Does US Money fuel the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15101154
It's not about me, but about the people who live there who are living under military rule and apartheid.

Including the free-Zionists of the land, who don't agree with this further open theft of occupied-Palestinian territory planned for next month.




The way you speak, is as though things will always be this way. That doesn't happen anywhere.

Metoo wrote:Palestinian Arabs have been given a chance to have their own country, as late as 2008 and several times since 2000. They could have had it any time since 1967 also.


This is hasbara/bullshit. Palestinians agreed to giving up 55% of their country to the Zionist thieves/invaders and it wasn't enough so you stole an extra 28% in 1967 and today control 100% of what was meant to be Palestinian territory according to international laws.

Because, again, all Zionists wanted is land belonging to others, not peace like they tell the newspapers. If they wanted the latter, given their upper hand and other power, they would've conceded to Palestinian's offer of 78% of their land, leaving them with 22% of historic Palestine. But Zionist greed and theft knows no bounds, so here we are, 72 years later.

But now, the Muslim Palestinian Arabs will be excluded from this club. Pity!


You say that, but I'm not sure what are you plan to do to 6 million Palestinians who live there. Maybe go full Nazi?





A victim of her home-stolen by Zionists in 2014 just died.
#15101249
skinster wrote:It's not about me, but about the people who live there who are living under military rule and apartheid.


Sure…sure. An apartheid...LOL! You do not know the meaning of the word. I told you a while ago, skinster, you can’t have it both ways, - you can’t cry ‘bloody murder’, while trying to do the ‘bloody murder’! When will you lean?

Let me try again to enlighten you…

If ‘your people’ want self-determination, then they should listen and do what they are told. The reason I am saying it this way, which is, I admit, rather harsh, is because guys like me are sick and tired of taking up weapons in order to have a place I call home. ‘Your people’ can say the same, and they did… and still do. No problem, but what they call home is what I call home.

When ‘your people’ are given an opportunity to run their own affairs, they run whatever place they have INTO THE GROUND! WHILE TAKING OTHERS ALONG WITH THEM. Want examples? I hope not…

So, yes, they must do what they are told, because the ‘better’ way is yet to be discovered. If they were to do what they are told, then there is hope that over time they just might learn how to ‘play’ well with others and then we all be happy. Otherwise people like me have to take up weapons and force your people to be ‘nice’ OK?

I am not here to discuss with you who is right and who is wrong. I know I am right. And you know that ‘your people’ are right. Fine. My people have offered many compromises in the past. Do I really have to spell it out to you, or can you avail yourselves of a search engine. Goggle it damn it! ‘Your people’ respond with violence.

So, - here we are in a confrontation. I am sick and tired of beating your people up. I had done it in two major conflicts and I am not too old to do it again. We fight because of ‘your people’ intransigence. Get it?

Don’t you understand that from where I stand, ‘your people’ can only accept me dead! Nothing less than my untimely demise will satisfy the general public of Palestinian Arabs.

Tell me, what do I do with this? How do you want me to handle such a dilemma?

I like the Roman approach to this, even thou I am no longer in uniform.
But in all confrontations there are winners and losers. ‘Your people’ lose all the time. I am sick and tired to fight with them. Because we do not fight to win, we fight to contain. We hope that one day your people will ‘see’ the light and will settle with us. However, with appointment of General Kochavi, that is changing as we speak. I am happy. You will not be. Annexation is just but one step in THAT direction, - to win!

I warned you more than a year ago that this day is coming. And it is almost here.

skinster wrote:Palestinians agreed to giving up 55% of their country to the Zionist thieves/invaders and it wasn't enough so you stole an extra 28% in 1967 and today control 100% of what was meant to be Palestinian territory according to international laws.

Because, again, all Zionists wanted is land belonging to others, not peace like they tell the newspapers. If they wanted the latter, given their upper hand and other power, they would've conceded to Palestinian's offer of 78% of their land, leaving them with 22% of historic Palestine. But Zionist greed and theft knows no bounds, so here we are, 72 years later.


LOL! Prove it! You are making things up! I challenge you to prove it. Go back to Balfour Declaration, then to St. Remo, then to White paper. Israel had been partitioned 4 times! Arabs got 22 countries, - all created in the same time as Israel. Not enough? You want a country number 23?

Zionists want the land that is historically Jewish and they want security. Muslim Arabs can live there, no problem, and they do in great numbers. What they cannot do is to kill me. They cannot change my country into an Arab state for Arabs only. Mr. Abbas already said that no Jew can ever reside in Palestine!

Look around the Middle East. Can a Jew live anywhere except Israel? Can a Jew live in Jordan or Saudi Arabia or the Emirates without a fear for his/her life? There are some exception to this like Morocco or even modern Tunisia, but those are exceptions not the rule. You want Israel to turn into Palestine and then the Jews, the original settlers of the land with over 5000 years of history in that land would have to depart, like they departed form Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, etc.

skinster wrote:You say that, but I'm not sure what are you plan to do to 6 million Palestinians who live there. Maybe go full Nazi?


Ya, right talk to me about the Nazis! Tell you what, if it ever comes to choose between ‘my people’ versus yours, which is what ‘your people’ have been forcing me choose for the past 30 years, I won’t like it, but yes, the example of 6 million will never be repeated again. It is the struggle that your people are not equipped to sustain or to fight. As one Israeli Prime Minister said many, many years ago, “we no longer have existential threats, we only have problems…” Bottom line is this, - ‘you people’ do not have much time left…
#15101351








For those unsure about the situation, Glenn Greenwald explains it well:


Metoo wrote:Sure…sure. An apartheid...LOL!


It is an apartheid state. If there wasn't apartheid, Palestinians would be under civil and equal rule like the free Zionists, not under military rule which restricts and/or denies their civil rights. But apartheid is just a word for segregation and discrimination based on race so why pretend that's not happening? :eh: Did you notice the illegal settlements in the West Bank are Jewish-only? The Jewish-only roads? The civic rule Jews in the land live under compared to what Palestinians are oppressed with? (military rule).

I mean, some of your own folks are admitting it finally, even though apartheid in Israel has been a thing for decades already.


Let me try again to enlighten you…


None of your opinion is enlightening, you're just basically crying and justifying Zionist crimes against humanity. The humanity in this case, being Palestinians and other non-Zionists who live there.

guys like me are sick and tired of taking up weapons in order to have a place I call home.


Maybe you should've stayed at home instead moving hundreds/thousands of miles onto someone else's home? Palestinian response is not only justified, but is exactly how you would react if you had your home stolen from you: you'd want it back. Anyone in this position would. But at this stage they're saying YOU CAN STAY HERE AND HAVE MOST(78%) OF THE LAND, JUST LET US LIVE TOO.

When ‘your people’ are given an opportunity to run their own affairs, they run whatever place they have INTO THE GROUND! WHILE TAKING OTHERS ALONG WITH THEM. Want examples? I hope not…


When Palestinians have tried to run their own affairs, you've murdered the revolutionary amongst them and elevated theocratic versions or those who act like sub-contractors for the Zionist entity.

So, yes, they must do what they are told, because the ‘better’ way is yet to be discovered. If they were to do what they are told, then there is hope that over time they just might learn how to ‘play’ well with others and then we all be happy. Otherwise people like me have to take up weapons and force your people to be ‘nice’ OK?


This isn't a kindergarten class you're teaching, you nerd.

I am not here to discuss with you who is right and who is wrong. I know I am right.


It's easy for you to ignore the rights and wrongs, since you're firmly in the camp of those doing the wrongdoing. For 72 years running, getting worse as time goes on.

Do I really have to spell it out to you, or can you avail yourselves of a search engine. Goggle it damn it! ‘Your people’ respond with violence.


Not sure why you think I need schooling from a Zionist, but your attempts to patronise me are amusing at least. Maybe you should read your own historians, like Ilan Pappe, or Benny Morris (before he changed lanes), or maybe the early Zionists who were very clear about their aims and their dehumanization of Palestinians, who they referred to as "beasts", amongst other fash-y statements.

He's cool.


So, - here we are in a confrontation. I am sick and tired of beating your people up. I had done it in two major conflicts and I am not too old to do it again. We fight because of ‘your people’ intransigence. Get it?


You are a war criminal too? What a surprise.

Don’t you understand that from where I stand, ‘your people’ can only accept me dead! Nothing less than my untimely demise will satisfy the general public of Palestinian Arabs.


Actually Palestinians said they'd accept 22% of the land and 78% could go to the Zionists; the lesser people population-wise and morality-wise.

Tell me, what do I do with this? How do you want me to handle such a dilemma?


You can start by joining Boycott from Within? There are a bunch of Jewish peace groups too, albeit they are small, but by the way Israel acts, they seem to be growing. I mean, look at the protests against this theft of further land that's planned to take place next month, that was thousands of Zionists.

Once the boomers die out, Israel's future is not going to be very bright and there'll be even less people supporting the apartheid entity, especially now that there is a worldwide uprising against racism with the Black Lives Matter movement.


More here:


I warned you more than a year ago that this day is coming. And it is almost here.


What, you warned me of something I knew has been planned for decades? Thanks for that. :lol:

LOL! Prove it! You are making things up! I challenge you to prove it. Go back to Balfour Declaration, then to St. Remo, then to White paper. Israel had been partitioned 4 times! Arabs got 22 countries, - all created in the same time as Israel. Not enough? You want a country number 23?


:eh:

The Balfour Declaration stated:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I've highlighted the bit the Zionists like you ignore(d). But also we know they planned to take all the land anyway just like Palestinians at the time who resisted knew; this fake-agreement was just to get their thieving feet through the door.

Muslim Arabs can live there, no problem, and they do in great numbers. What they cannot do is to kill me.


Looks like it's one side that's doing much of the torture, displacement, murder and massacres, including more recently every weekend where protesters - mainly children - were shot in the eyes and limbs and outright executed for demanding human rights.

They cannot change my country into an Arab state for Arabs only.


Palestine is an Arab country and the Arabs within the land were Muslims, Jews and Christians. You moving over doesn't stop it from being an Arab country. Anyone who visits knows it's an Arab country. Anyway what happened to your ilk claiming you invented hummus? Not feeling very Arab anymore? :excited:

Look around the Middle East. Can a Jew live anywhere except Israel?


Yes, actually. Jews live all over the ME. Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the ME. Muslims don't have problems with Jews - they've lived together for hundreds of years - they have problems with Zionists, which any fair-minded person ought to.

You want Israel to turn into Palestine


"Israel" is Palestine. These aren't different countries, they're the same thing. It was Palestine, then Zionist terrorism gangs invaded, ethnically cleansed the land and stole Palestine, then re-named it "Israel" because of some fairytale biblical stories that don't prove any history of Jews owning Palestine. If they did, those Jews descendants would be the Palestinians you oppress today.

Ya, right talk to me about the Nazis!


Israel is a proto-fascist state (that's me being kind btw) and aligns with fascists on various continents. Did you miss that? Maybe stop acting like fash and people won't refer to you as a fash-y state. So far people are kind with their words, using language like 'pariah' to refer to Israel. But we know what that means once we delve into what Israel does, how it's a violent and ethnosupremacist state etc.

Maybe aim for equality in the land - all Palestinians are demanding - and you might not be hated? But that would mean having to give on the part of Zionists, and their track record only shows taking/theft. So here we are.
#15101462
skinster wrote:You are a war criminal too? What a surprise.


LOL! You never held a gun in a precarious environment, have you? So I will dismiss your idiotic blabbering without a comment.

skinster wrote:Actually Palestinians said they'd accept 22% of the land and 78% could go to the Zionists; the lesser people population-wise and morality-wise.


Really? That is great news. Quick, call Abbas and see how fast you will disappear. You are either lying or are delusional. The Arabs walked away from ALL offers back in 2000 or later, - great Israeli offers better than yours! They walked away, because they did not get one thing, - do you know what was it? I bet you do not. Arafat wanted for 5 million Arabs to be allowed into Israel with voting rights, so that he can destroy Israel from within.
Great stuff! Epic! Take this, Arafat, the venerated leader of Palestinian Arabs says, I will agree with you if you agree to die! LOL!

skinster wrote:"...His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..."

I've highlighted the bit the Zionists like you ignore(d). But also we know they planned to take all the land anyway just like Palestinians at the time who resisted knew; this fake-agreement was just to get their thieving feet through the door.


LOL! The ethnic minorities such as Druse, Samaritans, Christians, Circassians, Baha’i and yes Muslims are protected under the Israeli Constitution. Discrimination is illegal. So, - there you go, Belfour Declaration is adhered too, no problem.

However, this applies only to Israeli citizens. You are talking about Palestinian Arabs who hold, nearly 100% of them, Jordanian passports. OK? You have no case here.

Those Palestinian Arabs are governed by Palestinian Authority. You have a problem, - talk to Abbas. He can fix all your concerns, all he has to do is to agree to what Israel is telling him, - simple enough. He is the leader of Palestinian Arabs, so the buck stops with him.

skinster wrote:Looks like it's one side that's doing much of the torture, displacement, murder and massacres, including more recently every weekend where protesters - mainly children - were shot in the eyes and limbs and outright executed for demanding human rights.


LOL! Anything else? This is a conflict, - sometimes people die. Sometimes children die too. This is not about an occasional unfortunate or unforeseen victim, IDF does not target civilians for the sport. They shoot when it is necessary, as per rules of engagement.

There is ample judicial oversite over every shooting. Israel has laws, unlike the crowd you advocate for. Hamas simply shoots at EVERYONE they can get, it’s a fact. We shoot back, - people die. You have no case here, no court anywhere in world will agree with you. Try it, talk to a lawyer, and see how it goes.

skinster wrote:Palestine is an Arab country and the Arabs within the land were Muslims, Jews and Christians. You moving over doesn't stop it from being an Arab country. Anyone who visits knows it's an Arab country. Anyway what happened to your ilk claiming you invented hummus? Not feeling very Arab anymore?


LOL! I do not care. The world does not car either. Palestine is not a country. Palestine has NEVER been a country. You are delusional. And as it goes, in the foreseeable future, Palestine will remain what it is today, - a problem that we can solve.

skinster wrote:Yes, actually. Jews live all over the ME. Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the ME. Muslims don't have problems with Jews - they've lived together for hundreds of years - they have problems with Zionists, which any fair-minded person ought to.


LOL! Jews lived for centuries as a ‘dhimmis’, a second class noncitizens in all Arab lands. As long as they kept their collective heads low and did not rebel they were tolerated. Thank you very much for not killing me! Sure, many Muslims do not and did not have any problems with Jews, as long as those Muslims held all power in the land. Those days are long gone. Forget about it.

‘Your people’ did us no favors. Why do you think there are no Jews in nearly all Arab countries today? Iran does not count, they are not Arabs. And even there most Jews had left for Israel a long time ago. It was so good to live in Iraq or Egypt or Yemen or Lebanon that the Jews run for their lives in 1950s! You have no case here!

skinster wrote:"Israel" is Palestine. These aren't different countries, they're the same thing. It was Palestine, then Zionist terrorism gangs invaded, ethnically cleansed the land and stole Palestine, then re-named it "Israel" because of some fairytale biblical stories that don't prove any history of Jews owning Palestine. If they did, those Jews descendants would be the Palestinians you oppress today.


LOL! And here lays the problem! Israel is Palestine you say! Priceless! This is why Israelis do what they do, - arm themselves to the teeth and fight the Arabs. You are living in a world of fantasy. Look around you, Israel is a country with all the necessary infrastructure. Palestine is a pipe dream, Palestinians are broke and desolate, and they are beggars and exist in hand outs. They leadership is corrupt and impotent. Palestinian Arabs are incapable if running a country, hell, they can’t run a country club.

You are questioning a legitimacy of Israel. LOL! I can talk Jewish history, I can talk Jewish religion, I can talk Jewish culture, but none of this will persuade you that Israel has a right to exist. You say as much, - "Israel" is Palestine! LOL!

But I know what can persuade you. You know what it is? Yes, - it is a gun! It is a gun that IDF holds and knows very well how to use it. It is very persuasive and worked well for the past 70 years. It is a gun that guarantees my freedom and my country. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Clearly, you do not live in the Middle East, otherwise you would have understood my point. But it is Middle East that requires the measures that Israel uses to stay alive. Everything else is fluff.

UN created Israel, just like it created Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab countries and UN did this IN THE SAME TIME, WHEN IT CREATED ISRAEL, you simpleton! Why don’t you complain about the legitimacy of those countries? Sure, Muslims are ok, but Jews, that is a no-no…forget it. You have no case here!

skinster wrote:Israel is a proto-fascist state (that's me being kind btw) and aligns with fascists on various continents. Did you miss that? Maybe stop acting like fash and people won't refer to you as a fash-y state. So far people are kind with their words, using language like 'pariah' to refer to Israel. But we know what that means once we delve into what Israel does, how it's a violent and ethnosupremacist state etc.


LOL! Scream all you want. Spew you hatred all you want. We do not care.

You can call Israel a fascist state, but I would laugh at you. You know, I can get the same sentiment from a homeless crazy guy down the street. He is just as nuts as you are. So I forgive you. Talk is cheap, baby.

It is when you feel as impotent as you are feeling right now, you descent into accusations such those. It is easy to call a country fascist. It is not easy to do something about it. And in the case of Israel it is impossible. So I will let you scream, because you can’t bite!

skinster wrote:Maybe aim for equality in the land - all Palestinians are demanding - and you might not be hated? But that would mean having to give on the part of Zionists, and their track record only shows taking/theft. So here we are.


Can’t have it. Palestine can only exist if it conforms to Israeli demands.

When Palestinian Arabs show believable non-belligerence, when their schools no longer preach hatred of the Jews, when they no longer want replace Israel with another Arab state, when they stop wishing for the wholesale departure of the Jews, etc. etc. Perhaps then we can talk. Until then, my gun will ensure everything that is necessary for the Jews to continue living. You do not like it, - tough!

Like I said before, you can’t have it both ways, you can’t ask the Jews to die so that the Arabs may live as they wish, and then accuse the Jews of ‘bloody murder’ when the Jews protect themselves.

Cheers…
#15101481
Metoo wrote:Arafat wanted for 5 million Arabs to be allowed into Israel with voting rights, so that he can destroy Israel from within.


I think I stand with this person more than his opponent, because his opponent has a standing against my contemporaries (although the two are entirely different matters). However, I do not think the above is factual and I need to know if there is some evidence to prove the above.
#15101698
Patrickov wrote:I think I stand with this person more than his opponent, because his opponent has a standing against my contemporaries (although the two are entirely different matters). However, I do not think the above is factual and I need to know if there is some evidence to prove the above.


Most of the Israeli and American criticism for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit was leveled at Arafat. Ehud Barak portrays Arafat's behavior at Camp David as a “performance geared to exact as many Israeli concessions as possible without ever seriously intending to reach a peace settlement or sign an “end to the conflict.

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit. Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority. In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

Dennis Ross, the US Middle East envoy and a key negotiator at the summit, summarized his perspectives in his book The Missing Peace. During a lecture in Australia, Ross suggested that the reason for the failure was Arafat's unwillingness to sign a final deal with Israel that would close the door on any of the Palestinians' maximum demands, particularly the right of return. Ross claimed that what Arafat really wanted was "a one-state solution. Not independent, adjacent Israeli and Palestinian states, but a single Arab state encompassing all of Historic Palestine".[34] Ross also quoted Saudi Prince Bandar as saying while negotiations were taking place: "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy; it will be a crime."

In his book, The Oslo Syndrome, Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry and historian Kenneth Levin summarized the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit in this manner: "despite the dimensions of the Israeli offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to sign an agreement that declared itself final and forswore any further Palestinian claims." Levin argues that both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.

Alan Dershowitz, an Israel advocate and a law professor at Harvard University, said that the failure of the negotiations was due to "the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn't Jerusalem. It wasn't borders. It was the right of return." He claimed that President Clinton told this to him "directly and personally."
#15101806
Metoo wrote:Most of the Israeli and American criticism for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit was leveled at Arafat. Ehud Barak portrays Arafat's behavior at Camp David as a “performance geared to exact as many Israeli concessions as possible without ever seriously intending to reach a peace settlement or sign an “end to the conflict.

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit. Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority. In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

Dennis Ross, the US Middle East envoy and a key negotiator at the summit, summarized his perspectives in his book The Missing Peace. During a lecture in Australia, Ross suggested that the reason for the failure was Arafat's unwillingness to sign a final deal with Israel that would close the door on any of the Palestinians' maximum demands, particularly the right of return. Ross claimed that what Arafat really wanted was "a one-state solution. Not independent, adjacent Israeli and Palestinian states, but a single Arab state encompassing all of Historic Palestine".[34] Ross also quoted Saudi Prince Bandar as saying while negotiations were taking place: "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy; it will be a crime."

In his book, The Oslo Syndrome, Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry and historian Kenneth Levin summarized the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit in this manner: "despite the dimensions of the Israeli offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to sign an agreement that declared itself final and forswore any further Palestinian claims." Levin argues that both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.

Alan Dershowitz, an Israel advocate and a law professor at Harvard University, said that the failure of the negotiations was due to "the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn't Jerusalem. It wasn't borders. It was the right of return." He claimed that President Clinton told this to him "directly and personally."


The Right of Return does not necessarily mean voting power. Most countries pose strict restrictions on immigrants' political rights, and I believe Israel knows how to enforce that. Besides Arafat was already head of a subsidiary government at that time. If the Right of Return only means having rights to vote for this subsidiary government (and not the wider Israelite government) this would simply not occur.

If, say, Israel grants that with some condition like "Palestinians cannot vote until they fully comply with standards set by the Israel government for a certain period of time", and Arafat publicly denied that offer, then the statement I am questioning would be undoubtedly true.

All in all, it is really that how the Right of Return is to be defined. Allowing these guys to settle without having them meddling in the Jewish government is IMHO achievable.
#15102082
Patrickov wrote:The Right of Return does not necessarily mean voting power. Most countries pose strict restrictions on immigrants' political rights, and I believe Israel knows how to enforce that. Besides Arafat was already head of a subsidiary government at that time. If the Right of Return only means having rights to vote for this subsidiary government (and not the wider Israelite government) this would simply not occur.

If, say, Israel grants that with some condition like "Palestinians cannot vote until they fully comply with standards set by the Israel government for a certain period of time", and Arafat publicly denied that offer, then the statement I am questioning would be undoubtedly true.

All in all, it is really that how the Right of Return is to be defined. Allowing these guys to settle without having them meddling in the Jewish government is IMHO achievable.


I see what you are saying. And theoretically you are correct. I would agree, in theory, that it is possible and enforceable to have a resident population with residence permits but no voting rights. I'd also say that it is absolutely possible to make sure that their civil rights are the same as the rest of voting population and the access to jobs and benefits is also the same. All these are true, - it is possible.

But here comes the problem, - this is Middle East! This is not Europe! We are dealing with a totally different mind set.

Palestinian refugees, as of the recent count as defined by UN, are about 4.5 million people. Even though is it a grossly unfair definition, and nobody in their right mind would agree with UN here, still, in theory, if those 4.5 million people are to be resettled in Israel, as per what you're suggesting with no voting rights, we would face problems of epic proportions.

The least of those problems would be an accusation of apartheid policies, those will be the smallest problems. Comparacings will be made with US and Canadian policies towards native populations. Again, those are the simplests of issues, - there will be much worse problems than those mentioned.

I am not sure how much experience you have with enforcement, but I must tell you that it'd be herculean task to manage even 250,000 people, Palestinian Arabs with Jordanian citizenship, living in Israel with no voting rights, let alone 4.5 million. It is not doable! Furthermore, Palestinian Authority under Arafat or Abbas, would never agree to this.

Their entire premise was and still is to use the cover of 'rightful return' as a mechanism to destroying Israel as a Jewish State, with eventual transformation of Israel into Palestine. Tsis is not my assertion, - this is their stated position. They do not hide their intentions, - it is just Arafat never said it in English and neither did Abbas. THey both knew that in order to remain 'current and 'in step' with their population, they must say what the population wants to hear. No surprise here, I knew it for over 30 years now. Any Government of Israel since 1964 knew it too. LOL!

This conflict cannot be solved as if it is taking place in Belgium or Sweden with polite dignitaries sitting at the table and calmly discussing issues. You are making the same error, as most of the world is making and, believe me, I am not faulting you for this, but nonetheless, it is a mistake to assume that what is happening in Israel or Palestine has the same physiological background as if it were a territorial dispute between Britain and Spain or France and Belgium. Kissinger's 'realpolitik' must be considered here.

We can't have a single bi-national state, it is an oxymoron in a language of Middle East and we can't have a 2-state solution without a 100% chance of unending hostilities, which can only lead to a complete demise of Palestinian Arabs as an entity, - nobody wants that. I hope you see a complexity of the problem.

Does solution exist? Yes, absolutely... and we have been on our way to it for many decades now. At this point, - soon.
#15102088
Metoo wrote:I see what you are saying. And theoretically you are correct. I would agree, in theory, that it is possible and enforceable to have a resident population with residence permits but no voting rights. I'd also say that it is absolutely possible to make sure that their civil rights are the same as the rest of voting population and the access to jobs and benefits is also the same. All these are true, - it is possible.

But here comes the problem, - this is Middle East! This is not Europe! We are dealing with a totally different mind set.

Palestinian refugees, as of the recent count as defined by UN, are about 4.5 million people. Even though is it a grossly unfair definition, and nobody in their right mind would agree with UN here, still, in theory, if those 4.5 million people are to be resettled in Israel, as per what you're suggesting with no voting rights, we would face problems of epic proportions.

The least of those problems would be an accusation of apartheid policies, those will be the smallest problems. Comparacings will be made with US and Canadian policies towards native populations. Again, those are the simplests of issues, - there will be much worse problems than those mentioned.

I am not sure how much experience you have with enforcement, but I must tell you that it'd be herculean task to manage even 250,000 people, Palestinian Arabs with Jordanian citizenship, living in Israel with no voting rights, let alone 4.5 million. It is not doable! Furthermore, Palestinian Authority under Arafat or Abbas, would never agree to this.

Their entire premise was and still is to use the cover of 'rightful return' as a mechanism to destroying Israel as a Jewish State, with eventual transformation of Israel into Palestine. This is not my assertion, - this is their stated position. They do not hide their intentions, - it is just Arafat never said it in English and neither did Abbas. They both knew that in order to remain 'current and 'in step' with their population, they must say what the population wants to hear. No surprise here, I knew it for over 30 years now. Any Government of Israel since 1964 knew it too. LOL!

This conflict cannot be solved as if it is taking place in Belgium or Sweden with polite dignitaries sitting at the table and calmly discussing issues. You are making the same error, as most of the world is making and, believe me, I am not faulting you for this, but nonetheless, it is a mistake to assume that what is happening in Israel or Palestine has the same physiological background as if it were a territorial dispute between Britain and Spain or France and Belgium. Kissinger's 'realpolitik' must be considered here.

We can't have a single bi-national state, it is an oxymoron in a language of Middle East and we can't have a 2-state solution without a 100% chance of unending hostilities, which can only lead to a complete demise of Palestinian Arabs as an entity, - nobody wants that. I hope you see a complexity of the problem.

Does solution exist? Yes, absolutely... and we have been on our way to it for many decades now. At this point, - soon.



Of course I understand the Middle East situation. Why would someone expect a place having fights for millennia to stop fighting, seriously?

I presented that argument simply because I felt the comments against Arafat himself was a bit biased.

However, I fully understand that "it is just Arafat never said it in English and neither did Abbas" point. I sometimes wanted to show here how some Chinese officials and their collaborators are not interested in anything other than total domination, but the said passage (even when written by anti-China activists) is often written in Chinese only and I have no time to translate it into English -- I have a life after all.
#15102092
Right of Return for Palestinians to their homes and lands that they were ethnically cleansed from is their right enshrined in international law. Of course, Zionists oppose it since they're racists and believe they're above the law. Well, that's the case for now.

Back on the topic of the theft of more of the West Bank that takes place next week, something which can also be filed under 'war crime'. Looks like Western politicians are finally calling for sanctions on the Zionist regime.

Also.










#15102096
The problem is many Israelites have been here for over a half century, and if one is serious about "Free Palestine" one got to face the reality that many of these "denied" people will be very vengeful and will gleefully massacre whoever Jews not fortunate to leave fast enough, many of whom are innocent.

The only justifiable explanation to stick to this stand is to think all Israelites are guilty. It is not that unthinkable if one uses the logic that "whoever not overthrowing their corrupt / power-hungry and / or oppressive government is complicit in this crime".
#15102145
skinster wrote:Right of Return for Palestinians to their homes and lands that they were ethnically cleansed from is their right enshrined in international law.


International law, you say…LOL! Let me give you a short lesson in International Law, ok? You are welcome…

International Law in general sense, as it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict specifically, has no teeth! Meaning no enforcement capabilities and extremely questionable jurisdictional platform. To contrast, it has better ‘teeth’ in Africa.

Therefore, it is not a law in a sense that the British law is, which is adopted by developed countries as a basis for both criminal and civil procedure. Developed countries often like to talk about International Law, because they can afford to do that. They know, that it is only a talk and no action will ever be required to support the talk.

So, those developed countries look good in newspapers and political conferences and in speeches. Developed countries can afford to talk about International Law because they have developed Armies to support their foreign policy objectives.

Now, - less-than-developed countries and/or 3rd World countries like to talk about International Law even more than developed countries do, but then nobody cares about what those ‘less than developed’ country say. The reason nobody cares, because those 'less-than-developed' countries will ask for and speak about MONEY in the same sentence with the words International Law.

The rule is this, - if I give you money, I will demand certain level of obedience. This is how that game is played, dear skinster. Now, let’s get back to our program, - what was that you were talking about?

skinster wrote: Of course, Zionists oppose it since they're racists and believe they're above the law. Well, that's the case for now.


Absolutely, the Zionists are above the law as you understand it. Don’t you know, the Zionists are the ‘chosen’ people, right? The law, whatever the law you are talking about, does not apply to them, ok?

Well, levity aside, here is a question for you to ponder, - how come Palestinian Authority has never brought the charges against Israel in any court in the western hemisphere, other than the International Court of Justice in Hague? You know, the Brits claim worldwide jurisdiction, so why not sue there? Why not in USA, although it would have to be on different charges to accommodate the jurisdictional issues? So? Why not?

I’ll give you a simple answer, - Palestinian Authority knows that they can’t win, ever! They have no case! So, your comments about International Law is just pure fluff, a scare tactics, aimed at the simple minded and uneducated. Good luck with that in a real world!


skinster wrote: Back on the topic of the theft of more of the West Bank that takes place next week, something which can also be filed under 'war crime'. Looks like Western politicians are finally calling for sanctions on the Zionist regime.


A “war crime”? Which law school did you graduate from? You are, what is commonly known, a ‘quick draw’, - talking before thinking.

Western politicians, you say are calling for something…? No they are not. Western politicians and even the Gulf politicians do not agree with your lies here.

The Brits already said that while they do not approve of an upcoming annexation process (see above my comment on International Law and developed countries propensity to talk about it), they will not introduce any sanctions against Israel.

The Emiratis (UAE) said that they want to decouple the issue of annexation from the issue of establishing closer ties with Israel.

Nobody in the developed world, the countries that actually matter, will do anything to stop the Israelis. Only Americans can do it, and they will not, - read the Plan of the Century! How about the issue of Crimea, Tibet, Sahara, etc. etc., - over 40 territorial disputes currently in play.

With that, I rest my case on this topic, and so should you, although I would imagine for a different reason.
#15102172
The above post is, I am afraid, little more than an arrogant intimidation like "I have the power, you obey!"

Had this kind of statement be uttered with regard to the China "unification" problem I would see the utterer as inhuman.

It can be argued that both Britain and UAE, and by extension, "most developed countries", are extremely biased for Israel because the Israelites had the balls to establish a government and fought for it in the first place, possibly knowing that those going against them would be compared with Nazis. That does not mean the Israeli government is being humane, unfortunately.

So it is not the Palestinian Authority "has no case". They can't present one even if they do.

In some sense Palestinians should blame the Nazis for causing such migration to happen in the first place, and causing most countries not even dare to question Israel when atrocities were committed by them.

IMHO, it is this taboo that fueled the conflict, not US money.
#15102238
The Orientalism ITT is killing me. :lol:







With the World Focused on the Pandemic, Israel Prepares to Annex Large Swaths of the West Bank
Israel is planning a move on July 1 that the international community has long regarded as one of the gravest assaults on the international order and international law: annexation of land that does not belong to it. The annexation plan developed by the Netanyahu government in consultation with the Trump administration would declare not only the decades-old settlements in the West Bank which the U.N. Security Council in 2016 declared illegal to be permanent Israeli land, but also other swaths of Palestinian territory, including the Jordan Valley, that is central to Palestinian agriculture.

There are multiple reasons why Israel is not just willing but seemingly eager to incur condemnations from the international community by proceeding with this plan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is beset by political problems as he struggles to form a governing coalition for a new term and, even more importantly, by legal problems as he stands trial on felony charges of bribery and fraud. Emboldening the Israeli population and causing them to unite behind him in the face of international denunciations could distract attention away from those crises and solidify his hold on power.

Most importantly, Israel has become increasingly xenophobic, expansionist, militaristic, hostile to Arabs, and fascistic over the last decade. Aside from the Trump administration, its primary allies are no longer liberal democracies but Arab despots and far-right political movements in Central and Eastern Europe and in Latin America.

Illustrating the cultural and political shift among younger Israelis in particular, Netanyahu’s son, Yair, this week advocated that all minorities be removed — cleansed — from Tel Aviv. The Israeli left and even center are virtually nonexistent. That is the climate that now shapes Israel’s identity. Annexation of large chunks of the West Bank is, if anything, too moderate for a growing far-right Israeli movement that believes, on religious and militaristic grounds, that they are the owners of all of Palestine.

Regardless of motives, it is virtually certain that annexation of any part of the West Bank would trigger intense pressure in the west to impose serious sanctions on Israel. The last significant annexation took place in 2014, when Russia declared Crimea a formal part of its country, and that event triggered multi-level sanctions from the west despite the fact that a large majority of people in Crimea wanted to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine. Palestinians, needless to say, are virtually unanimous in their opposition to further control over their land and their lives by a foreign occupying government that grants them no political rights of any kind. Any attempt by the west to avoid sanctioning a post-annexation Israel would destroy whatever residual credibility is vested in their claims of a consistent system of international law.
https://theintercept.com/2020/06/18/wit ... west-bank/


Metoo wrote:We can't have a single bi-national state, it is an oxymoron in a language of Middle East and we can't have a 2-state solution blah blah


Israel as you like to call it, is already one state. Palestine, that same state, as others prefer to call it, is that same state. Currently there's a single state practicing apartheid in some areas within its rule and which also includes the largest open air prison in the world - according to some liberal politicians - that imprisons over a million children (known as Gaza).

Does solution exist? Yes, absolutely... and we have been on our way to it for many decades now. At this point, - soon.


What's that solution? More ethnic cleansing? Will it be final? :excited:

International law, you say…LOL! Let me give you a short lesson in International Law, ok? You are welcome…


I didn't read beyond this sentence because whether you like it or not, international law is a thing. Sure, Israel has violated it every day since its existence, but it's still a thing. And a lot of the world pays attention to it.

Absolutely, the Zionists are above the law as you understand it. Don’t you know, the Zionists are the ‘chosen’ people, right? The law, whatever the law you are talking about, does not apply to them, ok?


Nice religion you have there...

Palestinian Authority knows that they can’t win, ever! They have no case!


The PA has no power beyond basically working as security for Israel. It has hardly any support amongst Palestinians today.

Western politicians, you say are calling for something…? No they are not. Western politicians and even the Gulf politicians do not agree with your lies here.


:eh: I posted articles above where Western politicians are making complaints about Israel's plans of stealing more of the West Bank next week and even talking about sanctions.

And then there's BDS. I expect a lot more where this came from, after the annexation goes ahead.






Nobody in the developed world, the countries that actually matter, will do anything to stop the Israelis.


For now, sure.

Patrickov wrote:In some sense Palestinians should blame the Nazis for causing such migration to happen in the first place, and causing most countries not even dare to question Israel when atrocities were committed by them.


It was Britain that pushed for Euro Zionists to steal an Arab country and Palestinians are aware of this and how it's just another colonial project that the Europeans have been so fond of.
#15102372
Patrickov wrote:The above post is, I am afraid, little more than an arrogant intimidation like "I have the power, you obey! Had this kind of statement be uttered with regard to the China "unification" problem I would see the utterer as inhuman."


So… you noticed! Yes, my tone is very arrogant and it is on purpose. Also, I am not talking about China, because if I were my tone would have been different.

I know what you expect. You think that Israel better ‘toe the line’ because, well, - the Jews have been doing this for 2000 years, - so the world is used to that kind of behavior, keep your head low, you know….right? It might be of interest to you to notice that no other country is expected to ‘toe the line’, just Israel.

Certainly no reginal superpower is EVER expected to ‘play nice’ unless its suits them, and Israel IS a reginal superpower. My tone is in line with the strategic posture that Israel assumed after 1967. It’s been many years and still it raises an eye brow.

Arrogant you say, - no. Just real, like everybody else. Israel is looking after its strategic interests, and in doing so Israel is positioning itself in line with countries like UK, US, Russian Federation and yes, China, not India, not Canada. I chose those countries for a reason, because all of them represent a particular approach to how they assert and look after their national interests. Israel is not different and should not be treated differently form the first 4 countries in that list. You just are not used to that. It needs to change.

Yes, - in many ways, - like when you interpreted my words “… arrogant intimidation like "I have the power, you obey!" is the way the world has evolved to this point. Do I like it? No. But like or not, this is where we are and have been since the times immemorial.

As long as we have problems like the one we are having in Middle East, with tyrants running the show, pretend democracies masquerading for the ‘real thing’ and the outright genocidal cults…yes, - ‘…I have the power, - you obey…”. It is only arrogant if spoken in the manicured halls in European Union collection of states. Middle East does not give us another option, here strength is the only currency, not good will. Israel’s problem is that it is essentially a European country with Middle Eastern flavor. They are trying to apply European standards to local unforgiving reality. You fall into the same trap.

Patrickov wrote:It can be argued that both Britain and UAE, and by extension, "most developed countries", are extremely biased for Israel because the Israelites had the balls to establish a government and fought for it in the first place, possibly knowing that those going against them would be compared with Nazis. That does not mean the Israeli government is being humane, unfortunately.


I disagree. I think the opposite is true. Most countries, UK being one of them, are biased towards Palestinian Arabs. They see them as an underdog and they see Israel as a fat bully. It’s ok. History records that UK or even US never thought that Israel will succeed back in 1948 against the combined assault of 6 Arab armies led mostly by British officers and trained by them too, plus a local Arab population. But it happened.

Funny thing is that Israel is being held to an outrages, unreasonable standard, that no other country is being held too, by the same UK among others. As I mentioned above, -its ok for Russian federation to annex Crimea, but it is not ok for Israel to do the same. Yet, the Russians have a great case to support what they had done. Does anybody want to listen, no…The Israelis have even better case. Same question, - same answer, although for a very different reason.

Patrickov wrote:So it is not the Palestinian Authority "has no case". They can't present one even if they do.


Again, I disagree. The problem with presenting the ‘case’ is that you may lose. You are saying that it is a done deal with Palestinians. You are saying that the world is against them. No, it is not. The UN gives them a platform to present their case. Have they? They tried their best and still no country that actually matters was convinced enouph to sanction Israel.

This should tell you that their case is full of holes. Nobody is deceived by the Palestinian demands of ‘refugee return’. Nobody in the world would agree with Palestinian negotiating position that clearly says, - give me all that I want, even if you die in the process, and I will THINK about giving you what you want…maybe. This is why their case is not a case at all. Could it be a case? Yes, but they must go about it in a different way, like any European country would. Does Spain want Gibraltar? – Yes.

Patrickov wrote:In some sense Palestinians should blame the Nazis for causing such migration to happen in the first place, and causing most countries not even dare to question Israel when atrocities were committed by them.


Well, you are falling into a predictable trap here. Let’s blame somebody else for one’s own shortcomings. Let’s blame the Nazis here, since the Jews suffered at their hands so now the guilt will ensure that the Jews can now get everything.

This tactics is great for demanding reparations and Israel had done that. But this tactics does not work for the either the establishment of the state or an excuse for committing ‘atrocities’. I am not sure if you noticed, but Israel never apologies for any of its actions, while presenting a viable case in support of its actions.

Palestinian Arabs have lost in their bid to remove the Jews. So, these days they scream ‘atrocity’ every time they have a chance to be heard. They lost, and they know it. Right now, they are trying to salvage what they can, so public relation campaign with BDS in the forefront and UN accusatory and often antiemetic speeches, presenting themselves as a victim is the strategy of the day. They have nothing else, even their Arab supporters from the Gulf and Saudis and even Egyptians have turned away at this point.

The emperor turned out to be naked.
#15102449
skinster wrote:Right of Return in international law applies to all refugees who've been forced out of their land, not just Palestinians.

Weird you carry on rambling like a loon as if Israel isn't militarily occupying 6 million Palestinians. Weirder that you expect it to be ignored. :lol:


Haven't you heard? Palestinian Arabs lost the conflict. Israel won the conflict. Therefore Israel dictates the terms.

At the end of 2nd World War US dictated terms to Japan, US did not negotiate.

Israel does offer Palestinian Arabs a chance to negotiate the terms.

With the above mentioned in mind, no Arab refugees are returning. They would have to build their homes in the state of Palestine somewhere in the area A of West Bank.

Abbas and before him Arafat have been lying to Palestinian Arabs giving them hope of reclaiming Israel as their home. You are also a victim of such deception.

Here is a food for thought as you are pondering the fate of Arab refugees. Back in the early 50s Arab countries kicked out about 700,000 Jews from their lands.

Those Jews landed in Israel and found the new life. By all accounts a slightly less number of Arabs either run away or was displaced by the war of 1948, the war by Arabs against Israel that Arabs started and those Arabs supported.

So...can the Jews and their descendants claim properties in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon Tunisia, etc. ?
#15102998
Metoo wrote:Certainly no regional superpower is EVER expected to ‘play nice’ unless its suits them, and Israel IS a regional superpower. My tone is in line with the strategic posture that Israel assumed after 1967. It’s been many years and still it raises an eye brow.

Arrogant you say, - no. Just real, like everybody else. Israel is looking after its strategic interests, and in doing so Israel is positioning itself in line with countries like UK, US, Russian Federation and yes, China, not India, not Canada. I chose those countries for a reason, because all of them represent a particular approach to how they assert and look after their national interests. Israel is not different and should not be treated differently form the first 4 countries in that list. You just are not used to that. It needs to change.

Yes, - in many ways, - like when you interpreted my words “… arrogant intimidation like "I have the power, you obey!" is the way the world has evolved to this point. Do I like it? No. But like or not, this is where we are and have been since the times immemorial.

As long as we have problems like the one we are having in Middle East, with tyrants running the show, pretend democracies masquerading for the ‘real thing’ and the outright genocidal cults…yes, - ‘…I have the power, - you obey…”. It is only arrogant if spoken in the manicured halls in European Union collection of states. Middle East does not give us another option, here strength is the only currency, not good will. Israel’s problem is that it is essentially a European country with Middle Eastern flavor. They are trying to apply European standards to local unforgiving reality. You fall into the same trap.


As a matter of fact India is also seeking to change the negative perception from outside, so it is absurd to expect a country and ethnic group as proud as the Israelite not being like that.

However, speaking that in a debate is an entirely different thing, because I expect the purpose of a debate is to justify own's action while defeat the opponent's justification. In this regard, internet forums like PoFo are closer to the European Parliament than the Middle East battlefield, and blatantly claiming that "the fist says it all" only serves to enhance the opponent's justification.

Even in Realpolitik, it is arguable whether this stance is beneficial. The Palestinians might be annihilated but no one is sure who's next. If the forces against Israel were strong and coordinated enough things could turn really ugly.

What I agree, though, is that Muslims are generally suckers in conflicts. Arabs vs Europeans, Palestinians vs Israelites, Pakistani vs Indians, Rohingya vs Burmese, Uighurs vs Chinese, etc. They either bow their heads low or only engage in pointless terrorism. Not to mention many Arabs are more interested in infighting.


Metoo wrote:I disagree. I think the opposite is true. Most countries, UK being one of them, are biased towards Palestinian Arabs. They see them as an underdog and they see Israel as a fat bully. It’s ok. History records that UK or even US never thought that Israel will succeed back in 1948 against the combined assault of 6 Arab armies led mostly by British officers and trained by them too, plus a local Arab population. But it happened.

Funny thing is that Israel is being held to an outrages, unreasonable standard, that no other country is being held too, by the same UK among others. As I mentioned above, -its ok for Russian federation to annex Crimea, but it is not ok for Israel to do the same. Yet, the Russians have a great case to support what they had done. Does anybody want to listen, no…The Israelis have even better case. Same question, - same answer, although for a very different reason.

Again, I disagree. The problem with presenting the ‘case’ is that you may lose. You are saying that it is a done deal with Palestinians. You are saying that the world is against them. No, it is not. The UN gives them a platform to present their case. Have they? They tried their best and still no country that actually matters was convinced enough to sanction Israel.

This should tell you that their case is full of holes. Nobody is deceived by the Palestinian demands of ‘refugee return’. Nobody in the world would agree with Palestinian negotiating position that clearly says, - give me all that I want, even if you die in the process, and I will THINK about giving you what you want…maybe. This is why their case is not a case at all. Could it be a case? Yes, but they must go about it in a different way, like any European country would. Does Spain want Gibraltar? – Yes.



I tend to believe the foreign governments just pretend to be against Israel because many of their common people are moved by the Palestinian narrative and politicians have to win votes. In reality if they actually don't like a country they will simply sanction it (I actually saw that point in the quote), just like what the West do to Russia. No one would say Russia is weaker than Israel, would they?

Still, I am not convinced that "no country is convinced to sanction Israel = Palestinian case is full of holes". If there is one thing that I am against Palestinians, it would be that the Arab society does little to establish a truly vibrant and open environment for foreign investment. Israelite, on the other hand, are more than capable for this. As long as Israel can protect investment (and other Muslim countries do not have the capability to level Israel in retaliation) no one will give a damn even if they actually kill all Palestinians.


Metoo wrote:Well, you are falling into a predictable trap here. Let’s blame somebody else for one’s own shortcomings. Let’s blame the Nazis here, since the Jews suffered at their hands so now the guilt will ensure that the Jews can now get everything.

This tactics is great for demanding reparations and Israel had done that. But this tactics does not work for the either the establishment of the state or an excuse for committing ‘atrocities’. I am not sure if you noticed, but Israel never apologies for any of its actions, while presenting a viable case in support of its actions.

Palestinian Arabs have lost in their bid to remove the Jews. So, these days they scream ‘atrocity’ every time they have a chance to be heard. They lost, and they know it. Right now, they are trying to salvage what they can, so public relation campaign with BDS in the forefront and UN accusatory and often antiemetic speeches, presenting themselves as a victim is the strategy of the day. They have nothing else, even their Arab supporters from the Gulf and Saudis and even Egyptians have turned away at this point.

The emperor turned out to be naked.


After much thinking, I probably have to disagree that I "fell into a trap".

You use Realpolitik to justify your stance, but in fact Realpolitik is just to explain how things are what they are. It does not mean the things derived from it are morally upright.

You might think I fell to the same trap and genuinely believed that "Palestinians should blame Nazis for their sufferings from Jews". What I actually said is that these events objectively made criticising Israelite much more difficult because there will be people who are eager to jump to accuse critics of Israelite policies as "anti-Semitic" or "Nazi" (Just see what happened to the UK Labour Party). That's my observation / interpretation, not my belief.

All in all, I think Israel wins here simply because they are more organised and they administer themselves better; whether they are on a higher moral ground is questionable.
#15103446
Patrickov wrote:As a matter of fact India is also seeking to change the negative perception from outside, so it is absurd to expect a country and ethnic group as proud as the Israelite not being like that.


Yes, agree. You do have a point here. In fact even more to your point, there is an inverse relationship between the capabilities and the work done on perception. Israelis need to learn that they do not have to work so hard to change whatever the World thinks of them. They can rest on their laurels as it were, but in some ways they are still stuck in 1948. Good point!

Patrickov wrote:However, speaking that in a debate is an entirely different thing, because I expect the purpose of a debate is to justify own's action while defeat the opponent's justification. In this regard, internet forums like PoFo are closer to the European Parliament than the Middle East battlefield, and blatantly claiming that "the fist says it all" only serves to enhance the opponent's justification.


Again, in general you are correct. However in the context of Middle East and specifically Palestinian issue, forceful manifestation of power whether perceived or real is often a necessity. It is an old adage, - what is more important the message itself or the consideration of audience that that message is intended too and the message itself is a fantasy, i.e. work on the audience by whatever means available and the goals just might be achieved, right?

So, yes, the Europeans see Israeli muscular and uncompromising posture towards Palestinians as a negative element, but the Israeli thinking is that it is that very posture that just might bring the Palestinian leadership to the table.

The history has shown this to be an effective weapon. It is that very muscular posture that brought us an ill-fated Oslo accords, and when that posture got relaxed in the forerunning to Clinton-led process of 2000, we got intifada and over thousand dead. With Sharon muscular politics, or shall I say rhetoric, we reestablished the deterrence, even in the face of Gaza gamble of 2005.

So, - go figure…This is Middle East, nothing what it seems to be…

Patrickov wrote:Even in Realpolitik, it is arguable whether this stance is beneficial. The Palestinians might be annihilated but no one is sure who's next. If the forces against Israel were strong and coordinated enough things could turn really ugly.


No. This has not been the case for a very long time now. Menachem Begin, back in early 80s quipped that the Arabs no longer have a military option against Israel, stating in a conversation with an American general that Israel only has ‘problems’ with Arabs not an existential threat any longer. Problem are manageable, right?

That change, from existential threat to problem cannot be reversed in the context of the modern world. Once the deterrence is achieved it is forever, or at least until the next doomsday weapon system is created.

For example, - Russian Federation has a declining military, it is falling behind the Chinese as we speak but the Russian ‘bear’ is still extremely dangerous and unbeatable and will remain as such forever. Look at the military parade this year in Moscow, - you see very old hardware, ancient really, and mostly unusable on the modern battlefield, but finishing the parade are the systems that will erase any enemy you can possibly imagine and they cannot be stopped.

This is what we have in the Middle East today, - an absence of a military option against Israel. This is also one of the reasons of a current rapprochement between Israelis and some Arab countries. They know they can’t win, so a different foreign policy must ensue and it does.

Realpolitik is the weapon of choice. As per Kissinger, it can be weak if it’s not real, in other words a bluff. But it is real in Israeli case. In order to show that Israel is not bluffing a demonstration is necessary every now and then. Look at Syrian involvement for the past decade. Look at a few small wars with Hamas. This is the Realpolitik at work.

Patrickov wrote:What I agree, though, is that Muslims are generally suckers in conflicts. Arabs vs Europeans, Palestinians vs Israelites, Pakistani vs Indians, Rohingya vs Burmese, Uighurs vs Chinese, etc. They either bow their heads low or only engage in pointless terrorism. Not to mention many Arabs are more interested in infighting.


Indeed, you are right. Specifically in the case of Arab society, well, - it is still tribal and therefore fragmented, as it has always been. The loyalty is often to the tribe and not to the flag. It also has a significant religious component, - many in Sunni Arab world are not sure, who do the hate the most, - the Jews or the Shia. Sad indeed.

Patrickov wrote:I tend to believe the foreign governments just pretend to be against Israel because many of their common people are moved by the Palestinian narrative and politicians have to win votes. In reality if they actually don't like a country they will simply sanction it (I actually saw that point in the quote), just like what the West do to Russia. No one would say Russia is weaker than Israel, would they?


This is a complicated issue. You’ll get many different and often contradicting opinions.
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is unique. Most people, or shall I say most Europeans, cannot relate to it, as they luck the knowledge of what actually makes up the conflict. Most well-meaning Europeans apply the same standards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as they applied to German-French conflict or British-Spanish conflict or Russian-German conflict, while they should apply the standards of Turkish-Armenian conflict or still relevant Turkish-Greek conflict.

With this in mind, you may understand the reasons why Europeans are nearly unanimously against Israeli posture toward Palestinians.

There are other opinions, which I do not share as much, like the age old anti-Semitic reality of Europe. Clearly that opinion is supported by the fact that there are two standards in existence; one standards for Israel and the other for every other country in the world! Israel is judged by the standard that can only be described as that Israel must be ‘holier than the Pope’ in the expectation of most European powers. No other country needs to come up to that standard.

There are other explanations to the dilemma that you posit, I just focused on the two.

Patrickov wrote:Still, I am not convinced that "no country is convinced to sanction Israel = Palestinian case is full of holes". If there is one thing that I am against Palestinians, it would be that the Arab society does little to establish a truly vibrant and open environment for foreign investment. Israelite, on the other hand, are more than capable for this. As long as Israel can protect investment (and other Muslim countries do not have the capability to level Israel in retaliation) no one will give a damn even if they actually kill all Palestinians.


Yes, indeed there is that element too. Money talks, right? More to your point, Israel has established itself as an indispensable part of European economy, with many innovations actually being the product of Israeli firms. Shutting down Israel will amount to ‘shooting yourself in the foot’.

Interestingly enough, you learn in economics that nobody or nothing out there is irreplaceable, well,…while true in general, it is not when it comes to Israel. The World does not even want to contemplate what would it take to replace Israeli involvement in its economy. You name an economic sector and you will find an Israeli patent in it or an Israeli-manufactured part or manufactured under Israeli incense part.

It almost sounds like a Jewish conspiracy, LOL! But seriously that is another reason why European powers most likely will never move to sanction Israel in a way that will harm Israeli economy, they will be harming their own!

Patrickov wrote:After much thinking, I probably have to disagree that I "fell into a trap".

You use Realpolitik to justify your stance, but in fact Realpolitik is just to explain how things are what they are. It does not mean the things derived from it are morally upright.

You might think I fell to the same trap and genuinely believed that "Palestinians should blame Nazis for their sufferings from Jews". What I actually said is that these events objectively made criticising Israelite much more difficult because there will be people who are eager to jump to accuse critics of Israelite policies as "anti-Semitic" or "Nazi" (Just see what happened to the UK Labour Party). That's my observation / interpretation, not my belief.


No argument here! Please do not take ‘the trap’ I referred to as a criticism of your views. I did not intend it that way and if that is how it came around, I apologize.

The trap is set for all of us by the Palestinian Arab leadership. Arafat and now Abbas continue to detract attention from real issues, by blaming Israel or US or any other entity that can be blamed, - the flavor of the day as it were… for their own shortcomings. This is not new. This is the tactics that works with most, but not all.

The tactics, their statements, well…It looks as a credible grievance, even if it is not, if you do not think about it too much or are not aware of political complexities of Middle East or historic-economic realities of Middle East. More so, the conflict in question here is unique with no similarities to any other conflict that Europe or Americas are familiar with. This is indeed a trap.

It never ceases to amaze me, that Palestinian Arab leadership thinks that no one will ever see their subterfuge, they think that they are smarter than everybody. Kind of insults your intelligence. However, we do see their actions for what they are, - a poorly thought out initiatives. Their goals, even though they want to conceal them, are seen plain and simple. They want us dead and gone! However, they dress up their position as if it is reasonable! This is a trap.

The better organized Israelis, as you put it, are victorious because they managed to use European-inspired centuries-old experience in their own governance and, to boot, the Jewish culture and Jewish narrative is conducive, or should I say, in line with European political and economic leadership. The Arabs are another story!

Patrickov wrote:All in all, I think Israel wins here simply because they are more organised and they administer themselves better; whether they are on a higher moral ground is questionable.


Morality is subjective. Everybody is claiming the higher moral ground. It cannot be discussed. It is like discussing which color is better.

I stand on a Biblical principles as delineated by Talmudic discourse. From that perspective, Palestinian Arab narrative is totally bankrupt. However, if you consider some, although late in the time line, interpretation of Koran and subsequently derived Sharia, then Palestinian Arabs do have a leg to stand on.

Today, as things are in the 21st century this is irreconcilable. We cannot agree here. Perhaps in a few hundred years, things might change. In my opinion Islam is the greatest obstacle here. Islam is relatively young and it needs to go through the same maturing process as Christianity went through and Judaism had gone through too a long time ago. So, we need to wait for Islam to catch up and be interpreted differently than what we have today. THis is the hope and is my opinion, I do not claim to be a prophet here, LOL!

Our policy in the meantime is that we need to 'feed the cat'. Fight a classic defensive battle, while waiting out for the better times and avoiding annihilating the Arabs all together.

In the short term however, I fear to say that a direct confrontation might be in store for us. We are trying to avoid it, but it seems that we are failing here. There will be another war, with 'morality' being one of the 'casus belli'.

As president, he can certainly stop it. Why sho[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s) […]

Europeans and Russians are educated, this makes t[…]

Was Bataclan or 9/11 an inside job??? @litwin […]