[wat0n]

As I said you can backpedal on your statements and deny your ever made them, it is completely inconsequential to me as the argument matters and not kicking you when you 're down.

If the argument is what matters, then what about you stop the constant straw man fallacies and address my arguments as they are?

You said that Israel should compensate the victims for their properties and withdraw from the occupied territories when Hamas sits on the table. Hamas did sit on the table, so I understand that you are now a proponent of complete Israeli withdrawal and the compensation of Palestinian victims then? Or are you going to backpedal that one now?

Since when did I say Israel should withdraw from the territories as soon as Hamas sits on the table? Again, if you care about the argument, then I hope you stop distorting mine.

And how do you know Hamas actually sat on the table with Israel if neither they nor the Israelis confirm anything on the matter? You don't know that.

[noemon]

If the argument is what matters, then what about you stop the constant straw man fallacies and address my arguments as they are?

As long as we both agree that Palestinians are no longer responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has, we' re all good. Unless you backpedal once again, no-one can know with you. As it is evidently clear:

Since when did I say Israel should withdraw from the territories as soon as Hamas sits on the table?

The threshold in that case would be that Hamas sits to the negotiating table. That would provide some guarantees that it has softened its position.

In response to this:

So no justice for Palestinians, no compensation, the continuation of their mistreatment until they seize funding their own government, so I am guessing you need them to say that they will seize paying any taxes to their government? What is the threshold exactly here?

And how do you know Hamas actually sat on the table with Israel if neither they nor the Israelis confirm anything on the matter? You don't know that.

Because it is stated clearly on the article I provided and because Hamas did not deny anything, Israel did, which means that Israel is the one not sitting on the table, which is irrelevant to your argument.

[wat0n]

As long as we both agree that Palestinians are no longer responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has, we' re all good. Unless you backpedal once again, no-one can know with you. As it is evidently clear:

In response to this:

And how again can you deduce that I said Israel should withdraw if Hamas negotiates directly with Israel? Particularly since we were talking about compensation for lost properties, you know.

What about you stop misrepresenting what I have said?

Because it is stated clearly on the article I provided and because Hamas did not deny anything, Israel did, which means that Israel is the one not sitting on the table, which is irrelevant to your argument.

The only thing the article states is that there were reports that direct negotiations were taking place, but no actual confirmation was provided. Indeed, Israel denied such talks were taking place as it is also stated in RT's article.

[noemon]

And how again can you deduce that I said Israel should withdraw if Hamas negotiates directly with Israel? Particularly since we were talking about compensation for lost properties, you know.

Why are you quoting the compensation argument and arguing for the withdrawal instead? is it so you can backpedal again?

As long as we both agree that Palestinians are no longer responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has, we' re all good. Unless you backpedal once again, no-one can know with you.

What about you stop misrepresenting what I have said?

How about you make up your own mind and stop contradicting yourself from post to post? And how about you are reminded what you were replying to:

So no justice for Palestinians, no compensation, the continuation of their mistreatment

The continuation of their mistreatment refers to their plight under occupation in the OPT, to the withdrawals of the Israeli military and basically to the implementation of the UN resolutions as it is clear from all the preceding posts.

To that you said that if Hamas sits on the table and shows some goodwill, you would agree for Israel to...abide by UN resolutions which explicitly call for all these matters to be implemented.

But in your web of non-sense, no-one can be sure with you about anything.

Regardless, I am asking you explicitly, do we agree on that Palestinians are no longer responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has?

Yes to no?

Indeed, Israel denied such talks were taking place as it is also stated in RT's article.

Hamas did not deny, nor did it deny Fatah's accusation, nor did it deny Blair's statements. Which means that Hamas sits on the table.

[wat0n]

Why are you quoting the compensation argument and arguing for the withdrawal instead? is it so you can backpedal again?

No, I just don't like when you set up straw men.

How about you make up your own mind and stop contradicting yourself from post to post?

Of course you are going to claim that if you aren't addressing my arguments but your characterization of them.

And how about you are reminded what you were replying to:

The continuation of their mistreatment refers to their plight under occupation in the OPT, to the withdrawals of the Israeli military and basically to the implementation of the UN resolutions as it is clear from all the preceding posts.

Funny that you choose to define it in that way now, given that we were discussing your comparison of Israeli policy with those of Ibrahim Pasha's regime.

To that you said that if Hamas sits on the table and shows some goodwill, you would agree for Israel to...abide by UN resolutions which explicitly call for all these matters to be implemented.

No, I said explicitly I was referring to compensation for property rights since we were talking about that.

Regardless, I am asking you explicitly, do we agree on that Palestinians are no longer responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has?

I actually think the responsibility to compensate Israelis in this case falls on Jordan since it came to occupy the area. The issue of compensation should be settled regionally.

As I said, I understand why Israelis may find the fact that it seems that only some people will be compensated but not others is unfair, and why there may be resistance to providing compensation outside the framework of a general agreement. But practical reasons matter too, and in any event Palestinians cannot be blamed for what the Jordanians did during their occupation of the West Bank.

Hamas did not deny, nor did it deny Fatah's accusation, nor did it deny Blair's statements. Which means that Hamas sits on the table.

There was no comment by Hamas on the reports, at least not on RT's article. Indeed, that was during the war in 2014, during a rather fragile truce that broke down.

[noemon]

No, I just don't like when you set up straw men.

I understand that you do not like when I trash your straw-men, but hey c' est la vie.

By quoting this:

As long as we both agree that Palestinians are no longer responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has, we' re all good. Unless you backpedal once again, no-one can know with you.

And replying with this:

And how again can you deduce that I said Israel should withdraw if Hamas negotiates directly with Israel? Particularly since we were talking about compensation for lost properties, you know.

I know, it appears that you do not.

You were attempting to set up a straw-man, and when you failed you started crying again.

Funny that you choose to define it in that way now, given that we were discussing your comparison of Israeli policy with those of Ibrahim Pasha's regime.

And we saw that Israel is worse that the butcher Ibrahim pasha who did deliver justice to the Jews unlike Israel in 2016.

No, I said explicitly I was referring to compensation for property rights since we were talking about that.

So you are saying that you disagree with Israel ever implementing UN resolutions. And our subject has always been the implementation of international law which is also the thread topic. Your straws to divert it away from there have never really succeeded, nor will they ever.

I actually think the responsibility to compensate Israelis in this case falls on Jordan since it came to occupy the area. The issue of compensation should be settled regionally.

As I said, I understand why Israelis may find the fact that it seems that only some people will be compensated but not others is unfair, and why there may be resistance to providing compensation outside the framework of a general agreement. But practical reasons matter too, and in any event Palestinians cannot be blamed for what the Jordanians did during their occupation of the West Bank.

So you 're saying that Palestinians should not be compensated until Jordan compensates Israel for the properties that the Civil Administration Authority of Israel already owns?

There was no comment by Hamas on the reports, at least not on RT's article. Indeed, that was during the war in 2014, during a rather fragile truce that broke down.

Irrelevant, if Hamas did not want to sit at the table, she would have said so, but she accepted the criticism for doing so, which means that she did sit on the table.

The definitive conclusions we have drawn is that Israel is worse that the regime of the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who did deliver justice to Jews.

[wat0n]

I understand that you do not like when I trash your straw-men, but hey c' est la vie.

Projecting much?

By quoting this:

And replying with this:

I know, it appears that you do not.

You were attempting to set up a straw-man, and when you failed you started crying again.

Please explain how can this answer:

The threshold in that case would be that Hamas sits to the negotiating table. That would provide some guarantees that it has softened its position.

I would also exclude those Palestinians who are members of the armed groups for similar reasons.

The rest of the Palestinians could and must be compensated regardless since it's unlikely they would be taxed by Hamas, and it is necessary to distinguish between the different situations (I don't consider that it's either all or nothing). Israel should start with those living in friendly countries (the West, Egypt and Jordan), see how it works and then extend it to the Palestinian population of the West Bank as well.

It should be noted, too, that Israel did offer compensation in the '50s but only as a part of a final status agreement, as it regarded it necessary and fair that Jews be compensated as well. I think a similar sentiment drives the current Israeli position that compensation should come in the wake of final status talks - which does have a point as far as justice is concerned (if it's all about fairness, compensation should be provided to everyone, right?), even if I don't quite agree with it (for practical considerations, including the fact that this would need to be part of a regional arrangement, the fact that the wider Arab world is currently collapsing and unable to provide it for the most part and also that early compensation of Palestinians could also help to improve the situation by signaling Israel is willing to reach a permanent agreement - just like different practical considerations are also why distinctions between Palestinians are drawn in the paragraph above).

...Implies I said Israel should withdraw from the West Bank as soon as Hamas sits at the negotiating table with it.

Selective reading is strong in you - just another kind of straw man. And a pretty poor one.

And we saw that Israel is worse that the butcher Ibrahim pasha who did deliver justice to the Jews unlike Israel in 2016.

I am surprised you saw anything at all given your inability to address arguments as they are, without setting straw men up.

So you are saying that you disagree with Israel ever implementing UN resolutions. And our subject has always been the implementation of international law which is also the thread topic. Your straws to divert it away from there have never really succeeded, nor will they ever.

I don't see eye to eye with many Israeli policies for sure (settlements chiefly among them), but I'm not sure of how you deduced this from comments regarding compensation over property rights.

So you 're saying that Palestinians should not be compensated until Jordan compensates Israel for the properties that the Civil Administration Authority of Israel already owns?

No, what I'm saying is that I understand why many Israelis may demand that compensation be given either to everyone or to no one.

What I do believe is what I quoted above, which can summarized as: Israel should still compensate Palestinians even if Jordan is liable for expelling the Jews who lived in the West Bank before the 1948, subject to making sure the money will not end in Hamas' and other Palestinian armed groups' coffers.

I'd have to check why the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Israel cannot restitute or compensate Israelis who owned property in Hebron before 1948 (unlike you, I actually prefer to read the court rulings in a non-selective way before commenting on them), but the fact that it did makes me believe that the issue is more complex than it seems.

Irrelevant, if Hamas did not want to sit at the table, she would have said so, but she accepted the criticism for doing so, which means that she did sit on the table.

Or maybe instead of issuing a statement, they simply answered with the deed: By resuming the fight against Israel on the very same day.

The definitive conclusions we have drawn is that Israel is worse that the regime of the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who did deliver justice to Jews.

That is surely the conclusion you have drawn, and which you had likely drawn even before reading this thread: Since you selectively read the sources and engage in constant straw men, you just leave everything that doesn't fit your preconceived prejudice out of the analysis. After all, it is always easier to do that than to rethink and revise your stances.

The funny thing is, I actually used to be much less supportive of Israel until the Gaza withdrawal in 2005 (I was 17 at the time, so I wasn't as informed as I should have been). After seeing how Israel withdrew both soldiers and settlers on the news, I informed myself better about the conflict and Israel itself precisely because it went against my preconceived beliefs on the matter, especially after reaching adulthood. And so my opinion changed, though even then I'd probably be a centrist or center leftist in Israel.

Needless to say, the real world is more complex than your stance of petty morality is able to acknowledge.

[noemon]

Please explain how can this answer:..Implies I said Israel should withdraw from the West Bank as soon as Hamas sits at the negotiating table with it.

a) This answer has been responded to with this statement:

As long as we both agree that Palestinians are not responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has.

Which does not make any implication that you talked about withdrawal.

However:
b) Your answer is in response to:

So no justice for Palestinians, no compensation, the continuation of their mistreatment until they seize funding their own government, so I am guessing you need them to say that they will seize paying any taxes to their government? What is the threshold exactly here?

So your answer is pretending to address the entirety of the injustice, but clearly it does not, it merely pretended to by setting up 2 conditions:

1) The Israeli injustice will seize only if Hamas sit on the negotiating table, which it already has and even though International Law Application has nothing to do with an agreement between 2 states.
2) If the Palestinians provide compensation to Jews, for properties that Israel already administers under the Civil Authority.

since we were talking about that.

Look at the bold part in my quote above.

As I said, I understand why Israelis may find the fact that it seems that only some people will be compensated but not others is unfair

This is contradictory because Israel owns the properties of the Jews, neither Palestinians nor Jordan, and you arguing that compensation to Palestinians is contingent to compensation to Jews from an Israeli perspective is non-sense as Israel controls all the properties to be compensated both the Jewish properties and the Palestinian ones.

By resuming the fight against Israel on the very same day.

Because Israel refused to speak to them as Israel said itself.

That is surely the conclusion you have drawn, and which you had likely drawn even before reading this thread

I was not even aware of these things before you informed me in the previous thread a few days ago. But you are not providing any argument otherwise, which can only lead to one conclusion that Israel is indeed worse than the regime of the butcher Ibrahim Pasha when it comes to delivering justice to victims.

Needless to say, the real world is more complex than your stance of petty morality is able to acknowledge.

Just need to remind you that you are the petty-moralist here, who has attempted numerous times to call upon "anti-semitic" pity in order to evade the reality of the injustice that is going down in Palestine. For me on the other hand the application of international law is not merely a standard of morality which ensures the safe treatment of people around the world, which it does if the signatory states have a shred of self-integrity towards their own signatures, it is also the tool that my very own interests are safeguarded both as a person and those of my own nation and I cannot discount international law just to make you feel better because that would be suicidal to my own self both as a person and in regards to the interests of my nation. You cannot be making morality and self-pity arguments when Israel is brutalizing an entire population to achieve its irredentist interests and you cannot be complaining about "antisemitism" when you fail to provide any evidence for it in so far as Palestinian Sunnis are concerned and especially when the Muslims delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago, while Israel is not doing the bare minimum today. That is a double-standard, which is also fine as long as you are honest about it instead of trying to hide behind petty-moralism.

[wat0n]

a) This answer has been responded to with this statement:

Which does not make any implication that you talked about withdrawal.

And yet you somehow added that I talked about withdrawal. Why?

However:
b) Your answer is in response to:

So your answer is pretending to address the entirety of the injustice, but clearly it does not, it merely pretended to by setting up 2 conditions:

1) The Israeli injustice will seize only if Hamas sit on the negotiating table, which it already has and even though International Law Application has nothing to do with an agreement between 2 states.
2) If the Palestinians provide compensation to Jews, for properties that Israel already administers under the Civil Authority.

I'm truly amazed that you reached that conclusion, particularly that 1) Hamas has sat at the negotiating table with Israel (it hasn't) and 2) that I put Palestinian compensation for Jewish property claims when I said explicitly that I did not put it as a condition.

And you are surprised I am saying you are engaging in straw man fallacies?

This is contradictory because Israel owns the properties of the Jews, neither Palestinians nor Jordan, and you arguing that compensation to Palestinians is contingent to compensation to Jews from an Israeli perspective is non-sense as Israel controls all the properties to be compensated both the Jewish properties and the Palestinian ones.

It was Jordan who expelled them which should entail at the very least compensation for damages, and no, the Israeli Supreme Court seems to believe that it is illegal for the state to restitute or compensate Israelis who owned property in Hebron. Why ignore the Court ruling on the matter, I wonder?

Because Israel refused to speak to them as Israel said itself.

That's not what Israel said. They did not say that they rejected a request to negotiate, they simply said there were no negotiations in place.

I was not even aware of these things before you informed me in the previous thread a few days ago. But you are not providing any argument otherwise, which can only lead to one conclusion that Israel is indeed worse than the regime of the butcher Ibrahim Pasha when it comes to delivering justice to victims.

Except for the fact that you have already decided Israel is the top human rights violator, it doesn't matter who you compare it to when you have decided that.

Just need to remind you that you are the petty-moralist here, who has attempted numerous times to call upon "anti-semitic" pity in order to evade the reality of the injustice that is going down in Palestine. For me on the other hand the application of international law is not merely a standard of morality which ensures the safe treatment of people around the world, which it does if the signatory states have a shred of self-integrity towards their own signatures, it is also the tool that my very own interests are safeguarded both as a person and those of my own nation and I cannot discount international law just to make you feel better because that would be suicidal to my own self both as a person and in regards to the interests of my nation. You cannot be making morality and self-pity arguments when Israel is brutalizing an entire population to achieve its irredentist interests and you cannot be complaining about "antisemitism" when you fail to provide any evidence for it in so far as Palestinian Sunnis are concerned and especially when the Muslims delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago, while Israel is not doing the bare minimum today. That is a double-standard, which is also fine as long as you are honest about it instead of trying to hide behind petty-moralism.

Excuse me? I think I've provided plenty of evidence to back my points up (indeed, even in your own citation there's evidence of my factual claims on the Safed Plunder of 1834). I also find your claims to be upholding international law to be nonsense when you cannot even tell the difference between the Green Line in Cyprus and the one in Israel and the West Bank.

Again, this is just petty morality: You don't even understand what you are talking about, and also can't actually debate me without engaging in constant straw men and selective reading of the third party sources. What about you actually stop that?

[noemon]

And yet you somehow added that I talked about withdrawal. Why?

Not in the text you quoted but in another text. Why did you not quote the correct text, but the incorrect one?
And besides I have replied to why in the text that follows:

I'm truly amazed that you reached that conclusion, particularly that 1) Hamas has sat at the negotiating table with Israel (it hasn't) and 2) that I put Palestinian compensation for Jewish property claims when I said explicitly that I did not put it as a condition. It was Jordan who expelled them which should entail at the very least compensation for damages, and no, the Israeli Supreme Court seems to believe that it is illegal for the state to restitute or compensate Israelis who owned property in Hebron. Why ignore the Court ruling on the matter, I wonder?

Then why are you keep talking about the Israeli court and Jordan in the same argument as to when should Palestinians be compensated? When Palestinians have nothing to do with the Israeli court refusing compensation to Jews or with Jordan?

This is contradictory because Israel owns the properties of the Jews, neither Palestinians nor Jordan, and you arguing that compensation to Palestinians is contingent to compensation to Jews from an Israeli perspective is non-sense as Israel controls all the properties to be compensated both the Jewish properties and the Palestinian ones.

That's not what Israel said. They did not say that they rejected a request to negotiate, they simply said there were no negotiations in place.

Well you can pretend all you like, but you would be silly to assume that anyone in this forum is unable to understand events when by nature Israel can only say that, if their negotiations failed, which is also what you yourself said:

Nothing came out of those, however. Ultimately, the hardliners in all sides prevailed.

For something to have failed, someone has sat on the table.

Of coarse, you are not expected to stand by anything you say at any point, so

Except for the fact that you have already decided Israel is the top human rights violator, it doesn't matter who you compare it to when you have decided that.

Facts are not up for the decision of someone, they just are, Israel has been declared by the UN as the worst UN country regarding human rights, you tried to claim that Turkey is worse, you failed, you tried to attempt to claim that Palestinians hate Jews from supposedly 2 centuries ago and once again you failed as even the butcher Ibrahim Pasha delivered justice to the Jews that Israel refuses to deliver to the Palestinians, so if you believe otherwise and have someone else to blame of being worse in mistreating people, you should go ahead. I did not decide nor did I influence the UN in any way. But it is quite clear that you are now going to go to the insulting insinuations as your arguments have been completely and utterly trashed.

Just need to remind you that you are the petty-moralist here, who has attempted numerous times to call upon "anti-semitic" pity in order to evade the reality of the injustice that is going down in Palestine. For me on the other hand the application of international law is not merely a standard of morality which ensures the safe treatment of people around the world, which it does if the signatory states have a shred of self-integrity towards their own signatures, it is also the tool that my very own interests are safeguarded both as a person and those of my own nation and I cannot discount international law just to make you feel better because that would be suicidal to my own self both as a person and in regards to the interests of my nation. You cannot be making morality and self-pity arguments when Israel is brutalizing an entire population to achieve its irredentist interests and you cannot be complaining about "antisemitism" when you fail to provide any evidence for it in so far as Palestinian Sunnis are concerned and especially when the Muslims delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago, while Israel is not doing the bare minimum today. That is a double-standard, which is also fine as long as you are honest about it instead of trying to hide behind petty-moralism.

[wat0n]

Then why are you keep talking about the Israeli court and Jordan in the same argument as to when should Palestinians be compensated? When Palestinians have nothing to do with the Israeli court refusing compensation to Jews or with Jordan?

Because, as I said, I think the Israeli public would likely be against an agreement in which Palestinians were compensated but Israelis weren't.

As such, and this is the implication you should derive, the issue of compensation goes beyond simply the Palestinians but would have to be treated as a regional one.

Yet this is clearly impractical, so I prefer to see Israel compensating Palestinians as long as doing so would not worsen the security situation (which goes clearly against the ultimate goal of ending the conflict). But what I prefer is one thing, another different thing is what do most Israelis and Palestinians prefer. And I suspect that most Israelis would find this practical solution to be unfair, and let's face it, it would not be without reason.

Well you can pretend all you like, but you would be silly to assume that anyone in this forum is unable to understand events when by nature Israel can only say that, if their negotiations failed, which is also what you yourself said:

For something to have failed, someone has sat on the table.

Of coarse, you are not expected to stand by anything you say at any point, so

On the contrary, the very first stage for a direct negotiation is to hold indirect ones through a third party, which has traditionally been Egypt. Yet Egypt is not in good terms with Hamas (mainly because Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the current Egyptian regime got to power by removing the MB from it, despite being the elected government), and so the effort did not prosper.

Facts are not up for the decision of someone, they just are, Israel has been declared by the UN as the worst UN country regarding human rights, you tried to claim that Turkey is worse, you failed, you tried to attempt to claim that Palestinians hate Jews from supposedly 2 centuries ago and once again you failed as even the butcher Ibrahim Pasha delivered justice to the Jews that Israel refuses to deliver to the Palestinians, so if you believe otherwise and have someone else to blame of being worse in mistreating people, you should go ahead. I did not decide nor did I influence the UN in any way. But it is quite clear that you are now going to go to the insulting insinuations as your arguments have been completely and utterly trashed.

Facts matter indeed, so why refuse to objectively read the sources?

[noemon]

Because, as I said, I think the Israeli public would likely be against an agreement in which Palestinians were compensated but Israelis weren't.

You keep repeating this ridiculous tautology, Israel controls all the properties of afflicted Jews in Israel/Palestine. So how can a sane person blame the Palestinians or refuse them their compensation when Israel has these properties and has used them to build Jewish neighborhoods?

Yet this is clearly impractical, so I prefer to see Israel compensating Palestinians as long as doing so would not worsen the security situation (which goes clearly against the ultimate goal of ending the conflict). But what I prefer is one thing, another different thing is what do most Israelis and Palestinians prefer. And I suspect that most Israelis would find this practical solution to be unfair, and let's face it, it would not be without reason.

It is indeed irrelevant as it all comes down to Israel itself, and if Israel does not care being considered worse than Ibrahim Pasha 2 centuries ago then Israel and its people can at least stop whining.

On the contrary, the very first stage for a direct negotiation is to hold indirect ones through a third party, which has traditionally been Egypt. Yet Egypt is not in good terms with Hamas (mainly because Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the current Egyptian regime got to power by removing the MB from it, despite being the elected government), and so the effort did not prosper.

Neither I nor anybody else cares for trivia, you claimed that Hamas does not sit on the table when she clearly does. Your claim was wrong. The end.

Facts matter indeed, so why refuse to objectively read the sources?

If you come up with an argument let me know.

[wat0n]

You keep repeating this ridiculous tautology, Israel controls all the properties of afflicted Jews in Israel/Palestine. So how can a sane person blame the Palestinians or refuse them their compensation when Israel has these properties and has used them to build Jewish neighborhoods?

Only in limited cases, and indeed as the Supreme Court case shows many of those properties haven't been used to build settlements which is why there have been Israelis going to court to get them back.

It is indeed irrelevant as it all comes down to Israel itself, and if Israel does not care being considered worse than Ibrahim Pasha 2 centuries ago then Israel and its people can at least stop whining.

I very much doubt they find your opinion relevant, noemon. Much less given your inability to properly read the sources.

And why wouldn't Israelis care about getting compensation?

Neither I nor anybody else cares for trivia, you claimed that Hamas does not sit on the table when she clearly does. Your claim was wrong. The end.

Except that Hamas doesn't negotiate with Israel directly, as the actual facts say, rather than your ridiculous misrepresentation of them.

If you come up with an argument let me know.

I've presented many, but why do it when you will selectively read them?

[noemon]

Only in limited cases, and indeed as the Supreme Court case shows many of those properties haven't been used to build settlements which is why there have been Israelis going to court to get them back. And why wouldn't Israelis care about getting compensation?

The number of Jewish neighborhoods built by Israel in the properties of Jews and Arabs are in the article and have also been quoted, but it is still irrelevant, Palestinians cannot give compensation back to Jews when Israel has the properties of the Jews. Are you well in your head?

I very much doubt they find your opinion relevant, noemon.

Well the feelings are mutual, but does not change the fact that Israel refuses to do what the butcher Ibrahim Pasha did 2 centuries ago.
And that is how it will go down in the historical record, regardless.

Except that Hamas doesn't negotiate with Israel directly, as the actual facts say, rather than your ridiculous misrepresentation of them.

Once again irrelevant. You claimed that Hamas does not sit on the table and that is why allegedly compensations cannot be given back----->

But it did sit on the table and you recognized as much yourself, not that your ridiculous apologetics were not already ridiculous but now it goes to show your own inconsistency.

[wat0n]

The number of Jewish neighborhoods built by Israel in the properties of Jews and Arabs are in the article and have also been quoted, but it is still irrelevant, Palestinians cannot give compensation back to Jews when Israel has the properties of the Jews. Are you well in your head?

Again, I did not say Palestinians should compensate Israelis. Did you even read what I wrote or maybe it is you who isn't feeling well?

Well the feelings are mutual, but does not change the fact that Israel refuses to do what the butcher Ibrahim Pasha did 2 centuries ago.
And that is how it will go down in the historical record, regardless.

Do you know what's actually on the record? The fact that you've constantly misrepresented both the third party sources and my positions.

Once again irrelevant. You claimed that Hamas does not sit on the table and that is why allegedly compensations cannot be given back----->

But it did sit on the table and you recognized as much yourself, not that your ridiculous apologetics were not already ridiculous but now it goes to show your own inconsistency.

Please explain how did you deduce that I said Hamas sat at the table when I said it didn't, and indeed the truce with Israel collapsed the very same day the rumors were published.

[noemon]

Again, I did not say Palestinians should compensate Israelis. Did you even read what I wrote or maybe it is you who isn't feeling well?

You can be going around in circles for ever like Maas, it makes absolutely no difference to me.

Why is the compensation of Jewish property controlled by Israel relevant to the compensation of Palestinian property stolen by Israel?
Do you actually believe that anyone reading this is not laughing already?

Do you know what's actually on the record? The fact that you've constantly misrepresented both the third party sources and my positions.

Darling our statements are on the PoFo record for all to see. So I could not care less about your pretensions and absolute lack of argument. The fact that Israel is worse than the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago while Israel is incapable of delivering justice to Palestinian Muslims in 2016 and for the past decades is however registered on the historical record as well as the PoFo record since you brought it here.

Please explain how did you deduce that I said Hamas sat at the table when I said it didn't

c) Haaretz-Hamas Opens Door to Direct Negotiations With Israel,
d) Tony Blair mediates secret Israel-Hamas talks, negotiating end to Gaza siege

Nothing came out of those, however. Ultimately, the hardliners in all sides prevailed.

Negotiations without sitting on a table? I am curious what else are you going to deny. Soon you will start telling us that you are not really wat0n and that all that wat0n has said never actually happened, which leads one to assume that you could either be a multiple account or a multiple personality. Either way it's irrelevant.

[wat0n]

Why is the compensation of Jewish property controlled by Israel relevant to the compensation of Palestinian property stolen by Israel?
Do you actually believe that anyone reading this is not laughing already?

So you still insist on distorting my claims, huh noemon? Will you finally man up and actually address what I think Israel should do?

Anyway, upon occupying the West Bank and taking control of the properties, Jordan should have set up absentee compensation funds (like Israel did with regards to Palestinian property within its territory), needless to say, Jordan did not hand those funds to Israel after the Six Day War. Furthermore, there is the issue of the claims for damages by the people who faced expulsion by Jordan when it took control over the territory, which I assume you agree is not the responsibility of Israel.

And of course, there's the wider issue of the compensation for the properties of the Jews who fled or faced expulsion from other Islamic countries, which is part of what happened.

Darling our statements are on the PoFo record for all to see. So I could not care less about your pretensions and absolute lack of argument. The fact that Israel is worse than the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago while Israel is incapable of delivering justice to Palestinian Muslims in 2016 and for the past decades is however registered on the historical record as well as the PoFo record since you brought it here.

And since it's on the record for all of us to see, it's also on the record that you have constantly misrepresented both my arguments and the third party sources posted here, even your sources.

c) Haaretz-Hamas Opens Door to Direct Negotiations With Israel,

Hamas' political bureau said in response that "direct negotiations with the occupation aren't part of the movement's policies, and aren't on the agenda. This is Hamas' permanent stance." Nevertheless, the response did not reject Abu Marzouk's comments and avoids ruling out future changes to the policy.

Doesn't seem to me like they had sit at the negotiating table.

d) Tony Blair mediates secret Israel-Hamas talks, negotiating end to Gaza siege

Hostilities resumed during the same day.

Negotiations without sitting on a table? I am curious what else are you going to deny. Soon you will start telling us that you are not really wat0n and that all that wat0n has said never actually happened, which leads one to assume that you could either be a multiple account or a multiple personality. Either way it's irrelevant.

As I assume you can see, I was referring to what was stated in the articles:

1) Nothing came out of Abu Marzouk's statement, Hamas did not decide to negotiate with Israel: Hardliners prevailed.

2) Nothing came out of the rumors of mediation by Blair, hostilities resumed during the same day. Again: Hardliners prevailed.

As I also said, and you keep on disregarding for no reason but the fact that you have nothing to answer to it, third party sources tried to get both sides to the negotiating table. In the end they didn't even get close to that as the traditional mediator in indirect talks, Egypt, did not want to have anything to do with Hamas.

[noemon]

Anyway, upon occupying the West Bank and taking control of the properties, Jordan should have set up absentee compensation funds (like Israel did with regards to Palestinian property within its territory), needless to say, Jordan did not hand those funds to Israel after the Six Day War. Furthermore, there is the issue of the claims for damages by the people who faced expulsion by Jordan when it took control over the territory, which I assume you agree is not the responsibility of Israel.
And of course, there's the wider issue of the compensation for the properties of the Jews who fled or faced expulsion from other Islamic countries, which is part of what happened.

I repeat:

Why is the compensation of Jewish property controlled by Israel relevant to the compensation of Palestinian property stolen by Israel?

And are you inferring that Israel has compensated Palestinians through these funds?

Are you also extending your ridiculous claim that stolen Palestinian property is relevant to property of Jews in foreign countries?

And since it's on the record for all of us to see.

Indeed as I said our statements are on the PoFo record for all to see. So I could not care less about your pretensions and absolute lack of argument. The fact that Israel is worse than the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago while Israel is incapable of delivering justice to Palestinian Muslims in 2016 and for the past decades is however registered on the historical record as well as the PoFo record since you brought it here.

Israeli officials have flatly denied the reports. On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying that its policy of non-negotiation with Hamas had not changed.

But there may be some truth to the reports, which have appeared in the Arabic-language press and have received considerable attention in the Israeli media. A senior official in Turkey, an ally of Hamas, told the Hamas daily al-Resalah that an agreement was near, the Times of Israel reported. The official, Yasin Aktay, is an adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and said Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal came to Turkey to brief the Turkish leadership about the agreement.

After three wars in the past six years, Israel and Hamas may have a mutual interest in securing a longer-term truce that will stave off another round of fighting. Hamas would be able to rebuild Gaza — and perhaps restock its arsenal — while the Israelis would get a reprieve from Hamas rockets that is longer than two years.

“It seems to me that Hamas absorbed some [Israeli military] operations, and they’re interested in getting to an arrangement that will allow them to live in Gaza in quiet,” said Ephraim Inbar, the director of Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. “Israel is also interested in a long-term cease-fire.”

As I also said

As you also change your own statements when your hypocrisy is pointed out, you are now changing this one like changing a t-shirt, but the hilarious part is all that is your excuse for not compensating Palestinians for their properties when that policy of non-negotiation is Israeli policy and when allegedly Hamas is to blame that Israel did not compensate Palestinians even before Hamas was founded in 1987 and before it became government in Gaza only, in 2007.

You also believe that changing your statement actually changes the argument too, which is hilarious.

[wat0n]

I repeat:

Why is the compensation of Jewish property controlled by Israel relevant to the compensation of Palestinian property stolen by Israel?

Asked and answered. If you didn't understand the answer, don't be shy to tell me what part didn't you understand.

And are you inferring that Israel has compensated Palestinians thought these funds?

No, but it means Israel has compensation in mind or else it would not have set those funds apart since 1950.

Are you also extending your ridiculous claim that stolen Palestinian property is relevant to property of Jews in foreign countries?

Who says they are in foreign countries? They are Israeli, live in Israel, yet they have property claims outside of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as they were expelled or had to flee as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and they (or their parents or grandparents at this rate) arrived to Israel as refugees, had to live in refugee camps (Ma'abarot), and so on. I'm surprised I even have to explain any of this, I thought it's common knowledge.

Indeed as I said our statements are on the PoFo record for all to see. So I could not care less about your pretensions and absolute lack of argument. The fact that Israel is worse than the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago while Israel is incapable of delivering justice to Palestinian Muslims in 2016 and for the past decades is however registered on the historical record as well as the PoFo record since you brought it here.

No need to repeat the nonsense based on your selective reading.

Israeli officials have flatly denied the reports. On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying that its policy of non-negotiation with Hamas had not changed.

But there may be some truth to the reports, which have appeared in the Arabic-language press and have received considerable attention in the Israeli media. A senior official in Turkey, an ally of Hamas, told the Hamas daily al-Resalah that an agreement was near, the Times of Israel reported. The official, Yasin Aktay, is an adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and said Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal came to Turkey to brief the Turkish leadership about the agreement.

After three wars in the past six years, Israel and Hamas may have a mutual interest in securing a longer-term truce that will stave off another round of fighting. Hamas would be able to rebuild Gaza — and perhaps restock its arsenal — while the Israelis would get a reprieve from Hamas rockets that is longer than two years.

“It seems to me that Hamas absorbed some [Israeli military] operations, and they’re interested in getting to an arrangement that will allow them to live in Gaza in quiet,” said Ephraim Inbar, the director of Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. “Israel is also interested in a long-term cease-fire.”

Just because there may be a mutual long term interest in a ceasefire, it doesn't mean that both sides sat at the negotiating table. There are also other considerations in place, like the fact that the traditional mediator was against these talks and refused to mediate at all.

As you also change your own statements when your hypocrisy is pointed out, you are now changing this one like changing a t-shirt,

No noemon, it's simply that I brought your straw men to the forefront and even you couldn't keep it up so you could gear it down again.

but the hilarious part is all that is your excuse for not compensating Palestinians for their properties when that policy of non-negotiation is Israeli policy and when allegedly Hamas is to blame that Israel did not compensate Palestinians even before Hamas was founded in 1987 and before it became government in Gaza only, in 2007.

That's simply because the PLO and other Palestinian groups that were militarily stronger than they are now (e.g. PFLP) had the same belligerent position towards Israel until the PLO decided to negotiate directly and publicly from 1993.

Were we discussing this issue in, say, 1986 then I would have also stated that many Israelis would have opposed unilateral compensation for the Palestinians due to the same reasons I stated earlier: The possibility that Palestinians would be getting compensation while Israelis who lost their property I'm the West Bank - let alone the wider Islamic world - would not be compensated at all in any agreement, both in terms of their properties' value but also in terms of the damages due to their expulsion.

And, I'd have also said I support doing so anyway, but only to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as it would be harder for the PLO and other similar groups to get access to that money (keeping in mind they literally ran some Palestinian refugee camps in countries like Lebanon for instance) - just like nowadays such money could be given to Palestinians in the West Bank and outside the region but not Gaza simply because the latter could be taxed by Hamas.

So no, I am actually being quite consistent on my reasoning here.

You also believe that changing your statement actually changes the argument too, which is hilarious.

You seem to believe that correcting your misconceptions due to your selective reading of my posts, and further clarifying my arguments in case you try to keep this nonsense up is a change of position or argument

[noemon]

Asked and answered.

Why is the compensation of Jewish property controlled by Israel relevant to the compensation of Palestinian property stolen by Israel?

And are you inferring that Israel has compensated Palestinians thought these funds?

No.

5 points for honesty here.

They are Israeli, live in Israel, yet they have property claims outside of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as they were expelled or had to flee as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and they (or their parents or grandparents at this rate) arrived to Israel as refugees, had to live in refugee camps (Ma'abarot), and so on. I'm surprised I even have to explain any of this, I thought it's common knowledge.

So you 're saying that Palestinians should compensate Jews with property in areas that Israel is(West Bank) or has been occupying(Gaza)? Are any of those Jews you mention expelled as a result of Palestinian actions? Because you know people compensate people when they actually steal their property like Israel has been doing and Palestinians are not responsible for the actions of either Israel or foreign countries.

The 2 instances that Jews were expelled by the Jordanians was the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem which has been rebuilt by Israel and the Gush Etzion (Hebrew: גּוּשׁ עֶצְיוֹן, lit. Etzion Bloc) is a cluster of Jewish settlements located in the Judaean Mountains, directly south of Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the West Bank. The core group includes four Jewish agricultural villages that were founded in 1940-1947 on property purchased in the 1920s and 1930s, and destroyed by the Arab Legion before the outbreak of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in the Kfar Etzion massacre.[1] The area was left outside of Israel with the 1949 armistice lines. These settlements were rebuilt after the 1967 Six-Day War, along with new communities that have expanded the area of the Etzion Bloc.[2]

So you are asking for property that Israel already has and expands as a precondition for compensation to the Palestinians who are as we speak losing their homes?



"Give me what I already have, so I can give you what I have taken yesterday, I am taking today and will take from you tomorrow, but only if you swear that you will not pay taxes to any of your governments, ever."


Does it get any more ridiculous?

No need to repeat the nonsense based on your selective reading.

As long as you repeat nothing, I will repeat the facts:

Indeed as I said our statements are on the PoFo record for all to see. So I could not care less about your pretensions and absolute lack of argument. The fact that Israel is worse than the butcher Ibrahim Pasha who delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries ago while Israel is incapable of delivering justice to Palestinian Muslims in 2016 and for the past decades is however registered on the historical record as well as the PoFo record since you brought it here.

Israeli officials have flatly denied the reports. On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying that its policy of non-negotiation with Hamas had not changed.

But there may be some truth to the reports, which have appeared in the Arabic-language press and have received considerable attention in the Israeli media. A senior official in Turkey, an ally of Hamas, told the Hamas daily al-Resalah that an agreement was near, the Times of Israel reported. The official, Yasin Aktay, is an adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and said Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal came to Turkey to brief the Turkish leadership about the agreement.

After three wars in the past six years, Israel and Hamas may have a mutual interest in securing a longer-term truce that will stave off another round of fighting. Hamas would be able to rebuild Gaza — and perhaps restock its arsenal — while the Israelis would get a reprieve from Hamas rockets that is longer than two years.

“It seems to me that Hamas absorbed some [Israeli military] operations, and they’re interested in getting to an arrangement that will allow them to live in Gaza in quiet,” said Ephraim Inbar, the director of Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. “Israel is also interested in a long-term cease-fire.”

Just because there may be a mutual long term interest in a ceasefire, it doesn't mean that both sides sat at the negotiating table.

The adviser to the Turkish PM clearly says that Hamas and Israel have sat on the table and that he briefed the Turkish PM of the negotiations...at the table.

No noemon, it's simply that I brought your straw men to the forefront and even you couldn't keep it up so you could gear it down again.

As I said you are either an account managed by multiple people or you have multiple personalities, because no-one I know can retract most of this statements from post to post and pretend that he never made them, it is my daily comic relief and I'm thoroughly enjoying watching you.

but the hilarious part is all that is your excuse for not compensating Palestinians for their properties when that policy of non-negotiation is Israeli policy and when allegedly Hamas is to blame that Israel did not compensate Palestinians even before Hamas was founded in 1987 and before it became government in Gaza only, in 2007.

And, I'd have also said I support doing so anyway, but only to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as it would be harder for the PLO and other similar groups to get access to that money (keeping in mind they literally ran some Palestinian refugee camps in countries like Lebanon for instance) - just like nowadays such money could be given to Palestinians in the West Bank and outside the region but not Gaza simply because the latter could be taxed by Hamas.

First Hamas, then the PLO, then everybody. "They should get their monies, but not as long as they pay taxes to their governments."

So no, I am actually being quite consistent on my reasoning here.

Sure whatever you say bruv.