Warning, contains things that might upset you. Netanyahu boasting about Manipulating America and derailing Oslo peace process

First topic message reminder :



Likud Charter Calls for Destruction of Any Palestinian State

By Jonathan Weiler

Since virtually every comment on Hamas in American media includes the assertion that the group’s Charter rejects Israel’s right to exist, it’s worth noting the following from the Likud Platform of 1999:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

There have been some updates to the platform more recently, reflecting Israel’s withdrawal of settlements from Gaza in 2005. But the Likud Party has *never* in its statements of principles, accepted a Palestinian State. Its electoral partner, Yisrael Beitenu, has likewise categorically rejected the possibility of an independent Palestinian State, insisting that the idea is nothing more than a ploy to facilitate the destruction of Israel.

The Hamas charter, of course, does more than just reject Israel as a sovereign political entity. It’s a vile document that echoes some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes of the modern era. But on the central question of one side denying the other’s legitimacy — it’s hard to ignore the symmetry between Likud – the party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and Hamas.

Some defenders of Israel become indignant at the mention of these realities as scurrilous and spurious because the Likud platform quoted above is just an “old” statement of principles not reflective of the Party’s actions in power. But by that logic, the Hamas Charter, written over 25 years ago, cannot be said to be the sole controlling document of that organization, since much more recent statements and actions by its leadership have, at least some times, included an expressed willingness to pursue a long-term agreement with Israel. Furthermore, Hamas also agreed to join the Palestinian Authority in a unity government that accepts all previous PA agreements with Israel.

Too much political discussion in the United States about Israel/Palestine proceeds from the premise that Palestinians have no other interest than to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. Therefore, it is said, well-intentioned Israel has no viable negotiating partner for peace. The political reality on the ground does not conform to such a simple-minded tale of good vs. evil. Israeli hardliners in power have repeatedly rejected any basis for a viable Palestinian state. Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s qualified statement in support of a two-state solution in 2009 – which his American apologists repeatedly invoke to demonstrate his “moderate” bona fides – was characterized by a member of his own cabinet as “the spin of our lives.” In fact. Likud leaders have said unequivocally that no two-state deal is possible. And just three weeks ago, speaking at a press conference, Netanyahu said:

   “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

As David Horovitz wrote in The Times of Israel:

   “He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance.”

In other words, no independent Palestinian state. Period. Ever.

Arab leaders are accused *all the time* of making one set of (conciliatory) statements in front of some audiences in English, while revealing their (true) rejectionist feelings in front of others, in Arabic. To the extent that this is true, one could certainly say the same about Netanyahu – relatively conciliatory and reasonable-sounding statements for international audiences. And altogether different rhetoric for internal consumption. Bibi is, after all, a master – like many politicians – at speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Since Palestine does not exist as a recognized independent state, there is no need for Israel’s rejectionists to call for Palestine’s “destruction.” But the consistent avowals of Israeli leaders – and the plain language of the party platforms that express their parties’ core beliefs – to prevent such a state from coming into being is not substantively different from the expressed desire of the Hamas Charter to reject Israel’s existence.

The beginnings of a more fair and balanced appreciation of the conflict would start with that acknowledgment.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html

Nems wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Not playing Irn
You posted on a thread that was closed now whether you call this opening the thread or posting on a locked thread is semantics. Fact is you did.

Already said that there was no indication to me that it was locked and you have already indicated that it was not done knowingly but the fact is that I never as Quill claimed reopened any threads.  Thread(s) being more than one.

Well don't you worry
If you didn't know it was locked then you didn't know. No harm done in the end eh?!

Thank you. And as you say no harm done so everyone is happy that I was not being underhand in reopening threads that had been locked down for abuse simply to continue with arguments.

I'll leave it that then.

Goodnight.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Well don't you worry
If you didn't know it was locked then you didn't know. No harm done in the end eh?!

Thank you. And as you say no harm done so everyone is happy that I was not being underhand in reopening threads that had been locked down for abuse simply to continue with arguments.

I'll leave it that then.

Goodnight.

You underhand?!
The very idea!

Im retracting this comment. Looked at today the spirit I meant it in is missing and it looks snotty.
I have no hesitation in saying I have never known Irn to be underhand. We have clashed a lot in recent times which is a shame because I long considered him one of the best posters around and I look forward to seeing that Irn Bru again.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Actually its the truth, you posted on my Whoa whats going on thread after it was locked

There was no indication to me that it had been locked when I posted and I certainly did not reopen it. In fact I wouldn't even know how to do that.

Well if you didn't know it was locked you didn't know. The fact remains it was, so ntentional   or not what Quill said was right you had posted on a locked thread.

He said I reopened it. I didn't.

I can back Irn on this - he doesn't know now to lock or unlock a thread I don't think?
And to a mod, a thread doesn't look locked unless you scroll down to the bottom and see a padlock - which isn't immediately obvious if you're only going to make a post.

eddie wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

He said I reopened it. I didn't.

I can back Irn on this - he doesn't know now to lock or unlock a thread I don't think?
And to a mod, a thread doesn't look locked unless you scroll down to the bottom and see a padlock - which isn't immediately obvious if you're only going to make a post.

Eds, mods do have responsibilities.  Perhaps this is as good a time as any to remind you.

These websites live and die by the perception of fairness they give off.  We are experiencing that right now.  Where is Lil Andy?  Smelly bandit?  Vod?  And where are Sassy or JD, on the other hand?  I'm sure on the individual basis some of you will think you're glad this one, or that one is gone.  But think about this: they are gone, and not for reasons of your particular tastes. That's a symptom of a problem.

Ben doesn't ask a lot of y'all.  And you guys probably know more about the screens that he does.  So it behooves y'all to do the little bit more to make this a friendly environment...to make Ben's trust in you warranted.

The least you can do is look to see if a thread has been locked.  FGS, that means it has been policed, and policing is supposed to be your responsibility.  It's not a big deal in this instance, but the perception of fairness is a big deal to a website.

Quill, if you remember there was a parallel to this situation at the Ministry. You decided a "troika" was taking unfair modding decisions against you in part because I posted to you on a thread which had already been locked. It's easily done; a little padlock symbol the owner may have taken the decision to add unilaterally.

lovedust wrote:
Quill, if you remember there was a parallel to this situation at the Ministry. You decided a "troika" was taking unfair modding decisions against you in part because I posted to you on a thread which had already been locked. It's easily done; a little padlock symbol the owner may have taken the decision to add unilaterally.

There's no parallel to Ministry, Mogs.  The "troika" I spoke of at Ministry wasn't even adverse to me; colonel was scaring off new members by fostering an 'in-crowd' and not opening the site up.

Here we have a coincidence of a lockdown incident, but my words are not intended to address a website personality.  I'm simply saying a mod has to be astute and know what he or she is doing, lest members feel slighted and walk away when there is no issue. It's happened to left-wingers as well as right-wingers...it's random.

I agree with you quill actually; mods should know how to lock a thread for example and move one etc
Perhaps Ben should've given some basic training to those that needed it?

I made the mistake of positing on a locked thread on here once - now I will always look first (other sites I've modded show the symbol in a different and more obvious place)

eddie wrote:I agree with you quill actually; mods should know how to lock a thread for example and move one etc
Perhaps Ben should've given some basic training to those that needed it?

I made the mistake of positing on a locked thread on here once - now I will always look first (other sites I've modded show the symbol in a different and more obvious place)

Ben did the basics. I know how to lock a thread, move a thread etc. and the Mod that locks the thread usually puts it in the post that it is locked. However, I haven't seen how to reopen one and I didn't. And I certainly didn't to continue with arguments.

He's talking bollocks

Original Quill wrote:Shaming is a two-edged sword, Irn Bru.  Shame on you!  In the past two days you have been involved in no less than 4 (that I know of) gang ups.  You are even reopening threads that Ben has locked down for abuse, and continuing the arguments one-sidedly.  Have you given any more thought to resigning?

First of all I would like you to tell me the 4 (possibly more) Gang Ups that I have been involved in over the last two days and who I had ganged up with.

And then I would like you to tell me which thread(s) (more than one) that I reopened to continue the arguments one-sidedly.

Id like you to be really, really specific in dealing with this and not just give me a flood of meaningless text that you so often do. Deal with them in separate post if you wish or consolidate them into just one.

I’ll leave it up to you......carry on.

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:I agree with you quill actually; mods should know how to lock a thread for example and move one etc
Perhaps Ben should've given some basic training to those that needed it?

I made the mistake of positing on a locked thread on here once - now I will always look first (other sites I've modded show the symbol in a different and more obvious place)

Ben did the basics.  I know how to lock a thread, move a thread etc. and the Mod that locks the thread usually puts it in the post that it is locked. However, I haven't seen how to reopen one and I didn't. And I certainly didn't to continue with arguments.

He's talking bollocks

@irn
you can just reply with out unlocking, that is part of the problem if you don't notice the lock symbol (like if you clicked the link on latest topics scroll thing on the right hand side) then it more or less looks the same with the reply button etc. (in mod view) don't worry Irn, I know how easy it is to miss that it is locked in Mod view.   

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Shaming is a two-edged sword, Irn Bru.  Shame on you!  In the past two days you have been involved in no less than 4 (that I know of) gang ups.  You are even reopening threads that Ben has locked down for abuse, and continuing the arguments one-sidedly.  Have you given any more thought to resigning?

First of all I would like you to tell me the 4 (possibly more) Gang Ups that I have been involved in over the last two days and who I had ganged up with.

Why, so you can have a fifth?

Irn Bru wrote:And then I would like you to tell me which thread(s) (more than one) that I reopened to continue the arguments one-sidedly.

It's one of the several you've been having with Didge. If I recall, it's down below in the section with all the locked threads.

Irn Bru wrote:Id like you to be really, really specific in dealing with this and not just give me a flood of meaningless text that you so often do. Deal with them in separate post if you wish or consolidate them into just one.

I’ll leave it up to you......carry on.

Here comes the fifth.

veya_victaous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Ben did the basics.  I know how to lock a thread, move a thread etc. and the Mod that locks the thread usually puts it in the post that it is locked. However, I haven't seen how to reopen one and I didn't. And I certainly didn't to continue with arguments.

He's talking bollocks

@irn
you can just reply with out unlocking, that is part of the problem if you don't notice the lock symbol (like if you clicked the link on latest topics scroll thing on the right hand side) then it more or less looks the same with the reply button etc. (in mod view)  don't worry Irn, I know how easy it is to miss that it is locked in Mod view.   

And I agree that it can happen inadvertently...I think (I don't have a mod screen). It's just that we have lost so many members lately, that I think mods ought to redouble the efforts to be careful. Nothing pisses a member off so much as when they think you are fookin' with their free speech...like answering back and not giving 'em a chance to respond. My thought is we should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Shaming is a two-edged sword, Irn Bru.  Shame on you!  In the past two days you have been involved in no less than 4 (that I know of) gang ups.  You are even reopening threads that Ben has locked down for abuse, and continuing the arguments one-sidedly.  Have you given any more thought to resigning?

First of all I would like you to tell me the 4 (possibly more) Gang Ups that I have been involved in over the last two days and who I had ganged up with.

Why, so you can have a fifth?

Irn Bru wrote:And then I would like you to tell me which thread(s) (more than one) that I reopened to continue the arguments one-sidedly.

It's one of the several you've been having with Didge.  If I recall, it's down below in the section with all the locked threads.

Irn Bru wrote:Id like you to be really, really specific in dealing with this and not just give me a flood of meaningless text that you so often do. Deal with them in separate post if you wish or consolidate them into just one.

I’ll leave it up to you......carry on.

Here comes the fifth.

You couldn't even come up with one so you were just telling porkies.

And the fifth is what you need to take to stop you getting into trouble by lying even more.