going on about straw man, then bringing up antisemitism, when this wasn't even mentioned in my posts, does take the cake. Well done.

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

 

LOL

I hope Thailand don't enact the same.  TVF will loose 75% of it's membership.

 

Foreigners can be denied entry to Thailand if passing overt criticism or showing disrespect with regard to certain issues and institutions. Forum rules even allude to such. To which level these things are enforced is another matter.