Is Donald Trump's Campaign A Spoof?

[DonnyTJS]

3 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

You are deflecting and still fucking are

Ok so i made a generalisation of regions that want Israel wiped off the map - my bad

I forgot it's the TAMB and not a middle east thesis

Do you want me to get you quotes from real Arab's and not Persians before you will address the issue of countries that want Israel destroyed ?

 

No. But if you're going to make statements about the Middle East, it does little for your argument if you fall at the first 'this-guy-knows-fuck-all-about-the-Middle-East' hurdle.

Most countries in the region would be happy to coexist with Israel, if Israel (and the US) would respect the country's internationally recognized borders and support the establishment of a Palestinian state. Just look at Egypt's position before and after Camp David.

[Ally Bongo]

6 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Most countries in the region would be happy to coexist with Israel, if Israel (and the US) would respect the country's internationally recognized borders and support the establishment of a Palestinian state. Just look at Egypt's position before and after Camp David.

For over 50 years the majority of Arabs have persisted in seeing the state of Israel as temporary - an enemy they eventually expect to get rid of

That's your co existance

  

[dipped flake]

4 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

For over 50 years the majority of Arabs have persisted in seeing the state of Israel as temporary - an enemy they eventually expect to get rid of

That's your co existance

  

Israel was imposed on the Palestinians, who had lived there for thousands of years in, relative, peace. Tell me why they shouldn't want rid of Israel??

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, dipped flake said:

Israel was imposed on the Palestinians, who had lived there for thousands of years in, relative, peace. Tell me why they shouldn't want rid of Israel??

Zionism and the ancient Land of Israel is another debate

Palestinians dont make up the majority of Arabs and indeed most other Arab countries couldnt give a toss about them

[dipped flake]

11 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Zionism and the ancient Land of Israel is another debate

Palestinians dont make up the majority of Arabs and indeed most other Arab countries couldnt give a toss about them

Sadly true. 

[DonnyTJS]

9 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

For over 50 years the majority of Arabs have persisted in seeing the state of Israel as temporary - an enemy they eventually expect to get rid of

That's your co existance

  

[Sorry for delay - time zones ...]

You write as if this were an immutable, inevitable state of affairs. As I said - look at Egypt. Since 1967 Israel has occupied, and built settlements on, lands that were not part of its territory as defined by the UN at its formation. Egypt made peace and recognized Israel at Camp David in return for the Sinai. They may not like each other, but they coexist peacefully (as opposed to the sporadic all out warfare that had occurred from 1947 to 1974).

Israel still occupies the Golan Heights and the West Bank and it works against the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, all with American backing that was initially excused as being an element of the Cold War and then was effectively tacit (complicated by Saddam's colonial ventures and their ramifications following the lifting of superpower pressure after 1989) until Trump makes the huge symbolic gesture of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

So, to return to your original claim that 'the Arab World' would destroy Israel given half a chance - no, and it's moot anyway because it's not possible. Peace on the other hand is possible, as was shown by the Camp David Accords. The reason that it now seems as far away as it did before then is in large part due to Israel's policy of occupation and US support for that policy.

A peace conference, with the aim of establishing Palestinian state and the de-settlement and return of the occupied territories would be achievable. That it has not happened since the Cold War (before which it wasn't viable due to the region's proxy status between the superpowers) is largely because of the clout of the Zionist lobby in the US.

 

[DonnyTJS]

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Zionism and the ancient Land of Israel is another debate

Palestinians dont make up the majority of Arabs and indeed most other Arab countries couldnt give a toss about them

And because it's the Zionist lobby in the US that is preventing negotiations on a two-state solution based on 1947 partition boundaries, that makes your first sentence simply wrong. Zionism is central to the problem of Israel. Your second point is probably correct (though it wouldn't have been in 1947), which makes a two-state solution all the more viable, were it not for the ideology of Zionism.

[Ally Bongo]

10 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

A peace conference, with the aim of establishing Palestinian state and the de-settlement and return of the occupied territories would be achievable. That it has not happened since the Cold War (before which it wasn't viable due to the region's proxy status between the superpowers) is largely because of the clout of the Zionist lobby in the US.

 

So - is this propaganda ?

Three times in a decade, Israeli prime ministers have offered Palestinians an independent state. The Palestinians said no. Why? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state. In the U.S.-sponsored summit at Camp David in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to the borders suggested by President Clinton that would have given the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and Gaza. Astonishingly, it included the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem, making it possible for East Jerusalem to be the Palestinian capital.

Again Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat refused and made no counteroffer, making clear he was not serious about a deal. Then he walked out of the negotiations and launched the second intifada that killed many Israelis. In December 2000 an even sweeter deal was offered, the so-called Clinton parameters, and Arafat walked again.

Then in 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made "the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands," said Charles Krauthammer in a 2011 op-ed, offering close to 100% of the West Bank with land swaps, Palestinian statehood and the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine.

Olmert even offered to turn over the city's holy places — including some of Judaism's most sacred sites — to an international body that included Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Did Abbas accept? No.

The current prime minister is portrayed as stubborn. It is forgotten that it was Benjamin Netanyahu who brought his Likud coalition to an open recognition of a Palestinian state, thus creating a first national consensus for a two-state solution. And what was the response of the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas? He boycotted the talks for nine months.

Netanyahu went very far when they met. He agreed that some settlements would remain in sovereign Palestinian territory. He was the first prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze that lasted 10 months, something no Labor or Kadima government had ever done. He said yes to virtually every proposal, while Abbas said no.

Abbas walked out when the freeze expired, insisting on the so-called right of return of millions of Arabs made refugees by war and the unwillingness of Arab states to receive them. The right of return is simply a device to demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs.

Abbas knew it too well. He'd heard Olmert explain that he'd yielded so much to peace but he could not have Israel commit suicide. He made it clear that he could never allow some 5 million Palestinian refugees to enter Israel because that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

So, anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all by leaving the Jewish state still standing. Why is that? The Palestinians won't accept any land-for-peace deal. They want the land without the peace. They want sovereignty for themselves without a reciprocal recognition of the sovereignty of the Jewish state. They want statehood without negotiation and an independent Palestine that can continue its war with Israel.

The Palestinian leadership has never put forth comprehensive proposals aimed at reaching a compromise, but instead has stated only impossible goals and never budged from them, remaining inflexible on its demands for territory, Jerusalem and refugees. When the dust settles, it always finds a way to blame Israel.

These days, Palestinians aligned with Hamas seek unilateral steps at the UN while they continue to refuse to engage in direct negotiations. The barrier to peace is a Palestinian Authority that still dreams of annihilating Israel, and Hamas, which is committed to its pledge to murder Jews.

 

[XB52]

8 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

So - is this propaganda ?

Three times in a decade, Israeli prime ministers have offered Palestinians an independent state. The Palestinians said no. Why? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state. In the U.S.-sponsored summit at Camp David in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to the borders suggested by President Clinton that would have given the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and Gaza. Astonishingly, it included the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem, making it possible for East Jerusalem to be the Palestinian capital.

Again Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat refused and made no counteroffer, making clear he was not serious about a deal. Then he walked out of the negotiations and launched the second intifada that killed many Israelis. In December 2000 an even sweeter deal was offered, the so-called Clinton parameters, and Arafat walked again.

Then in 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made "the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands," said Charles Krauthammer in a 2011 op-ed, offering close to 100% of the West Bank with land swaps, Palestinian statehood and the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine.

Olmert even offered to turn over the city's holy places — including some of Judaism's most sacred sites — to an international body that included Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Did Abbas accept? No.

The current prime minister is portrayed as stubborn. It is forgotten that it was Benjamin Netanyahu who brought his Likud coalition to an open recognition of a Palestinian state, thus creating a first national consensus for a two-state solution. And what was the response of the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas? He boycotted the talks for nine months.

Netanyahu went very far when they met. He agreed that some settlements would remain in sovereign Palestinian territory. He was the first prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze that lasted 10 months, something no Labor or Kadima government had ever done. He said yes to virtually every proposal, while Abbas said no.

Abbas walked out when the freeze expired, insisting on the so-called right of return of millions of Arabs made refugees by war and the unwillingness of Arab states to receive them. The right of return is simply a device to demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs.

Abbas knew it too well. He'd heard Olmert explain that he'd yielded so much to peace but he could not have Israel commit suicide. He made it clear that he could never allow some 5 million Palestinian refugees to enter Israel because that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

So, anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all by leaving the Jewish state still standing. Why is that? The Palestinians won't accept any land-for-peace deal. They want the land without the peace. They want sovereignty for themselves without a reciprocal recognition of the sovereignty of the Jewish state. They want statehood without negotiation and an independent Palestine that can continue its war with Israel.

The Palestinian leadership has never put forth comprehensive proposals aimed at reaching a compromise, but instead has stated only impossible goals and never budged from them, remaining inflexible on its demands for territory, Jerusalem and refugees. When the dust settles, it always finds a way to blame Israel.

These days, Palestinians aligned with Hamas seek unilateral steps at the UN while they continue to refuse to engage in direct negotiations. The barrier to peace is a Palestinian Authority that still dreams of annihilating Israel, and Hamas, which is committed to its pledge to murder Jews.

 

Wow, totally unbelievable garbage. Surely even you don't believe that rubbish??

[Ally Bongo]

5 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Wow, totally unbelievable garbage. Surely even you don't believe that rubbish??

All of it completely untrue ?

 

[DonnyTJS]

32 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

- is this propaganda ?

[Paragraphs of propaganda]

 

Do you never do any fact-checking or research of any form? Look at what I said above about peace negotiations based on the 1947 partition boundaries, and then look into what lies behind that shite you just posted with that in mind.

[ParisInAKilt]

21 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

All of it completely untrue ?

 

A source would be helpful 

[Ally Bongo]

43 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Do you never do any fact-checking or research of any form? Look at what I said above about peace negotiations based on the 1947 partition boundaries, and then look into what lies behind that shite you just posted with that in mind.

"Is this propaganda" and "is all of this untrue" are two questions and not statements bawsack 

[ParisInAKilt]

39 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

"Is this propaganda" and "is all of this untrue" are two questions and not statements bawsack 

Regardless it’s still unsourced. 

Bawsack? Ha 

Donny does appear to get under some posters skin.

Edited May 13, 2018 by ParisInAKilt

[Ally Bongo]

5 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Regardless it’s still unsourced. 

 

Why do you need a source ?

It's either true or false

If people want to state that 100% of the middle east blame lies at the feet of Israel, heinous as they may be, then thats up to them

Doesnt make it true

 

[ParisInAKilt]

11 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Why do you need a source ?

It's either true or false

If people want to state that 100% of the middle east blame lies at the feet of Israel, heinous as they may be, then thats up to them

Doesnt make it true

 

Politics is rarely just true or false.

I’m not sure anyone is doing that. 

It’s clearly a lot more complex than 100% truth, blame etc.

[phart]

2 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

A source would be helpful 

It was written by Mortimer Zuckerman when he owned the NY Daily News.

 

[ParisInAKilt]

7 minutes ago, phart said:

It was written by Mortimer Zuckerman when he owned the NY Daily News.

 

Makes sense.

[Ally Bongo]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-peace-talks-between-israelis-and-palestinians-keep-failing/

[phart]

"For the past 50 years, Palestinians and Israelis have been subjected to the uniquely corrosive institution of belligerent occupation."

False equivalence in the very first sentence. One side gets to vote, one doesn't.

 

Anyone who has actually studies the Camp David Maps will understand why it was rejected. The Aquifers in Palestine were to be given to Israel and in exchange Palestine got an irradiated part of the southern Negev. In addition West Bank was to be partitioned into 3 Cantons with no international borders or internal borders between them. Turning the West Bank into 3 Gaza strip type areas. No goods coule leave Palestine without crossing Israel and being subject to taxation.

There's loads of other shit I just can't be arsed typing it out.

[Ally Bongo]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/23/middle-east-peace-process-over-palestinians

[DonnyTJS]

19 minutes ago, phart said:

"For the past 50 years, Palestinians and Israelis have been subjected to the uniquely corrosive institution of belligerent occupation."

False equivalence in the very first sentence. One side gets to vote, one doesn't.

 

Anyone who has actually studies the Camp David Maps will understand why it was rejected. The Aquifers in Palestine were to be given to Israel and in exchange Palestine got an irradiated part of the southern Negev. In addition West Bank was to be partitioned into 3 Cantons with no international borders or internal borders between them. Turning the West Bank into 3 Gaza strip type areas. No goods coule leave Palestine without crossing Israel and being subject to taxation.

There's loads of other shit I just can't be arsed typing it out.

Yup. Now Ally has reverted to his usual MO of searching for links to documents he either hasn't read or hasn't understood, but that he thinks (from a cursory glance at the headline presumably) support his prejudices. Not forgetting the enlightening comment that sources aren't important, after he counters the suggestion that the Zionist lobby in the US is an obstacle to peace by pasting an entire uncited article by a powerful member of the Zionist lobby. I've lost track of the original point ... something about the Ayatollahs being Arabs because they wear towels on their heads ...

 

 

[DonnyTJS]

21 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/23/middle-east-peace-process-over-palestinians

That actually makes my point.

[Ally Bongo]

3 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Yup. Now Ally has reverted to his usual MO of searching for links to documents he either hasn't read or hasn't understood, but that he thinks (from a cursory glance at the headline presumably) support his prejudices.

 

 

2 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

That actually makes my point.

Actually smart arse i am playing Devil's advocate to the premise that Israel is 100% the baddies and everyone else is the good guys

I note that nobody has of yet addressed the statements made by prominent Iranians with power on the destruction of Israel ?

Instead of Iranians would you prefer Persians or Muslims since you would rather address my Arab faux pas than that thorny issue ?

Since Iran supports and funds Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad in Israel does that not make them part of the "arab world against Israel" or is that just prejudice ?

You and Phart are wasted on here

Both of you should be submitting your applications to take part in the next peace process talks and see how far you both get

[DonnyTJS]

5 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

Actually smart arse i am playing Devil's advocate to the premise that Israel is 100% the baddies and everyone else is the good guys

I note that nobody has of yet addressed the statements made by prominent Iranians with power on the destruction of Israel ?

Instead of Iranians would you prefer Persians or Muslims since you would rather address my Arab faux pas than that thorny issue ?

Since Iran supports and funds Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad in Israel does that not make them part of the "arab world against Israel" or is that just prejudice ?

You and Phart are wasted on here

Both of you should be submitting your applications to take part in the next peace process talks and see how far you both get

I don't think Phart's said anything about the chances or otherwise of a successfully negotiated settlement, and I haven't said that it will be anything other than extremely difficult. What I've been saying is that the role of the US is key, and the Zionist lobby appears to hold such sway there that the pressure which the US could apply on Israel - nominally a client state of the US - will not be applied. However, I don't see any other alternative to a negotiated two-state solution at some point, even if it takes generations.

On Iran, what are you asking people to address? Of course they support various armed groups, just as every other player in the region supports various armed groups. And of course they have called for the destruction of Israel - that's the type of discourse in which theocratic states indulge. They're not in a position to destroy Israel, and they are an anathema to most of the Sunni Arab world (an important point, but one that seems to confuse you), so unless they achieve nuclear capability - which Israel will ensure they don't, despite the blunderings of the current US president - it's the most predictable rhetoric. So why you're balancing precariously on a stool clutching your petticoats about it is beyond me.

Your question "Instead of Iranians would you prefer Persians or Muslims...?" just highlights once again that you really don't get the Muslim thing. It's up there with your claim a few months ago that 1970s groups like Black September and the PFLP were Islamic terrorists.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by DonnyTJS