Netanyahu Likely To Be Investigated For Bribery, Fraud Following 'Secret Probe' Discovery - Reports
http://rt.com/news/371991-netanyahu-police-investigation-documents/
"Israeli police have obtained new documents in a secret probe against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, prompting them to seek a full criminal investigation against the politician on suspicion of bribery and fraud, local media report."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46120.htm
The New Year and the arrival of an administration with fresh ideas would provide a great opportunity for the United States to finally distance itself from a toxic Israel, but, unfortunately, it seems that everything is actually moving in the opposite direction. Don’t be too surprised if we see a shooting war with Iran before the year is out as well as a shiny new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem (to be built on land stolen from Palestinians, incidentally). Trump might think he is ushering in a new era of American policy based on American interests but it is beginning to look a lot like same-old same-old but even worse, and Benjamin Netanyahu will be very much in the driver’s seat.
Coup: Israeli Police Enter Netanyahu’s Home Over Corruption Allegations Obama moving against Israel?
Zero Hedge - January 2, 2017
While it only makes logical and legal sense for such construction to be halted, the U.S. decision not to support Israel is a public slap in the face and one that comes at a time where it also makes sense to ask a logical question: Does the U.S. know something about Netanyahu’s investigation and possible crimes and are they now seeking to publicly separate themselves from the controversial Israeli Prime Minister?
Coup: Israeli Police Enter Netanyahu’s Home Over Corruption Allegations Obama moving against Israel?
Zero Hedge - January 2, 2017
While it only makes logical and legal sense for such construction to be halted, the U.S. decision not to support Israel is a public slap in the face and one that comes at a time where it also makes sense to ask a logical question: Does the U.S. know something about Netanyahu’s investigation and possible crimes and are they now seeking to publicly separate themselves from the controversial Israeli Prime Minister?
ThyssenKrupp got a mention. They used to employ Karl-Heinz Schreiber.
Trump Could Be Israel's Worst Nightmare
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-israel-worst-nightm...
"Netanyahu finally has the American partner of his dreams. Until everything falls apart. The Israeli right may have an ally in the White House - but they will be in short supply elsewhere."
Let's hope so.
"Tell the new zealots of Washington that in the making of Israel a monstrous human crime was committed and they will call you an anti-semite."
- Absolute Friends (John Le Carre.)
The Israeli right may have an ally in the White House - but they will be in short supply elsewhere."...
.......what is going on now is totally integrated with the attempts of the coup in the USA vs. Trump´s new administration....the Paris Peace conference undoubtedly will present the proposal for Palestinian Statehood....with Israeli and zionist forces in desperation to prevent! Will the US elitists and their Intelligence forces, in their attempts to preserve their control unleash the storm in the Palestine Israel conflict by approving the resolution? fascinating times!
Let's stop pretending Israel is heading toward a two-state solution: Neil Macdonald
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/pretend-two-state-solution-1.3919996
As he approaches retirement, Neil Macdonald is becoming more courageous, having less to lose. I applaud him for it.
For Palestinians giving up on a two state solution means no forceeable path to a state or rights. For Israel it means giving up on any viable pretence at any interest in a democracy or a Jewish state. For either it is a declaration of all out war on the other.
For Palestinians giving up on a two state solution means no forceeable path to a state or rights. For Israel it means giving up on any viable pretence at any interest in a democracy or a Jewish state. For either it is a declaration of all out war on the other.
I'm not sure the Palestinians ever wanted a two-state solution. I think they've always wanted a single state. The two-state was always a second choice, never a first.
Here's the UN resolution 2334:
Security Council Resolution 2334
...Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,
Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
In any case, Israel will never accept a two-state solution as long as 20% of their population is Palestinian. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out why. The first thing that would happen is those Palestinians living in Israel would want to unite their land with the Palestinian state. Israel would have to 'cleanse' their country of Palestinians before they would dream of accepting a Palestinian state next door.
The only long-term workable solution is a single state. I agree that it would be very difficult to achieve. I would start by using UN troops to guard the existing borders, a solution that works in Cyprus. I would also begin to find those on both sides of the fence who could work with the other side in administering the area.
I understand that others may find this pollyanna-ish, but I don't see any other way. Even if it takes a hundred years it's probably worthwhile.
Israel Afraid of Global Awareness About Its Crimes (and vid)
http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/01/07/505185/Palestine-Israel-UN-Fund-Peled
"Mike Peled, author and peace activist from Washington, says the Tel Aviv regime's decision to cut the fund of the UN, shows the Israelis are shivering from the wake-up of the world to their illegal settlement activities and crimes against the Palestinian people."
Of course the Palestinians want first and foremost to "free Palestine" including the original 1948 territory which became Israel. But many were willing to accept a historic compromise of a two-state solution as they could see no other way out. Now it is becoming clear even to the wilfully blind that the current Israeli leadership wants no part of such an accord.
I'm also pleasantly surprised by Neil Macdonald's comment.
Of course the Palestinians want first and foremost to "free Palestine" including the original 1948 territory which became Israel. But many were willing to accept a historic compromise of a two-state solution as they could see no other way out. Now it is becoming clear even to the wilfully blind that the current Israeli leadership wants no part of such an accord.
I'm also pleasantly surprised by Neil Macdonald's comment.
I think you are generally right except for one detail. And that is what I think MacDonald is getting at.
Israel does not want a two state solution in the present. However, it does not want the notion to go away either -- if that notion leaves then a need to acknowledge an apatheid regime and lack of democracy comes. What Israel seems to want is a two state solution in the future -- so long as it stays in the future for ever -- in order to avoid recognizing Palestinians within its own state.
So in fact far from rejecting the two state solution formally, they use the faint hope of it as the model to prop up the present without any progress or desire to see that future ever becoming a present. This is the essential duplicity that Israel is engaged in. Either a single state solution or a two-state solution would be better for the Palestinians as in both cases they would be part of a state. The fiction is the perpetual promise of some future solution to make sure that they are not part of anything in the present. Israel's policy is to keep them stateless. Put more honestly we should be calling Israeli policy the no-state solution.
In this the occupation and settlements are designed both to make any solution impossible while making any possible territory a Palestinian state could occupy disappear. Israel wants to keep this going until the Palestinians are no more than a diaspora. Then they can make a single state a democracy without the Palestinians there. The settlements are meant to squeeze out the palestinian population until it is no longer there.
Isn't this what it is all about really?
For Palestinians giving up on a two state solution means no forceeable path to a state or rights. For Israel it means giving up on any viable pretence at any interest in a democracy or a Jewish state. For either it is a declaration of all out war on the other.
I'm not sure the Palestinians ever wanted a two-state solution. I think they've always wanted a single state. The two-state was always a second choice, never a first.
Here's the UN resolution 2334:
Security Council Resolution 2334
...Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,
Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
In any case, Israel will never accept a two-state solution as long as 20% of their population is Palestinian. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out why. The first thing that would happen is those Palestinians living in Israel would want to unite their land with the Palestinian state. Israel would have to 'cleanse' their country of Palestinians before they would dream of accepting a Palestinian state next door.
The only long-term workable solution is a single state. I agree that it would be very difficult to achieve. I would start by using UN troops to guard the existing borders, a solution that works in Cyprus. I would also begin to find those on both sides of the fence who could work with the other side in administering the area.
I understand that others may find this pollyanna-ish, but I don't see any other way. Even if it takes a hundred years it's probably worthwhile.
I agree with Lagatta that while the initial desire was not to have two states, they would accept it as better than no state which is the more obvious position of Israel. Israel wants to hang on to the fiction of a future two state solution in order to keep the Palestinians out of what Israel considers its state. But the real desire is to see them leave the area not to see them either in a single state with Israel or a neighbouring Palestinian state.
The truth is Israel wants a no-state solution. Palestinians know this and would settle for any state. Their preference is hardly relevant becuase it does not seem like they will get anything other than a promise designed only to buy time until they disappear.
I am not saying this will happen but I am sayign this is the plan and what seems to me to be the obvious position of Israel. Put another way, Israel considers no solution to tbe the solution.
...The truth is Israel wants a no-state solution. Palestinians know this and would settle for any state. Their preference is hardly relevant becuase it does not seem like they will get anything other than a promise designed only to buy time until they disappear.I am not saying this will happen but I am sayign this is the plan and what seems to me to be the obvious position of Israel. Put another way, Israel considers no solution to tbe the solution.
I think this is re-stating more or less what I said, but regardless, I do agree with it. It has been obvious for a long time that Israel will never accept a Palestinian state, and that their plan is to 'cleanse' the occupied territories. Once cleared of Palestinians, Israel will annex whatever remains of the territory, and have their one-state solution.
...The truth is Israel wants a no-state solution. Palestinians know this and would settle for any state. Their preference is hardly relevant becuase it does not seem like they will get anything other than a promise designed only to buy time until they disappear.I am not saying this will happen but I am sayign this is the plan and what seems to me to be the obvious position of Israel. Put another way, Israel considers no solution to tbe the solution.
I think this is re-stating more or less what I said, but regardless, I do agree with it. It has been obvious for a long time that Israel will never accept a Palestinian state, and that their plan is to 'cleanse' the occupied territories. Once cleared of Palestinians, Israel will annex whatever remains of the territory, and have their one-state solution.
Well I think I went a little further -- in that they actively want to keep the two state idea alive so long as the reality never comes -- I am not sure I see that in anything you said. On the part we agreed -- we did -- but what I said previously was not in opposition to that.
I assume on the whole we are in agreement.
Israel's Parliamentary Plot Against UK Politicians
"The Israeli government is in the midst of a brazen covert influence campaign in Britain, a six month undercover investigation by Al Jazeera will reveal. Each episode of the 4-part series 'The Lobby' will be broadcast daily on AJ from Jan 15 at 22:30 GMT."
...I assume on the whole we are in agreement.
Agreed.
Israel's Parliamentary Plot Against UK Politicians
"The Israeli government is in the midst of a brazen covert influence campaign in Britain, a six month undercover investigation by Al Jazeera will reveal. Each episode of the 4-part series 'The Lobby' will be broadcast daily on AJ from Jan 15 at 22:30 GMT."
Can something be "brazen" and "covert" at the same time? 
The Zionists need have no fear of any Canadian equivalent. There is nothing but complete subservience across the political spectrum. Or perhaps one thing is shared with the British example: "the pernicious influence that Israel has on the political class...is founded on the Israeli lobby's shameless use of cash for infuence..."?
Why Has Israeli Spy Shai Masot Not Been Expelled?
http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/01/israeli-spy-shai-masot-not-ex...
"There is no starker proof of the golden chains in which Israel has entangled the British political class, than the incredible fact that 'diplomat' Shai Masot has not been expelled for secretly conspiring to infuence British politicians by attacking Britain's Deputy Foreign Minister, suggesting that he might be brought down by 'a little scandal'...."
Israel's Parliamentary Plot Against UK Politicians
"The Israeli government is in the midst of a brazen covert influence campaign in Britain, a six month undercover investigation by Al Jazeera will reveal. Each episode of the 4-part series 'The Lobby' will be broadcast daily on AJ from Jan 15 at 22:30 GMT."
Can something be "brazen" and "covert" at the same time?
"Brazenly covert"?
A former Westminster official has resigned after footage emerged appearing to show her discuss "taking down" pro-Palestinian MPs.
Maria Strizzolo, who is former chief of staff to Conservative MP Robert Halfon, was recorded talking to to Israeli embassy official Shai Masot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maria-strizzolo-shai-masot...
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shai-masot-israels-machiavellia-who-go...
Shai Masot once described himself as a man with "open views" who was committed to doing good in the world. Then he described Niccolo Machiavelli, a man infamous for promoting cunning and duplicity in statecraft, as his "god".
It is perhaps a telling contradiction that defines the now former "political officer" at Israel's embassy in London. Masot caused outrage after tapes were released on Saturday showing him plotting to "take down" Alan Duncan, a British MP and a vocal opponent of illegal Israeli settlement building in the West Bank.
Only, there is a telling difference between Masot and his "god": Machiavelli was never caught in the act. For his sins, Masot will soon be leaving the UK and while the British government considers the matter "closed", the days ahead promise to reveal more details of his dealings inside the British political establishment.
...Can something be "brazen" and "covert" at the same time?
According to a couple of sources, including my favourite, the Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary, brazen can mean 'shameless'. I understand that it usually also means very open or 'brassy'. It wouldn't have been the word I'd have chosen.
At the same time, it could also mean the perpetrators are proud of their covert action.
This revelation, coming as it does in the midst of the USA blaming Russia for interfering in elections is kinda funny.
Having just written that, it ocurred to me that perhaps Israel had as much motivation to 'interfere' in the USA election as Russia did. It was certainly no secret that Israel was not fond of Obama, and possibly by extension, Clinton. Consider that Trump made no secret of his support for Israel. So why could not the DNC hacking have been undertaken by Israel?
Hmmm......
...Can something be "brazen" and "covert" at the same time?According to a couple of sources, including my favourite, the Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary, brazen can mean 'shameless'. I understand that it usually also means very open or 'brassy'. It wouldn't have been the word I'd have chosen.
At the same time, it could also mean the perpetrators are proud of their covert action.
This revelation, coming as it does in the midst of the USA blaming Russia for interfering in elections is kinda funny.
Having just written that, it ocurred to me that perhaps Israel had as much motivation to 'interfere' in the USA election as Russia did. It was certainly no secret that Israel was not fond of Obama, and possibly by extension, Clinton. Consider that Trump made no secret of his support for Israel. So why could not the DNC hacking have been undertaken by Israel?
Hmmm......
My internal definition of "brazen" involves doing something that most people consider shameful, and not only failing to be ashamed, but also failing to even try to hide the shameful act. But of course, it could also apply to someone who secretly does the shameful act, then fails to be ashamed when the facts are exposed.
Regarding your speculation about Israel's potential role in the DNC hacking, one could even imagine that the Israeli government hackers were skillful enough to leave a trail of bread crumbs leading to the Kremlin. With data as scarce as it is in this case, almost anything could be true.
She brazenly referred to Israel without pejorative overtones. ; )
...Regarding your speculation about Israel's potential role in the DNC hacking, one could even imagine that the Israeli government hackers were skillful enough to leave a trail of bread crumbs leading to the Kremlin. With data as scarce as it is in this case, almost anything could be true.
Russia would be the perfect red herring in this case (pun on 'red' intended).
As I've said many times before, I doubt Russia really cares who the president is, given their knowledge that USA foreign policy (specifically that related to Russia) hasn't changed since 1945. Who becomes predident is of much greater interest to Israel, especially given their obvious dislike of Obama. The other point of course, is that they would have the necessary technical skills to carry out such an operation.
As far as the 'bread-crumb trail', that is not a problem at all. In fact that's probably the easiest part. There are a lot of Russian Jews in Israel, many of whom could have had relatively high positions in the government. So there is no lack of insider knowledge.
The more I think this over, the more possible it seems...
With data as scarce as it is in this case, almost anything could be true.
I think this is trrue. :)
more data here - I look forward to watching 'The Lobby'..
Israeli Intelligence Agent Conspired To Topple UK Tory Leader
http://richardsilverstein.com/2017/01/08/israeli-embassy-officer-conspir...
Al Jazeera's Investigation Unit, led by Clayton Swisher, is about to air a blockbuster documentary series which reveals that an Israeli embassy staff member (likely a MOSSAD agent, see below) colluded with Jewish Tory MPs to topple a fellow Tory leader who had criticized Israeli settlements.
For this, both pro-Israel MPs and the Israeli government sought revenge..."
Michael Snyder
End Of The American Dream
January 11, 2017
A draft of the summary statement that will be released at the conclusion of the 70 nation conference in Paris on Sunday has been leaked.
As you will see below, this communique is going to call for the division of the land of Israel, for the establishment of a Palestinian state, for the 1967 borders to serve as the basis for final negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and for the condemnation of any officials that refuse to support a two state solution. Of course this comes on the heels of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which many believe represented America’s greatest betrayal of Israel. Israeli government officials are publicly warning that there is a possibility that the principles agreed upon at this conference may form the basis for another Security Council resolution before January 20th, and this is something that we should all be watching for very closely.
Haaretz exclusively obtained a copy of a draft of the summary statement that will be released following the conference on Sunday, and you can read it for yourself right here. Reportedly, there was a major meeting of diplomats last Friday, and the latest draft reflects feedback that was received from those diplomats during that meeting…
Last Friday, there was a meeting of senior diplomats from the dozens of Western and Arab countries that will attend the conference. The French delegate, Pierre Vimont, presented them with the first draft of the conference’s summary communiqué and asked for comments.
According to Western diplomats, Vimont said France wants to reach a consensus among the participating states on a balanced statement that would stress the centrality of the two-state solution to the international community, but would take this month’s transfer of presidential power in the United States into account.
In many ways, the document very closely tracks the language of UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Here are some of the things that really stood out to me in the draft…
-It makes a clear commitment to “two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security”.
-It insists that there must be an end to “the occupation that began in 1967”.
-It calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to publicly renew their commitment to a two state solution.
-It also calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to publicly renounce any of their officials that do not support a two state solution.
-It states that the 70 nations gathered in Paris only recognize the June 4th, 1967 borders, and that the only future changes to those borders they will recognize will come as the result of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And just like UN Security Council Resolution 2334, Jerusalem is specifically mentioned. So according to this document, Israel does not own the Wailing Wall, the Temple Mount, a single inch of the West Bank or a single inch of East Jerusalem.
-The summary statement will also call on all countries to clearly distinguish between the State of Israel and territories that would belong to the Palestinians based upon the 1967 borders in all of their dealings.
What Motivates Israeli Missile Attacks on Syria?By AlwaghtGlobal Research, January 16, 2017Alwaght 16 January 2017
The central command of the Syrian army has announced that on Friday morning the Israeli regime fired several missiles at a big military airport in the western side of the capital Damascus. The army statement also warned Tel Aviv of the consequences of such a “blatant violation” of the Syrian sovereignty.
The official Syrian television quoted Syrian army’s statement as saying that a couple of missiles– launched from an area close to the Lake Tiberias in the occupied territories– hit the Al-Maza military airport. The airport contains installations belonging to the country’s presidential guard.
Immediately after the missile attacks, the Syrian foreign ministry sent two separate letters, one to the United Nations Security Council and the other to the UN secretary general, strongly condemning the assault against the military airport outside Damascus. The letter of the foreign ministry read that the aggression comes as part of a series of earlier Israeli aggressions against Syria since the beginning of the crisis in the country.
“Such an attack would not have occurred had it not been for the direct support from the outgoing American administration and French and British”, the letter to the international community added.
Question: Why is there no Palestine thread?
..............................................................................................................................
Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas unite in Moscow
Leaders of the two main rival Palestinian political groups, Fatah and Hamas have met in Moscow where they agreed to form a unity ‘all-Palestine’ government.
lthough many symbolic talks between Fatah and Hamas have resulted in meaningless deadlock, today’s agreement could pave the way for a future peace conference between a united Palestine and Israel.
In a further blow to US regional prestige, it is clear that in respect of Palestine both main factions as well as smaller Palestinian parties see Moscow’s approach to the conflict as one that offers an even hand with a pragmatic goal; a penultimate resolution to this seemingly never ending conflict.
For Israel’s part, Tel Aviv has numerous trade deals with Russia, the importance of which has only been strengthened by anti-Russian EU sanctions. With Moscow seen as a crucial partner but importantly, also an impartial arbiter by both sides, there may be a chance to reach a meaningful settlement that thus far the US has only made increasingly unworkable.
I love this part...
"Were Moscow to organise a peace conference on the Israel-Palestine conflict, as Russia has wanted to do for some time, one could envisage a similar scenario.
In such a situation, there could be a Russian drafted agreement signed off for by a united Palestinian leadership and an Israeli government, with the US more or less agreeing to the terms without having an active hand in overseeing let alone enforcing the agreement."
Russian English-language media has been quietly writing about the prospect of such a conference for some time.
I know it's a long shot but if any country can pull this off, Russia can. Hooray for them if they do.
And wouldn't it just be a suitable reward for Russian FM Sergei Lavrov, arguably the greatest diplomat in the world today, who, if he had any political ambitions, could very well trounce Vladimir Vladimirovich with one arm tied behind his back.
Is Adam Garrie stupid enough to actually believe this?
Palestinian sources cite Donald Trump’s recent election as one of the motivations to create a united front. However, in spite of Donald Trump’s rhetorically unambiguous support of Israel, like with many things concerning Trump, his business acumen and pragmatic approach to geo-political conflicts, could work in the best interests of all sides in the conflict.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fatah-agree-to-form-palestinian-unity...
The Palestinian representatives also met on Monday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and asked him to dissuade US President-elect Donald Trump from carrying out a campaign pledge to move the US embassy in Israel from coastal Tel Aviv to the capital Jerusalem, which is also claimed by the Palestinians as the seat of government for their future state.
How do you think that one will go?
How did it go with former Canadian PM Joe Clark?
How did it go with former Canadian PM Joe Clark?
Huh?
Are we now comparing Clark's promise coming as it did from a minority government with a shaky hold -- with Trump?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/20/making-israel-greater-again-justi...
After initially claiming neutrality on Israel-Palestine in February, Donald Trump aligned himself with Netanyahu’s Israel at the AIPAC conference in March. Since, he has demonstrated his favoritism in rhetoric and deeds, and on some issues has gone farther to the right than Netanyahu himself. Trump supports the expansion of Israeli settlements in the OPT and annexation of parts of the West Bank, prioritizes the controversial move of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and has suggested he may appoint his son-in-law Jared Kushner to head Middle East peace negotiations, in spite of Kushner’s vested interests in Israel and the OPT. In addition, Trump has appointed his bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman as ambassador to Israel, a hardliner who has called President Obama an anti-Semite and J Street, the liberal Zionist group, kapos (Jewish collaborators with the Nazis). Trump, Kushner and Friedman have chosen to partner with the most extreme right-wing forces in Israeli society, and by so doing have in effect put the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution, an illusion of Palestinian self-governance, which has been central to the American policy in the Middle East.
Trump has also stated he would dismantle the Iranian nuclear deal, which has been a crux of contention between the Obama administration and Netanyahu, and has backed his rhetoric with the appointment of cabinet members such as James “Mad Dog” Mattis, a man hell-bent on antagonizing the Iranian regime. As a natural born autocrat, Trump knows an external perceived threat is useful; there is nothing like the possibility of war to consolidate power and distract from corruptions. This manipulative and often deadly technique has been perfected by Bibi Netanyahu, Trump’s ideological twin.
How did it go with former Canadian PM Joe Clark?
Huh?
Are we now comparing Clark's promise coming as it did from a minority government with a shaky hold -- with Trump?
Sean there was nothing worth attacking him for that comment. Lets all try to bring the tone down to a debate level.
How did it go with former Canadian PM Joe Clark?
Huh?
Are we now comparing Clark's promise coming as it did from a minority government with a shaky hold -- with Trump?
Sean there was nothing worth attacking him for that comment. Lets all try to bring the tone down to a debate level.
Oh please.
I attacked him how?
I expressed dismay that we are comparing Trump's posturing about his Israel support with Clark's boneheaded promise from 1979. I remember it well. I was in highschool. I am now in my fifites.
But if you prefer I can answer, -- well Clark's promise did not go well especially as he miscalculated his support in the House and ticked off the social credit party which led to his defeat in December 1979. He lost the election the following month. Nothing more happened to his promise other than people made fun of it along with the fact that he lost his luggage on the way to India I think.
This was more than 35 years ago.
Now let's not start confusing personal attacks here with comments like mine.
Where will you stop if this is the standard to intervene? If that post of mine is an attack -- how do you plan to police every second post on this site? If my post was not civil I can't wait to see how many other posts you plan on noting for a lack of civility -- you might want to even consider a few of your own.
And sure -- I have crossed the line (not of policy but civility) but that is not the case here. Was a pretty fair comment no morse than what 90% of the posts on the site?
I guess what I was trying to say but rather poorly was let's just disengage and not find something to oppose in every post he makes. If you and others keep picking away at everything he says that is annoying or wrong then frankly that is the only thing that will get discussed. You know like its been for a while now.
I guess what I was trying to say but rather poorly was let's just disengage and not find something to oppose in every post he makes. If you and others keep picking away at everything he says that is annoying or wrong then frankly that is the only thing that will get discussed. You know like its been for a while now.
I think part of the problem is each person has different priorities. This is why it is worth it for you to post something while it might be more worth it for me to post something else. Now one thing that gets me to want to post a criticism is when there is a false equivalent made. The reason is that I think this is one of the things that normalizes what we are seeing now. Drawing these over different contexts may be apporpriate but sometimes it just isn't. I do think that is part of the debate and fair comment.
Also I think the reason for the harsh reactions is this poster's comments are often very harsh and aggressive and they are triggering similar in reaction. But in this case I would have said about the same thing. What Trump is doing with Israel cannot be compared to the bumbling of Clark in 1979. It is fair not to want to let that rest due to the normalizing influence of letting such comparisons be without comment.
Palestinians Rally in Israel Against Home Demolitions (and vid)
http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/01/22/507229/Palestine-Israel-Negev-demol...
"Thousands of Palestinians have staged a protest rally in northern Israel to show their anger at Tel Aviv's massacre of Palestinians as well as it's hoe demolition campaign in the Negev desert.
The demonstrators were angry at the demolitions on Wednesday of a number of homes and structures belonging to Bedouin Palestinians in the Umum al Hiran, a Bedouin village in the Negev desert. Prior to the demolitions, Israeli forces also shot Yacoub Abu al Qian, a local math teacher to death in the area.
In late December, the UN OCHA announced that Israel's demolition campaign against Palestinian homes and structures across the West Bank and East Jerusalem al Quds had reached the most unprecedented level in the past seven years..."
And Canada supports.
I attacked him how?Sean, as an uninvolved observer who often admires your thoughtful posts, let me say this: "Huh? We're now comparing ...." as a response, looks less like the reasoned statement of a contrary opinion than a slighting of someone else's. If it's not an attack it's something closely resembling one and likely to be resented.
Juist sayin', as they say. :)
no worse than what 90% of the posts on the site?
Agreed.
I attacked him how?Sean, as an uninvolved observer who often admires your thoughtful posts, let me say this: "Huh? We're now comparing ...." as a response, looks less like the reasoned statement of a contrary opinion than a slighting of someone else's. If it's not an attack it's something closely resembling one and likely to be resented.Juist sayin', as they say. :)
no worse than what 90% of the posts on the site?Agreed.
And as no worse than the other 90% -- and I would also say a fair comment given that I was saying the comparison was completely ridiculous.
What I do find odd is what is a rather average response for here reponse to an opinion based only on the opinion was called out.
Calling out a response to an opinion and calling it a personal attack -- when we are awash with direct personal insults and attacks strikes me as bizarre.
So I said Huh -- well okay -- so the standard of politeness that is publicly held up for me compared to the person I siad it to who likes to tell people that he is looking at reality and other don't and their problem is that they do not properly understand.
No, I am not letting this rather extreme double standard go.
You want peace you talk to both sides not single out the milder comment -- the one on the topic and less personal while ignoreing the volume of personal comments here -- including coming from -- shall we call him the victim now?
Where the heck do we get some balance and perspective here?
I was saying the comparison was completely ridiculous.
Actually no, you didn't say that. You posed a rhetorical and sarcastic-sounding question without spelling out an opinion or any reasons for it. - although you did later.
(edited for clarity) .. Then you asked how your post could be seen as an attack; to which I suggested an explanation.
But if you're not "hearing me", so be it. It was just a passing observation and I don't really have any investment in arguing about it (any more 
)
I was saying the comparison was completely ridiculous.
Actually no, you didn't say that. You posed a rhetorical and sarcastic-sounding question without spelling out an opinion or any reasons for it. - although you did later.
(edited for clarity) .. Then you asked how your post could be seen as an attack; to which I suggested an explanation.
But if you're not "hearing me", so be it. It was just a passing observation and I don't really have any investment in arguing about it (any more
Harsh comment on an opinion? Perhaps. An attack on a person? Not at all. In the context of this board where most personal attacks go without intervention it was a strange thing to call out. But sure, let's enjoy double standards if they make people feel good.
*
