Jump to content

Turkey says Israel becoming 'racist, apartheid regime' with annexation plan


webfact

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I would like to see Netanyahu annex area C. The charade of a 2 state solution would then be over. It would focus the world's attention on what Israel has become. Israel wants the land but not the people who already live there. With Israel's new borders completely enclosing and including almost 3 million indigenous Palestinians who are subject to segregated laws yet have no civil rights or say in how they are governed, it looks exactly what Turkey's Foreign Minister called it in the OP.. "a racist apartheid regime."

 

The struggle will then enter a new phase. I think Netanyahu is about to shoot Zionism in the foot. A single state is inevitable anyway. I thought it would take decades, but Netanyahu is hastening the process with Trump cheerleading. It's like watching a regime change train crash in slow motion.

 

I think that you, and people like you, are more into the "struggle" bit. Or at least, the virtual parts which do not entail any personal cost or hardship.

 

Nothing in your post references what happens to the Palestinian populace under such hypothetical circumstances. Nothing in your post relates that they are to endure further hardship while you and your ilk can carry out the "struggle" by clicking keyboards.

 

Not so much pro-Palestinian, but rather anti-Israeli. That you favor escalation, mayhem and strife is nothing new. That's the fuel which drives your whole posting effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think that you, and people like you, are more into the "struggle" bit. Or at least, the virtual parts which do not entail any personal cost or hardship.

 

Nothing in your post references what happens to the Palestinian populace under such hypothetical circumstances. Nothing in your post relates that they are to endure further hardship while you and your ilk can carry out the "struggle" by clicking keyboards.

 

Not so much pro-Palestinian, but rather anti-Israeli. That you favor escalation, mayhem and strife is nothing new. That's the fuel which drives your whole posting effort.

Palestinian lives cannot be much worse than they endure at the moment under de facto apartheid Israeli rule, despite your faux sympathy for Palestinian suffering.

 

Their lives and Jewish Israelis' futures will improve when they all live in a single democratic state or some sort of confederation.

 

I note you yourself do not offer any solutions to improve the lives of Palestinians or Israeli Jews.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dexterm said:

Palestinian lives cannot be much worse than they endure at the moment under de facto apartheid Israeli rule, despite your faux sympathy for Palestinian suffering.

 

Their lives and Jewish Israelis' futures will improve when they all live in a single democratic state or some sort of confederation.

 

I note you yourself do not offer any solutions to improve the lives of Palestinians or Israeli Jews.
 

 

Same old nonsense about "cannot be much worse". If you're having trouble imagining what "much worse" looks like, look up the Syrian Civil War. Or Lebanon's Civil War. Or even how things are in the Gaza Strip relative to the West Bank.

 

You can go on and on about how a single-state would be great. You cannot, however, supply a single instance of this working out in the Middle East. You cannot, or will not, address multiple issues related to this notion.

 

You can pretend to "note" whatever you like. Unlike some, I do not pretend to have magic solutions, or even that solutions are easy to come by. My sort of "solutions" involve both sides having to accept hard concessions, with the reality that follows still being a troubled one for quite a while. In the same vein, I do not provide any imaginary guarantees that all will be well. When you're done making up stuff, consult numerous previous topics where such issues were detailed, often in response to your own posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Same old nonsense about "cannot be much worse". If you're having trouble imagining what "much worse" looks like, look up the Syrian Civil War. Or Lebanon's Civil War. Or even how things are in the Gaza Strip relative to the West Bank.

 

You can go on and on about how a single-state would be great. You cannot, however, supply a single instance of this working out in the Middle East. You cannot, or will not, address multiple issues related to this notion.

 

You can pretend to "note" whatever you like. Unlike some, I do not pretend to have magic solutions, or even that solutions are easy to come by. My sort of "solutions" involve both sides having to accept hard concessions, with the reality that follows still being a troubled one for quite a while. In the same vein, I do not provide any imaginary guarantees that all will be well. When you're done making up stuff, consult numerous previous topics where such issues were detailed, often in response to your own posts.

You always pride yourself on being a realist, a pragmatist. The lives of Palestinians and Israeli Jews seem to be inextricably combined in a single de facto state anyway. Netanyahu is simply helping to formalize the situation. Can you honestly see how this reluctant marriage can all be practically unravelled to the even vague agreement of all parties...borders, Jerusalem, resources, settlements? No-one seems to have been able to make your "hard concessions"  over 52 years of occupation and annexation. So time to accept the inevitable..if you cant divide the land, share it.

 

Plenty of examples world wide where power struggles have been resolved and people of different faiths, races, and colors have learnt to live together without too much friction. Israel could be a beacon in the Middle East where this happens too.

 

When Israel becomes a formal overt apartheid state, I would hope that western governments finally apply the pressure and international laws they should have used decades ago to focus Israel's attention on ways for all different peoples to live together in peace, rather than devoting energy to how they can divide them in a managed conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

You always pride yourself on being a realist, a pragmatist. The lives of Palestinians and Israeli Jews seem to be inextricably combined in a single de facto state anyway. Netanyahu is simply helping to formalize the situation. Can you honestly see how this reluctant marriage can all be practically unravelled to the even vague agreement of all parties. No-one seems to have been able to make your "hard concessions"  over 52 years of occupation and annexation. So time to accept the inevitable..if you cant divide the land, share it.

 

Plenty of examples world wide where power struggles have been resolved and people of different faiths, races, and colors have learnt to live together without too much friction. Israel could be a beacon in the Middle East where this happens too.

 

When Israel becomes a formal overt apartheid state, I would hope that western governments finally apply the pressure and international laws they should have used decades ago to focus Israel's attention on ways for all different peoples to live together in peace, rather than devoting energy to how they can divide them in a managed conflict.

 

Do you really have to sneak those loaded assumptions of yours into every argument? You may see the one-state thing as inevitable, but that doesn't make it a fact.

 

As for them "hard concessions", they aren't "mine". They've been prescribed on plenty of plans, offers and whatnot. That to date not much (but also, more than nothing) was achieved is an indication of both sides reluctance to engage and compromise. It is not an edict that this it a permanent situation nor does it obviously imply a one-state "share" it version is achievable.

 

You claim "plenty of examples", yet consistently fail to detail a single one. And, again, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, conditions in the Middle East and conditions relevant to this specific conflict are not necessarily similar to those prevailing in other regions and to other conflicts. Once again, with sugar on top - an example, please. Preferable one relating to the ME in any meaningful way.

 

As for the "Israel could be a beacon in the Middle East where this happens too" - or, more likely, it would turn into another generic strife ridden country, plagued by violence and civil war. That you cannot even acknowledge this is rather telling. Going on about beacons is all very well - but maybe find a less complex country to carry out your social engineering fantasies? Lastly, it would be "Israel", would it? Kinda doubt the Palestinian vision is to have a homeland named Israel.

 

And as usual with your posts - not much to say on the Palestinians. Nothing about their views. Nothing about major elements such as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad. With your posts it's always Israel, and only Israel that's to be discussed. Not a great indication of balance, objectivity or even being informed.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I think that you, and people like you, are more into the "struggle" bit. Or at least, the virtual parts which do not entail any personal cost or hardship.

 

Nothing in your post references what happens to the Palestinian populace under such hypothetical circumstances. Nothing in your post relates that they are to endure further hardship while you and your ilk can carry out the "struggle" by clicking keyboards.

 

Not so much pro-Palestinian, but rather anti-Israeli. That you favor escalation, mayhem and strife is nothing new. That's the fuel which drives your whole posting effort.

Yep. The Pals are just tools used to beat the jews with. I dont feel sorry for them because they are willing tools. Never forget what the Pals did in Kuwait or how they destabilized the the Lebanon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 it's the Republicans who are the most supportive of Netanyahu”

 

And the Democrats ? They are not behind anyone ? France, UK not supporting any ? Well, we better look at the history of the Middle East then. 40 years ago Mr President Carter supported hardliners in Afghanistan and Iran to take over the power. And still he visits Middle East every once in a while with the same idea. You need to look at the Middle East widely, not only one or two countries and try to understand the politics after WWII in the region. It is not simple as it looks like. By blaming a single country (any) can not get a correct answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

No its not. Its just the usual Islamofascist jew baiting propaganda.  If the Turks had the same democratic rights as the Israeli Edogan would be in chains and his maniac mullahs stripped of power and privilege.

Which is relevant to what israel is how?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. Just being an alleged member of a group doesn't mean you possess the knowledge to speak authoritatively about it. In fact, as polls show, American jews are far more sceptical about Israeli policy than, say Evangelical Christians, who outnumber them by about 20 to 1. Given that American Jews vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and it's the Republicans who are the most supportive of Netanyahu's policies, only makes your analysis even weaker.

When it comes to either Israel and Trump, evangelical Christians are not skeptical about much. They blindly support whatever it is that is being proffered. So, using them as a comparison does not mean much to many people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

When it comes to either Israel and Trump, evangelical Christians are not skeptical about much. They blindly support whatever it is that is being proffered. So, using them as a comparison does not mean much to many people. 

 

That doesn't even begin to makes sense. It doesn't even relate to your previous positions and posts in which you freely reference political support of similar groups. More so, you have had no previous issues discussing evangelical Christians support of Trump on other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

When it comes to either Israel and Trump, evangelical Christians are not skeptical about much. They blindly support whatever it is that is being proffered. So, using them as a comparison does not mean much to many people. 

First off, evangelical Christians do not blindly support whatever is being proffered. They do overwhelmingly support whatever aligns with their core beliefs. In the case of Israel a toxic combination of anti-Muslim prejudice combined with support for an Israel ruled by Jews. The latter being a necessith for the return of the Messiah.

And the point about the comparison of the Evangelicals to the Jews is that they wield a lot more electoral power in the USA than do Jewish Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That doesn't even begin to makes sense. It doesn't even relate to your previous positions and posts in which you freely reference political support of similar groups. More so, you have had no previous issues discussing evangelical Christians support of Trump on other topics.

You again. Sorry, but you are not making any sense today. Sometimes your posts are quite well informed, and very articulate. You did not pass muster today. I know, we all have off days. It is part of life. Does it matter if this relates to my previous posts? When have I ever once expressed support for the evangelical Christian positions on anything? Can anyone question the evangelical support of Trump and his policies? Why does that even matter? I think an argument can easily be made that the evangelical community in the US does not have much discrimination, when it comes to supporting a variety of Trump's positions. As long as he supports Israel, and the 2nd amendment, and is anti abortion, not much else seems to matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

You again. Sorry, but you are not making any sense today. Sometimes your posts are quite well informed, and very articulate. You did not pass muster today. I know, we all have off days. It is part of life. Does it matter if this relates to my previous posts? When have I ever once expressed support for the evangelical Christian positions on anything? Can anyone question the evangelical support of Trump and his policies? Why does that even matter? I think an argument can easily be made that the evangelical community in the US does not have much discrimination, when it comes to supporting a variety of Trump's positions. As long as he supports Israel, and the 2nd amendment, and is anti abortion, not much else seems to matter. 

 

You go another muddled rant to try and shore up your "argument"? Oh well.

 

Nothing was said about you expressing support for evangelical Christian positions. It just seemed odd that you suddenly refuse references to their political support as a group or comparisons of it to other groups and their political support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Do you really have to sneak those loaded assumptions of yours into every argument? You may see the one-state thing as inevitable, but that doesn't make it a fact.

 

As for them "hard concessions", they aren't "mine". They've been prescribed on plenty of plans, offers and whatnot. That to date not much (but also, more than nothing) was achieved is an indication of both sides reluctance to engage and compromise. It is not an edict that this it a permanent situation nor does it obviously imply a one-state "share" it version is achievable.

 

You claim "plenty of examples", yet consistently fail to detail a single one. And, again, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, conditions in the Middle East and conditions relevant to this specific conflict are not necessarily similar to those prevailing in other regions and to other conflicts. Once again, with sugar on top - an example, please. Preferable one relating to the ME in any meaningful way.

 

As for the "Israel could be a beacon in the Middle East where this happens too" - or, more likely, it would turn into another generic strife ridden country, plagued by violence and civil war. That you cannot even acknowledge this is rather telling. Going on about beacons is all very well - but maybe find a less complex country to carry out your social engineering fantasies? Lastly, it would be "Israel", would it? Kinda doubt the Palestinian vision is to have a homeland named Israel.

 

And as usual with your posts - not much to say on the Palestinians. Nothing about their views. Nothing about major elements such as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad. With your posts it's always Israel, and only Israel that's to be discussed. Not a great indication of balance, objectivity or even being informed.

 

 

 

 

Pure deflection to ask for examples from other Middle Eastern countries. We're discussing Israel...Israelis can be quite smart, hold many western values and already have the makings of a true democracy (they're not quite there yet though). It's also a silly argument to suggest something can't be done because it's never been tried.

It's also a fallacy: like saying show me a country without obese people, therefore health programs must be a waste of time.

 

The whole of Palestine has been a de facto single state for the last 52 years. You cannot get into any part of Palestine/Israel without passing through an IDF checkpoint or Israeli immigration.(apart from a single crossing Gaza-Egypt)

 

All the major parties endorse the fact that the Jordan Valley is Israeli forever.

Haaretz Poll: 42% of Israelis Back West Bank Annexation, Including Two-state Supporters
Thirty-four percent support a two-state solution ■ Twenty percent of non-Jews support entire West Bank annexation ■ Only three Israeli parties openly support two-state solution

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-palestinian-conflict-solutions/.premium-42-of-israelis-back-west-bank-annexation-including-two-state-supporters-1.7047313

 

So why can't you face reality and get on with the business of how does Israel cope with the Palestinians it inherits, instead of gray washing talking about hard compromises that no-one seems interested in any more along with the old canard of a two state negotiations that western politicians conveniently hide behind so they can turn a blind eye to Israel expanding and consolidating into a single state anyway.

 

The choices are:
1. The OP racist apartheid - let's see how the world reacts to a further 3 million Palestinians formally completely enclosed and controlled within Israel's annexed borders but without any say in how they are governed.
2. Ethnic cleansing - let's see how the world reacts to 3 million Palestinians being dumped into the open prison of Gaza or into Jordan?
3. Some sort of single state or binational confederation with constitutional checks and balances so that Israel could remain a Jewish homeland. I have plenty of ideas of how people could be encouraged/socially engineered/forced to get along.

 

Option 3 is inevitable, but because of pig headedness the world may yet have to witness options 2 and 3 first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Pure deflection to ask for examples from other Middle Eastern countries. We're discussing Israel...Israelis can be quite smart, hold many western values and already have the makings of a true democracy (they're not quite there yet though). It's also a silly argument to suggest something can't be done because it's never been tried.

It's also a fallacy: like saying show me a country without obese people, therefore health programs must be a waste of time.

 

The whole of Palestine has been a de facto single state for the last 52 years. You cannot get into any part of Palestine/Israel without passing through an IDF checkpoint or Israeli immigration.(apart from a single crossing Gaza-Egypt)

 

All the major parties endorse the fact that the Jordan Valley is Israeli forever.

Haaretz Poll: 42% of Israelis Back West Bank Annexation, Including Two-state Supporters
Thirty-four percent support a two-state solution ■ Twenty percent of non-Jews support entire West Bank annexation ■ Only three Israeli parties openly support two-state solution

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-palestinian-conflict-solutions/.premium-42-of-israelis-back-west-bank-annexation-including-two-state-supporters-1.7047313

 

So why can't you face reality and get on with the business of how does Israel cope with the Palestinians it inherits, instead of gray washing talking about hard compromises that no-one seems interested in any more along with the old canard of a two state negotiations that western politicians conveniently hide behind so they can turn a blind eye to Israel expanding and consolidating into a single state anyway.

 

The choices are:
1. The OP racist apartheid - let's see how the world reacts to a further 3 million Palestinians formally completely enclosed and controlled within Israel's annexed borders but without any say in how they are governed.
2. Ethnic cleansing - let's see how the world reacts to 3 million Palestinians being dumped into the open prison of Gaza or into Jordan?
3. Some sort of single state or binational confederation with constitutional checks and balances so that Israel could remain a Jewish homeland. I have plenty of ideas of how people could be encouraged/socially engineered/forced to get along.

 

Option 3 is inevitable, but because of pig headedness the world may yet have to witness options 2 and 3 first.

 

The  misrepresentation of my words is dully noted - I haven't said there are no bi-national states. I've pointed out that the viability of such in the Middle East is questionable. Obviously, you prefer to dodge the issue than address it. Israel is in the Middle East. At least half of the population of your hypothetical one-state are Arabs. So no, pointing out that these sort of things do not work out in the Middle East is not a deflection. In one of your previous posts you claimed there are plenty of examples - let's have even a single one, then.

 

Your newfound admiration of Israelis stands in stark contrast to all the many posts and rants in which you derided and vilified them. And as usual with your rants, everything is the Israelis responsibility - even making this "one-state" work. The Palestinians' role is not mentioned, nor much regard for the lack of democratic tradition among them.

 

Got to love your penchant of putting up links and blatantly misrepresenting their content as supporting your views. This  one is no exception - if one bothers to pay attention. Placing much importance on the words of politicians and political parties in general, and during campaign time is a choice. It's amazing how much trust one can express in such when it suits, eh?

 

From this bit of nonsense you draw your next "argument" - so it's basically based on nothing much other than your usual creed. There is no majority support for a single form/aim of annexation. And missing as usual from your posts is a clear reference as to how Palestinians feel about things. That you try to make it a solely Israeli issue, while advocating a bi-national state is bizarre.

 

And the same faux choices are touted again. As usual, missing out on the distinct possibility that things will drag on much longer than your "choices" allow for. Nothing dramatic, just the same old. Sometimes Israel will be criticized, sometimes the Palestinians will be criticized. Various pressures applied to both sides. The occasional flare up. Same  old. Don't believe in that? It's pretty much what's been happening for over 50 years. You make the assertion that things are about to change since you came on this forum. Other than in your diatribes? Not that many dramatic changes.

 

How the World reacts is a win-win for your brand of "activism". If it goes your way, good. If it doesn't - also good. Can rile and blame whomever fails to fall in line. To date, the World tends to show less than stellar ability to unite and effectively act on most things. Assuming this is about to change for the better is unfounded (and IMO, getting worse, if anything).

 

You do not actually have "plenty of ideas". At least not ideas which relate to reality or to the basic concept of both people being accountable. You consistently avoid discussion and references to a host of issues pertaining to the Palestinian side, while focusing solely on negatives associated with the Israeli side. That's no recipe for a solution.

 

I wouldn't know that not accepting your opinions or embracing your one-sided, unrealistic, often extreme views amounts to "pig headedness".  Possibly it's the other way around.

 

To cap - not a single example of your rose-tainted "vision" having realistic chances. No relevant coherent explanations either. Not a shred of support other than your own word. Not even much by reference as to Palestinian views. It's not a solution - it's a joke.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The  misrepresentation of my words is dully noted - I haven't said there are no bi-national states. I've pointed out that the viability of such in the Middle East is questionable. Obviously, you prefer to dodge the issue than address it. Israel is in the Middle East. At least half of the population of your hypothetical one-state are Arabs. So no, pointing out that these sort of things do not work out in the Middle East is not a deflection. In one of your previous posts you claimed there are plenty of examples - let's have even a single one, then.

 

Your newfound admiration of Israelis stands in stark contrast to all the many posts and rants in which you derided and vilified them. And as usual with your rants, everything is the Israelis responsibility - even making this "one-state" work. The Palestinians' role is not mentioned, nor much regard for the lack of democratic tradition among them.

 

Got to love your penchant of putting up links and blatantly misrepresenting their content as supporting your views. This  one is no exception - if one bothers to pay attention. Placing much importance on the words of politicians and political parties in general, and during campaign time is a choice. It's amazing how much trust one can express in such when it suits, eh?

 

From this bit of nonsense you draw your next "argument" - so it's basically based on nothing much other than your usual creed. There is no majority support for a single form/aim of annexation. And missing as usual from your posts is a clear reference as to how Palestinians feel about things. That you try to make it a solely Israeli issue, while advocating a bi-national state is bizarre.

 

And the same faux choices are touted again. As usual, missing out on the distinct possibility that things will drag on much longer than your "choices" allow for. Nothing dramatic, just the same old. Sometimes Israel will be criticized, sometimes the Palestinians will be criticized. Various pressures applied to both sides. The occasional flare up. Same  old. Don't believe in that? It's pretty much what's been happening for over 50 years. You make the assertion that things are about to change since you came on this forum. Other than in your diatribes? Not that many dramatic changes.

 

How the World reacts is a win-win for your brand of "activism". If it goes your way, good. If it doesn't - also good. Can rile and blame whomever fails to fall in line. To date, the World tends to show less than stellar ability to unite and effectively act on most things. Assuming this is about to change for the better is unfounded (and IMO, getting worse, if anything).

 

You do not actually have "plenty of ideas". At least not ideas which relate to reality or to the basic concept of both people being accountable. You consistently avoid discussion and references to a host of issues pertaining to the Palestinian side, while focusing solely on negatives associated with the Israeli side. That's no recipe for a solution.

 

I wouldn't know that not accepting your opinions or embracing your one-sided, unrealistic, often extreme views amounts to "pig headedness".  Possibly it's the other way around.

 

To cap - not a single example of your rose-tainted "vision" having realistic chances. No relevant coherent explanations either. Not a shred of support other than your own word. Not even much by reference as to Palestinian views. It's not a solution - it's a joke.

 

 

Continued deflection, misrepresentation of what I wrote, nitpicking, plus personal attack.

Waste of my time.  I will leave it to readers to judge.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Continued deflection, misrepresentation of what I wrote, nitpicking, plus personal attack.

Waste of my time.  I will leave it to readers to judge.

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't misrepresented your words. Addressing your many faux points and loaded statements is not "nitpicking".

 

The bottom line is that you cannot factually and rationally support your arguments, hence retreating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...