|
He's right, you know. Once all the Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, etc are dead, there will be peace.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:He's right, you know. Once all the Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, etc are dead, there will be peace. this is what literally all my zionist relatives say when we're alone and not around goyem, im not kidding
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Why would they be kidding? That's the plan
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
There's always going to be more commies, liberals and sexual deviants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:There's always going to be more commies, liberals and sexual deviants. Don't forget those drat reformists!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Peace is freedom from threat (in this example, from an opponent). A concession to the opponent, particularly one which might weaken your position, would be sub-optimal unless: Driving a car by only looking in the rear-view mirror isn't wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Peace is freedom from threat (in this example, from an opponent). A concession to the opponent, particularly one which might weaken your position, would be sub-optimal unless: "Securing peace unilaterally" doesn't have a very good success rate in modern history. It can bring the amount of threat down to a level the occupier considers to be a politically tolerable price to pay in exchange for the political benefits of the occupation, and it can buy periods of relative quiet, but it never reduces it to a point that can be called "peace". It's rarely reliable or consistent, either. The PA has been relatively cooperative with Israel, even at the expense of Palestinians' own civil rights and freedoms, but that can't last forever. Abbas is 82 years old - sooner or later he's going to die, and will the PA manage to retain political stability? Even if Fatah itself is able to unite around a single successor for him who agrees with his policies, the dubious legality of the succession will further strain the declining legitimacy of Fatah rule. Even if Abbas' commitment to peaceful negotiation with Israel at the cost of a draconian security regime against his own people survives this year, the Abbas administration isn't that long for this world, and it doesn't look like negotiations are going to progress anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Don't worry Groovelord, I'm sure -someone- will get it up, and make more skulls for your pile! You're very handsome. May I chew on you? I guess I'm not really sure what you're saying here other than "the Israelis are under the impression they have a good reason for oppressing and committing human rights' abuses against the Palestinians," which is sort of transparently obvious and true of almost every wrong thing the human race has ever done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:For the second time in the past few months, and in line with his dissertation, Mahmoud Abbas unmasks as a deranged racist conspiracy theorist. This is exactly the kind of double speak that Netanyahu has gotten rightly ripped to shreds for. https://www.timesofisrael.com/rewriting-history-abbas-calls-israel-a-colonial-project-unrelated-to-judaism I stopped following this thread almost a year ago and you're still here. I have to conclude you have CTE or some sort of chronic brain demon you're suffering from because a sane person would have just cut and run a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In what way is this a restatement of what you said? It's exactly the same? Tradition is the largest party gets the first crack at forming a coalition. Kadima polled the various parties, and couldn't get a majority. Internet Explorer posted:You keep categorizing BDS in this light, but from what to can tell none of the goals line up with what you're saying. Actually, they seem to be pretty much exactly the opposite of how you've categorized them in this post and in the past. Omar Barghouti posted:“If official Palestinian normalization had not reached this level, nobody would have dared to host Israeli delegations in Saudi Arabia, sports delegations in Qatar, trade delegations in the UAE, and delegations in Bahrain, Morocco and so on. Official Arab normalization has reached critical proportions." Omar Barghouti posted:“Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead.” 2 for 2 so far, literally the founder of BDS agrees with me. As for the third part, the refugee demand is outside of the international consensus for peace, where the majority view is minimal to no refugee repartition. BDS isn't about 1967. It's about 1948. Main Paineframe posted:If pro-peace politicians were winning elections for decades, then why isn't there peace? 1. Rabin being assassinated. 2. Netanyahu winning in 1996, and then spending three straight years undermining Oslo. 3. Arafat walking away from Camp David, and not making serious headway with Taba until it was too late. 4. The second intifada radicalizing the Israeli public. 5. Ariel Sharon dying. 6. Abbas rejecting Olmert's offer in 2008 - Olmert wouldn't give him a written copy, and then Abbas stalled as a negotiating tactic. 7. Hamas taking over Gaza. quote:Why has Israel refused to make meaningful concessions under those numerous pro-peace politicians you say controlled the country for so long? While the 2000 offer had flaws (and got significantly better in 2001), walking away completely was a mistake. The 2008 offer was extremely reasonable and stands eons away from Netanyahu and Bennett offering them a state minus and capital in Abu Dis. quote:The settlements grow faster now, sure, but they started under those so-called "pro-peace" politicians, who not only stood by and allowed them to grow, but actively extended state infrastructure and protections to those illegal communities. Seems like "peace" means something different to you than it does to me and everyone else. Just like Arafat didn't comply with Oslo either, and similar to Israel using settlements for leverage, used suicide bombings by Fatah's armed wing for leverage. Israel had pro-negotiation governments from 1992-1996, 1999-2000, and 2005-2008. The fact that Netanyahu literally ran on a platform of being anti-Oslo is not evidence that it is a failure, it is evidence that lack of compliance is a failure. What Palestinian hard liners are asking for now is to resume their utterly failed second intifada strategy. Ultramega posted:I stopped following this thread almost a year ago and you're still here. I have to conclude you have CTE or some sort of chronic brain demon you're suffering from because a sane person would have just cut and run a long time ago. Do you actually have an argument to make? Care to lie about the Taba talks again? Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's exactly the same? Tradition is the largest party gets the first crack at forming a coalition. Kadima polled the various parties, and couldn't get a majority. No, they are not the same at all. You said Kadima got the first shot, Kadima did not get the first shot, Likud did. You were factually wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
President Deal$ https://twitter.com/orlandosentinel/status/953442031275335681
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:What use is rising wealth when nobody respects your property rights? Buy guns? Nebalebadingdong posted:"israeli policies are creating peace! there's not even a third intifada!" Hooray! Ytlaya posted:I guess I'm not really sure what you're saying here other than "the Israelis are under the impression they have a good reason for oppressing and committing human rights' abuses against the Palestinians," which is sort of transparently obvious and true of almost every wrong thing the human race has ever done. I'm just suggesting that everyone thinks they're in the right, or rather, that it doesn't matter. The opponent is automatically wrong because they're scaring you. As disinterested observers, it's arrogant to weigh the righteousness of belligerents in a conflict, picking pet good guys and bad. That's really what bothered me, and I post. The belligerents don't care, and will act in their own self interest, just like we all do. If the sides have parallel interests, it's expedient or profitable to cooperate. Otherwise, we take every advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Buy guns? i guess we should just examine all conflict with no conflict whatsoever and ignore who's actually being victimized because that would just be ~arrogant~ beep boop im actually a robot and not a loving human being
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Point a gun at an Israeli one day, have your village razed by a $20b/yr backed modern army the next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Buy guns? Yes of course, Palestinians in the occupied territories are allowed to buy guns. Obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Preen Dog is an idiot who tries to present a realpolitik perspective, except his practical measure of "securing peace" doesn't even support it I guess technically it would, if you take his ideas to their logical conclusion, or Final Solution to the Palestinian Question
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Buy guns? So you are in favour of another intifada then? I don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:1. Rabin being assassinated. So you're saying that the reason that your supposed decades of pro-peace politicians failed to make any progress at all toward peace is because of things that happened long after they were out of power? What do events in 2008 have to do with the total lack of I/P negotiations in the 80s under those supposedly pro-peace PMs? All I see is you making a claim you couldn't back up and then shifting the goalposts when you were challenged on it. The 2000 offer was crap. The 2001 negotiations were presented as being better, but given the circumstances of the Taba talks, I don't think there was any real chance there. As for 2008, I feel like we just covered this a page or two ago: Olmert had already announced his resignation when he offered that deal. He was a lame duck who was not a serious or credible negotiation partner. Of course lack of compliance is a failure. It shouldn't be surprising that if Israel can't be relied on to comply with a deal, there is no deal. Do you think it's possible to have a long-term peace deal that just stops applying every time a center-right or right-wing party wins power? In any case, the Oslo Accords had already expired (largely unfulfilled, of course) by the time Barak accidentally sparked the Second Intifada by allowing right-wing posturing in order to prove he was a tough negotiator who wouldn't give too much to the Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MiddleEastMnt/status/953643483545456643
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:I'm just suggesting that everyone thinks they're in the right, or rather, that it doesn't matter. The opponent is automatically wrong because they're scaring you. As disinterested observers, it's arrogant to weigh the righteousness of belligerents in a conflict, picking pet good guys and bad. That's really what bothered me, and I post. This is the single worst argument in favor of amoral realism that I've ever seen, and I've read MIGF posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:I'm just suggesting that everyone thinks they're in the right, or rather, that it doesn't matter. The opponent is automatically wrong because they're scaring you. As disinterested observers, it's arrogant to weigh the righteousness of belligerents in a conflict, picking pet good guys and bad. That's really what bothered me, and I post. Sorry you had to find out this way, but you may be a sociopath. Please seek out a therapist to treat your inability to empathize with other human beings before you hurt somebody. Oh hurting people is
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The 2000 offer was crap To expand on this: for one thing, it was Barak who walked away, not Arafat. Barak gave Arafat a "take it or leave it" deal which he knew full well Arafat could never possibly accept(largely because it would have required Arafat to give the Haram al-Sharif, the 3rd holiest site in Islam, over to a state which is actively hostile to Muslims without even being able to consult with major Muslim leaders, scholars or organizations). When Arafat refused and proposed a counteroffer, Barak walked away and allowed his PR team to spread the message that Arafat's intransigence was the cause of the summit's failure; Clinton went along with the spin because he believed that scapegoating Arafat was the only way to save the Labor administration and keep the peace process going (lol). Moreover, Barak walked into the negotiations in bad faith. Not only had he given a speech on national television in which he promised not to give up any settlements(ie, no 2 state solution) shortly before the summit but he also refused to live up to Israel's obligations under both the Wye River and Sharm el-Sheik agreements. In other words, Israeli leaders (both Netanyahu and Barak) had negotiated with Arafat, signed agreements and then promptly decided "you know what, we don't really want to do what we just agreed to do. Go gently caress yourself." How on Earth could anyone expect Arafat to negotiate and make meaningful concessions with a partner who had broken its word and refused to live up to its obligations twice in a row? Even if Barak was willing to actually fulfill his side of the bargain, the bargain itself was a complete poo poo sandwich. The Palestinian state-minus would have no control over its borders, its airspace, its telecommunications and little control over its foreign affairs. It would be deprived of its capital and its breadbasket(the Jordan Valley.) Settlements would cut off what little bits of East Jerusalem Israel was willing to part with (a couple of blocks in the Old City and a few marginalized neighborhoods which are now on the other side of the apartheid wall) from the rest of the West Bank. Palestine, reduced to less than a 1/3 of its original borders and suffering from decades of economic warfare, would be expected to welcome 5 million refugees without meaningful assistance and with no developed industries(due to 50 years of occupation). The IDF would maintain a permanent military presence in the West Bank. Blaming Arafat for the failure of Camp David is complete bullshit. Arafat may be a piece of poo poo for many reasons, but throwing away a reasonable peace deal through intransigence or pride is not one of them. quote:...by the time Barak accidentally sparked the Second Intifada by allowing right-wing posturing in order to prove he was a tough negotiator who wouldn't give too much to the Palestinians. Arafat may have blundered into allowing an explosion of non-violent protests and anger after Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif/spit in the face to the Palestinian people. But the way he handled the protests was practically designed to turn a mass civil disobedience movement into a bloodbath: he ordered IDF snipers to open fire on crowds of unarmed demonstrators (killing over 100) and when, after more than 100 unarmed Palestinian civilians had been murdered in IDF terrorist attacks, an enraged mob of West Bank Palestinians killed a couple of IDF reservists who got lost in a West Bank village despite the efforts of the PA police to save them, he began bombing PA buildings and personnel, including jails and police stations. I can think of no better way to guarantee a violent response than making GBS threads on Palestine's holiest site, slaughtering unarmed demonstrators (including women and children) and then bombing the very forces tasked with maintaining law and order and preventing violence(or maintaining a collaborationist regime more accurately, but that's not particularly germane to the issue.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
Gee, I wonder how Abbas could have rejected such a proposal
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:No, they are not the same at all. You said Kadima got the first shot, Kadima did not get the first shot, Likud did. You were factually wrong. Nope, this is utter pedantry. The norm in Israeli politics is the president asks "largest plurality party, yay or nay." Kadima didn't have the votes, so Likud was up next. Main Paineframe posted:So you're saying that the reason that your supposed decades of pro-peace politicians failed to make any progress at all toward peace is because of things that happened long after they were out of power? What do events in 2008 have to do with the total lack of I/P negotiations in the 80s under those supposedly pro-peace PMs? All I see is you making a claim you couldn't back up and then shifting the goalposts when you were challenged on it. You're shifting the goalposts now. Labor in various iteratons controlled Israel from 1948-1977 and signed numerous peace deals. The PLO was not a viable partner until the late 80s, when Likud was in power. There's a demonstrable difference - Likud gets in power and invades Lebanon, Likud gets in power and starts undermining Oslo. quote:The 2000 offer was crap. The 2001 negotiations were presented as being better, but given the circumstances of the Taba talks, I don't think there was any real chance there. As for 2008, I feel like we just covered this a page or two ago: Olmert had already announced his resignation when he offered that deal. He was a lame duck who was not a serious or credible negotiation partner. But there was a real chance that Livni could have won that election. Walking away just puts the right back in power. quote:Of course lack of compliance is a failure. It shouldn't be surprising that if Israel can't be relied on to comply with a deal, there is no deal. Do you think it's possible to have a long-term peace deal that just stops applying every time a center-right or right-wing party wins power? There's a difference with a permanent deal, where sovereignty is literally handed over. quote:In any case, the Oslo Accords had already expired (largely unfulfilled, of course) by the time Barak accidentally sparked the Second Intifada by allowing right-wing posturing in order to prove he was a tough negotiator who wouldn't give too much to the Palestinians. Wrong on both fronts. Arafat walked away, and Arafat let loose Al Aqsa Martyrs in an attempt to extract more concessions. Which just like in 1996, doomed Labor. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Nope, this is utter pedantry. The norm in Israeli politics is the president asks "largest plurality party, yay or nay." Kadima didn't have the votes, so Likud was up next. Kadima didn't get the shot. There was no "next", the President gave Likud the first and only shot based on the weighted recommendations of all the parties. The fact that you can't concede even this minute documented mistake is extremely telling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
What exactly do you think that weighted recommendations of all parties are? It's exactly the process I am describing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:What exactly do you think that weighted recommendations of all parties are? It's exactly the process I am describing. What are you describing? What "shot" do you think Kadima (or, more accurately, Tsipi Livni) had? Here is the actual legit process that happens as the law works in Israel: ALL of the parties go one after the other to the President, telling him who they will support. After they have ALL come to him (hasn't been a her yet), he goes and tasks whoever he concludes has a chance at the majority to build a coalition, based on the recommendations he'd been given. The only way there is a second shot is if whoever was tasked first had failed. This did not happen in 2009. Only one shot was given, to Netanyahu, and he pulled it off. There was no second shot. You are mistaken. You were mistaken. Admit you were mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:What are you describing? What "shot" do you think Kadima (or, more accurately, Tsipi Livni) had? nah, he wasn't mistaken. just lying. see also his genius work quoting Clinton to the letter, in not quoting Clinton, at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
I know basically nothing about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but even a complete idiot would be able to read "Israel has complete security authority over everything in Palestine's borders, its border crossings with other countries, the areas in the major airports that belong to it, all their airspace, all their coastlines, all their electromagnetic frequencies, and all militarily strategic locations along the river which (I would assume) is one of the most important natural, economic and defensive terrain resources in the region," and see that it's bullshit. Didn't Trump give some big speech at the UN championing national sovereignty? And his big plan for mid-east peace is to create a country that does not have ANY actual sovereignty. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I know basically nothing about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but even a complete idiot would be able to read "Israel has complete security authority over everything in Palestine's borders, its border crossings with other countries, the areas in the major airports that belong to it, all their airspace, all their coastlines, all their electromagnetic frequencies, and all militarily strategic locations along the river which (I would assume) is one of the most important natural, economic and defensive terrain resources in the region," and see that it's bullshit. This has been a standard plank of Israeli peace plans in various forms for a while now. This isn't just Trump being a profound idiot, this is what Israel sees as the only possible option for a solution. More cynical minds might suggest that they really just don't want a peaceful solution. I'm kind of in the cynic camp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ZachJCarter/status/955142282096922624
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
There's this post on Facebook, in Hebrew, by a journalist who wasn't able to publish it as an op ed in any mainstream newspaper. She basically goes over the history of the last decade, where Netanyahu and his allies somehow went from being compassionate towards the refugees from Sudan and Eritrea, to scapegoating them and turning them into this horrible threat to Israel's existence. It's harrowing, really. I'll translate a couple of paragraphs from it, maybe the whole thing some other time, or if it's published and translated elsewhere: quote:In 2007, when thousands of refugees from Sudan and Eritrea, helping refugees was part of the consensus. Prime minister Olmert may have started warning about a "tsunami" of refugees from Africa, but his government gave them visas, newspapers were writing sympathetically about "refugees" sleeping outdoors, in the rain and cold, and hundreds of citizens spontaneously organized to provide them with clothes and other needs. The public at large was sympathetic to them. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Bibi feels like a real-life supervillain who traded in all his powers for unrepentant malice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
he is a cartoonishly evil man, and you know what's the best thing to do with one of those?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
o jerusalem posted:he is a cartoonishly evil man, and you know what's the best thing to do with one of those? Show them the true meaning of Christmas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
yes, exactly
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
o jerusalem posted:he is a cartoonishly evil man, and you know what's the best thing to do with one of those?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ML_ine/status/954157706637651974 lmao they also removed her jesus tattoo, shameless
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
a real, proud, diverse movement of stock photo models
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:14
|
|
