An FBI lawyer pled gully to fabricating evidence against the Trump campaign in a FISA warrant application. There is no bigger story today, and yet no bigger story being ignored by the compliant press . Clinesmith I believe made a deal with the Durham prosecution team and he will soon out more of the conspirators .

An FBI lawyer pled gully to fabricating evidence against the Trump campaign in a FISA warrant application. There is no bigger story today, and yet no bigger story being ignored by the compliant press . Clinesmith I believe made a deal with the Durham prosecution team and he will soon out more of the conspirators .

"No bigger story today"?????????????? Huh? You gotta be kidding, tom. This is old news that was known over a year ago. It's being revived now because the Trump-initiated investigation by flunkie Barr needs some news to be ready for just before the election. The other flunkie Durham is going along with the nonsense hook, line and sinker.

YOU "believe" a deal has been made with Durham to out "more conspirators"?????? Please keep us advised on that one, tom.

Have you joined QANON? Have you defected from conservative to conspiracy theorists? Are you off your meds?

Put that darned bottle of snake oil down my gosh!

We knew about Clinesmith from the Horwitz report about FISA abuse by the emperor's FBI. You think he would only be pleading guilty to a single count if a deal hadn't been agreed to with the prosecution ?We will know more about the terms under which the negotiated plea is being entered when Clinesmith appears in court. Federal law requires that all material understandings attendant to a guilty plea be disclosed to the judge.And unlike the emperor's team ,the Durham team will not falsify information or leave out pertinent exculpatory evidence (like Carter Page was not working with the Russians but was in fact a CIA asset).

Unlike Comey and Mueller investigations there hasn't been a steady stream of convenient leaks fed to the press . So perhaps the press can be forgiven . However I suspect their lack of interest is pure political hypocrisy.

My lack of interest in whatever the dufus and his flunky Barr comes up with is rooted in distrust and disgust, and a profound allergy to snake oil.

NEXT!

there hasn't been a steady stream of convenient leaks fed to the press . So perhaps the press can be forgiven . However I suspect their lack of interest is pure political hypocrisy.

Leaving aside the other points in your reply (time will tell, as you say), I beg to differ with your characterization of the press. By far, the greatest political hypocrisy exhibited by media has been the FOX organization. As a frequent watcher, I am astounded at the way FOX distorts or ignores the news - especially the prime time trio pf Carlson, Ingraham and Hannity. It is aptly named the Trump News Channel. OAN is worse, but nobody cares much about them, except Trump who touts them often.

For a smart guy like you, tom, how can you dismiss what is the most accurate reporting on Trump and the Senate Republicans by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the print media of the NY Times and the Washington Post - not to mention the major media outlets overseas?

I will give you MSNBC which, sadly in my opinion, changed from main-stream to left-wing during the Trump era. Having said that, it continues to report accurately re the Trump news. Trump's attacks are a major cause of that network going leftward.

Not a day goes by (literally), when Trump is not caught in a lie or gross distortion of the truth. Only FOX ignores or minimizes his terrible mismanagement of Covid-19, now counting near 170,000 dead.

Thank God for the main-stream media - warts and all.

I only watch Fox news with Bret Baier ,and the only talk radio I listen to is John Bachelor. I have seen enough YouTube segments of CNN commentary to know they are hopelessly biased . How can anyone consider Fredo or Lemon as unbiased ? I'll leave it at that . Even in the days of Walter Cronkite the press bias was on display . Nobody knew different because there was no competing source of information . The big 3 networks were the so called gate-keepers of truth . As for the print press and their relationship with the FBI ,all one has to do is recall the real motivation for Mark Felt becoming 'Deep Throat '. That Woodward and Bernstein got the story right had nothing to do with true gumshoe investigating . They were fed a story and ran with it doing no serious vetting of what they were fed

Forget for a minute that this happened to a President you don't like ; if the FBI is brazen enough to lie, tamper with evidence, & carry out a phony treason “investigation” against a guy who 63 million Americans voted for , who can possibly think it isn’t doing the same injustices to ordinary people every day? Think Richard Jewell ;think Dr Steven Hatfill. How many innocent people have they put away or tried to ? At a minimum every case that Clinesmith and Weismann investigated should come under immediate review .

Tom - when the media reports news that is immediately backed up by a video of what they are reporting - I consider that the truth. Yes, sometimes videos can be misleading, but more often than not, they reveal actual happenings. This is especially true when even FOX has to report in a similar fashion, so obvious is the event.

As hard as I try, I will never understand how anyone seeking truth can support Trump - a known liar. As I said above, he dissembles DAILY. The best I can say about him is that I have come to believe he is mentally unstable and therefore has less culpability than I once thought. However, in no way does that eliminate the absolute need to get him out of the presidency. Nor does it stop him from being prosecuted and jail time which he richly deserves.

Does the main-stream media have a left/right bias? Yes and no. When the power resides in the right-wing, the media will expose the wrongs as it has been doing in the era of Trump. When the power resides in the left-wing, it will expose the wrongs as it did in the eras of Clinton and Obama, although those presidents were angels compared to the devil currently in office. The media thrives on exposing corruption.

It is hard not to act the way the media does since they are primarily intelligent people who are well-educated and able to judge events and people with a view to fact and truth. Those qualities are not absolute necessities but they sure help. We all know people who have come from nowhere and are naturally able to speak and understand the difference between BS and truth. But they are more likely to show up in the media when they rise from the well-informed circles.

You cited examples from Cronkite to the FBI. Yet nothing comes close to Trump blatantly trying to undermine the presidential election in his favor. Or his fatal mismanagement of the Covid crisis. Even worse has been the gross failure of the Senate Republicans when they threw their country under the bus simply to keep their positions of influence. All these have been reported accurately and they hardly indicate a left bias since they are the truth.

https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/117610132_2678780722387483_322140364844138781_n.jp g?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=Wr-bsrvrzrMAX_DhxMf&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=22cdf53b35b46c5a60f6adc1e150561f&oe=5F5FCDF3

Any other President that negotiated a Middle East Peace deal would be on the fast track to a Nobel Peace Prize and would be lauded by the press. But not Trump . The Slimes headline was "Trump’s Middle East Plan: Starting Point or Dead End?"
The Politico's take was "Trump's Win Is a Loss for the Middle East"

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiz87Hg4J_rAhXis1kKHWwlCJ8QFjAQegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fmagazi ne%2F2020%2F08%2F14%2Ftrump-mideast-israel-uae-deal-395567&usg=AOvVaw3MW7ZbQPxybfDqB3aMPdbd)

The devil is in the details as this seems less like a peace plan than a let's side against Iran initiative. We'll see.

Any other President that negotiated a Middle East Peace deal would be on the fast track to a Nobel Peace Prize and would be lauded by the press. But not Trump . The Slimes headline was "Trump’s Middle East Plan: Starting Point or Dead End?"
The Politico's take was "Trump's Win Is a Loss for the Middle East"

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiz87Hg4J_rAhXis1kKHWwlCJ8QFjAQegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fmagazi ne%2F2020%2F08%2F14%2Ftrump-mideast-israel-uae-deal-395567&usg=AOvVaw3MW7ZbQPxybfDqB3aMPdbd)
He is just lining up his ducks

Any other President that negotiated a Middle East Peace deal..............worthy of a Nobel Prize.....

Hardly Nobel Prize worthy. Exaggerate much? This was a diplomatic recognition between an Arab state and Israel. Good enough. The condition was that Israel POSTPONE its West Bank settlement. Essentially a bribe suggested by Trump et al to get a headline he can promote for the election.

Then there's Iran threatening, perceived as such by the UAE.

And Israel's radicals are not happy with the settlement agreement.

Totally rejected by the Palestinians.

So there's a little more to the agreement than you suggest. However, credit is granted where credit is due. It's better than nothing - temporarily.

Yes talks were held, it isn't Oslo but this is a different time

since the Palestinians launch missiles at Israel every day ,I would call Oslo a failure ;wouldn't you ?

I was just saying you cannot compare previous situations with the present progress. The UAE obviously recognise the futility of the palestinian claims and as they are supported by Iran it is politic to take an opposing view. If the palestinians stopped their offensive some progress might be made

Stopping Israeli expansion seems to be a condition of this agreement making the hardliners very unhappy especially Netty so we will have to see how this goes. The UAE is but the 3rd Arab nation to make such an agreement with Israel so a start, but a long way to go before declaring this a ME peace plan. I'm not seeing a big rush by other Arab states to get on this bandwagon.

If the palestinians stopped their offensive some progress might be made

Not bloody likely. How would you react if another country took over Australia without a nod to Aussies already living there?

If ever there were two sides to a question, this is one of those times.

Not bloody likely. How would you react if another country took over Australia without a nod to Aussies already living there?

If ever there were two sides to a question, this is one of those times.

I'm on the other side of that question. There were never two sides to the palestinian question, the UN decided that in 1948

I'm on the other side of that question. There were never two sides to the palestinian question, the UN decided that in 1948

And who decided things in the previous 2,000 years prior to 1948?

And who decided things in the previous 2,000 years prior to 1948?

force of arms, Romans, arabs, turks, british to name a few. Until there was interest in establishing a jewish homeland palestine was a arid backwater noone wanted. The Ottomans started moving people in to counter jewish migration

Until there was interest in establishing a jewish homeland palestine was a arid backwater noone wanted.

No one wanted the land except for the people living on the land. Interest in establishing a homeland for a group not there is about as evil as is possible.

When the Arab Bedouins helped the allies defeat the Turks in WW1, the British Foreign Office promised the land as a national homeland for the Palestinian Arabs living there. A few years later in 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised the land to Jews as a homeland. Unfortunately, the Arabs weren't even allowed to have a seat at the peace conference in Versailles.

The two promises have been the source of the conflict for over 100 years now. The British have continuously admitted the the Balfour Declaration was vague as to the boundaries involved.

The Palestinians clearly have the greater moral right to the land, but the Israelis have the backing of the major powers and far superior military technology.

No one wanted the land except for the people living on the land. Interest in establishing a homeland for a group not there is about as evil as is possible.

When the Arab Bedouins helped the allies defeat the Turks in WW1, the British Foreign Office promised the land as a national homeland for the Palestinian Arabs living there. A few years later in 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised the land to Jews as a homeland. Unfortunately, the Arabs weren't even allowed to have a seat at the peace conference in Versailles.

The two promises have been the source of the conflict for over 100 years now. The British have continuously admitted the the Balfour Declaration was vague as to the boundaries involved.

The Palestinians clearly have the greater moral right to the land, but the Israelis have the backing of the major powers and far superior military technology.

Athos you know as I do that the issue isn't as simple as who might have been living there centuries ago. There were only a few hundred thousand arabs living there when the idea was first floated, The jews were evicted by the Romans because they didn't accept being a conquered people. The palestinians are no different. If they would just settle to the new circumstance instead of trying to destroy the newcomers they might be better off

Athos you know as I do that the issue isn't as simple as who might have been living there centuries ago.

This isn't about "centuries ago". You wrote that Israel was established by the UN in 1948, hardly centuries ago.


There were only a few hundred thousand arabs living there when the idea was first floated,

If you're referring to 1948, the Arab population was about 1.25 million. Jews, primarily recent immigrants since the advent of Zionism, were a few hundred thousand. Prior to the late 19th century, the Jewish population had been a small minority and had been static since their expulsion by the Romans in 70 AD.


Jews were evicted by the Romans because they didn't accept being a conquered people. The palestinians are no different.

You have it very wrong. The Palestinians were not conquered. Their homeland was given to a foreign people who had not lived there for almost 2,000 years (with the above exception). This "gift" came from a supra-national agency (the UN) that had no moral or legal right to do so.


If they would just settle to the new circumstance instead of trying to destroy the newcomers they might be better off

To fight an invader trying to conquer your land, resistance is the normal thing to do. Didn't Australia fight the Japanese? Or should they have stopped resisting because they "might be better off"?

To fight an invader trying to conquer your land, resistance is the normal thing to do. Didn't Australia fight the Japanese? Or should they have stopped resisting because they "might be better off"?

There is a difference between resisting an invader and insurrection after the invasion is over. I'm sure the americans appreciate that after their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can fight for just so long before your country is devastated. The palestinians are fortunate noone has devastated their country

There is a difference between resisting an invader and insurrection after the invasion is over.

As I previously stated, there was NO invasion.


I'm sure the americans appreciate that after their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The issue here is Israel-Palestinians. Not America-Iraq-Afghanistan.


You can fight for just so long before your country is devastated. The palestinians are fortunate no one has devastated their country

Chalk one up for international morality.

There is a difference between resisting an invader and insurrection after the invasion is over. I'm sure the americans appreciate that after their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can fight for just so long before your country is devastated. The palestinians are fortunate noone has devastated their country

Targeting Saddam, Bin Laden, and AL Qaeda is/was hardly an invasion, and Palestine looks devastated AND oppressed to me.

Targeting Saddam, Bin Laden, and AL Qaeda is/was hardly an invasion, and Palestine looks devastated AND oppressed to me.

Really, what part of it


As I previously stated, there was NO invasion.

I'm sure the palestinians would disagree


The issue here is Israel-Palestinians. Not America-Iraq-Afghanistan.

The issue is the UN, representing the nations of the world, voted to create the state of Israel. The palestinians have never accepted that decision




Chalk one up for international morality.

You think that exists, you are more niave than I thought

Jeez - you managed to miss the point of everything I wrote -----



I'm sure the palestinians would disagree

And I'm sure they know the difference between an invasion and the ruling by the UN. I'm surprised you don't.


The issue is the UN, representing the nations of the world, voted to create the state of Israel. The palestinians have never accepted that decision

You are skipping past what the discussion was about. It's ok to change a subject but don't imply it's an answer to the subject just discussed.


You think that exists, you are more niave than I thought

This is a reference to my comment on international morality. You again missed the point - this time in a big way. As anybody can see (apparently some exceptions) my comment was a bit of irony, or sarcasm if you prefer. Who's being naive, now?

Guilty I'll admit it if you will, I'm totally naive, I believe in the innate goodness of mankind

So do I but you cannot ignore the loons liars and innate criminal behavior of some of mankind, or the bad behavior whether intentional or unintentional.

There was never a 'Palestine ' even when the UN recommended they establish a state during the partition . The Arabs there are Arab ,indistinguishable from Arabs from Jordan ,Syria, Sinai Bedouins ,Lebanon, Iraq .Arabs in neighboring states, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitant's part of the great "Arab nation" . Jerusalem in it's whole history has never been recognized as other that Israel's Capitol ;during the First and Second Temple periods ,and of the modern state of Israel . The land was Israel as far back as 1000 bce . If there was any conquest it was of Israel by such empires as Philistines ,Egypt ,Assyria ,Babylon ,Persia ,Greeks ,Parthenia,Rome ,Eastern Roman Empire ,Byzantines ,the Turks /Ottomans ,Germany ,England ,France , and a whole bunch of other minor empires and invaders . The Jews who returned after the UN mandate were living in diaspora after conquers threw them out of their homeland .

There was never a 'Palestine '

Of course, there was. The name is attested to in ancient Greece and in ancient Rome.


The Arabs there are Arab ,indistinguishable from <other> Arabs

That's like saying Irish in Ireland are indistinguishable from Irish in England. So what?


The <Arabs> have always considered Palestine and its inhabitant's part of the great "Arab nation"

Again, so what?


Jerusalem in it's whole history has never been recognized as other that Israel's Capitol

WRONG! A settlement at the site of Jerusalem goes back at least 6,000 years. By 3,000 BC, a city inhabited by Canaanites existed. This city was named after a Canaanite god (Shalem) and was later inhabited by a tribe from Canaan called Israelites. This was about 1100 BC.


The land was Israel as far back as 1000 bce . If there was any conquest it was of Israel by such empires as Philistines ,Egypt ,Assyria ,Babylon ,Persia ,Greeks ,Parthenia,Rome ,Eastern Roman Empire ,Byzantines ,the Turks /Ottomans ,Germany ,England ,France , and a whole bunch of other minor empires and invaders

This is all generally true, but what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?


The Jews who returned after the UN mandate were living in diaspora after conquers threw them out of their homeland .

Not true. AFTER the UN action in 1947, Jews had a hard time leaving their home countries, primarily Eastern Europe and Russia, and had, in fact, an even harder time getting into Israel due to British blockades against immigrant Jews.

In any case, what is your point about this history of the Jews?

he is trying to prove palestine is a construct of modern history and that the palestinian people never existed

he is trying to prove palestine is a construct of modern history and that the palestinian people never existed
He needs to read Genesis and
https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine

he is trying to prove palestine is a construct of modern history and that the palestinian people never existed

I guess he was wrong. I wonder, then, exactly whose land it was that Israel took over in 1947?

I guess he was wrong. I wonder, then, exactly whose land it was that Israel took over in 1947?

It was British mandated Palestine

It was British mandated Palestine

My question was Whose land was it?

My question was Whose land was it?
Some Jews lived there, some Arabs lived there and it was occupied by the British military

Some Jews lived there, some Arabs lived there and it was occupied by the British military

Then why did you say the Palestinian people never existed?

Then why did you say the Palestinian people never existed?

I didn't say that but the fact is that palestine is a modern construct, the people are either jews or arabs, the jews don't identify as palestinian and the arabs only identify as palestinian for political ends, before 1967 they were jordanian or eqyptian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians)

Seems your version of the definition of Palestinian people is but the most recent one as clearly there have been others and for many centuries past. The Israelis may not be invaders but they are clearly oppressors, and suppressors as they expand their own territories by displacing Palestinians.

Like all the other conquerors of human history with superior forces.

I didn't say that but the fact is that palestine is a modern construct, the people are either jews or arabs, the jews don't identify as palestinian and the arabs only identify as palestinian for political ends, before 1967 they were jordanian or eqyptian

Adding to what Talinman said--------

You're playing the semantics game to avoid the issue. That game has been played since 1948 to somehow justify the takeover by Israel. As if suggesting the Arabs living there had no Palestinian name, therefore they did not exist, and therefore no one was displaced - what a bunch of BS!

The issue is - the Arabs that were living there, now calling themselves Palestinians, have been illegally and immorally forcibly removed from their ancestral lands by the UN in support of another group who call themselves Israelis. Anyway you slice it, the Palestinians Arabs have been oppressed and displaced.

To repeat from an earlier post: In 1947, the Arab population was about 1.25 million. Jews, primarily recent immigrants since the advent of Zionism, were a few hundred thousand. Prior to the late 19th century, the Jewish population had been a small minority and had been static since their expulsion by the Romans in 70 AD.

So it wasn't just a bunch of Arabs and Jews living there - the Arabs were overwhelmingly the dominant population. It is beyond me why you pick such a false position on the issue. It is one thing to support Israel, it is quite another thing to spew lies about the Palestinian Arabs. The facts are obvious and plain for all to see. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No the fact is that when Israel was formed the Jews invited the arabs to live peacefully among them, the arabs attacked the jews resulting in defeat and an occupation. I don't deny the arabs lived there but they had no political organisation, you cannot deny that the whole of the ME is a recent construct following the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI

No the fact is that when Israel was formed the Jews invited the arabs to live peacefully among them,

Gee, how nice of them! So the Jews take over the land belonging to the Arabs and then they invite them to live there on their own land? Peacefully, no less! Who could resist such an offer?


the arabs attacked the jews resulting in defeat and an occupation.

What would YOU do if somebody kicked you off YOUR land?


I don't deny the arabs lived there but they had no political organisation,

The nerve of those Arabs! How dare they live on their own land without an organization you approve of. (This is just getting more and more bizarre).


you cannot deny that the whole of the ME is a recent construct following the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI

I hereby deny it. As far as I can tell, the land has been there since the planet was formed. Since then, there have been several civilizations living there as you yourself indicated in a previous post.

The way you twist words is astounding. Especially, the Jews inviting the Arabs to live on their own land. That one takes my breath away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_confli ct

1948-2014

Thank you Tal

There is much more Clete.

https://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/30/14088842/israeli-settlements-explained-in-5-charts

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/f90A_v7cjJ_yuI8lNO0K7FAMdZI=/0x0:1211x987/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1211x987):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7724071/Settlements_Population__1_.jpg

Israeli expansion into an already small crowded place is the recipe for conflicts and bloody retributions. What does one expect from such blatant displacements?

it is an ancient problem tal

Yep, with no end in sight.

it is an ancient problem tal

Paraclete - did you look at the chart? The Israelis are taking Arab lands NOW, not anciently! And they are doing this in direct violation of the UN directive forbidding Israel to settle on Arab lands in the West Bank. SMH.

Paraclete - did you look at the chart? The Israelis are taking Arab lands NOW, not anciently! And they are doing this in direct violation of the UN directive forbidding Israel to settle on Arab lands in the West Bank. SMH.Athos, you maybe unaware that noone takes UN directives seriously when it applies to them, the US doesn't take them seriously regarding sanctions on Iran, China doesn't taken them seriously. In Fact, they are just so much background noise, why should the Israeli's listen when these people are their enemies, they conquered the west bank, not because they wanted to but because these people made war on them. I understood the graphic, just as I understood the content of Tal's link. There is not just one aggressor there and there are various forms of aggression. Whenever you jamb people into ghettos you get violence, whenever you restrict populations you get violence. The UN created the problem at the behest of the great powers and the atrocities of WWII. Israel was the UN's great experiment and the world is still paying for it. The arabs took Palestine centuries ago by conquest and now they object to the ancient inhabitants coming back

All nations, both big and small want to keep their own SOVERIEGNTY. While the UN is but a collective that can make suggestions and in some cases facilitate a vehicle for joint endeavors, they cannot GOVERN. The rules don't allow it, and the most powerful nations still dominate and run the show in it's own national self interests.

You know how we humans are, conquer and dominate as you can (For profit, power and influence like it's always been) and who and how will rules be enforced? We do have a few rules though, and a loose global agreement but obviously as you said that doesn't stop those who can from bending, breaking those rules.

We're a long way off from a effective GLOBAL authority that all submit to willingly, or whole heartedly. To the discussion though, a peace agreement while one side pushes the other into an ever shrinking corner will never happen and workers to the pushers benefit and not the pushed. That's just the history of the world until a greater force intervenes instead of enables.

Athos, you maybe unaware that noone takes UN directives seriously when it applies to them, the US doesn't take them seriously regarding sanctions on Iran, China doesn't taken them seriously.

Israel was more than willing to listen to the UN when it decided in their favor to take Arab lands.


In Fact, they are just so much background noise, why should the Israeli's listen when these people are their enemies, they conquered the west bank,

So, your moral principle is Might Makes Right. It's a good thing for you that the United States pulled your bacon out of the fire when the Japanese were poised to overrun Australia on the theory of Might Makes Right. You probably sang a different tune back then.


The UN created the problem at the behest of the great powers and the atrocities of WWII. Israel was the UN's great experiment and the world is still paying for it.

Finally, you got something right.


The arabs took Palestine centuries ago by conquest and now they object to the ancient inhabitants coming back

Well, that didn't last long - you're back on the wrong track. The area has ALWAYS had Arabs. What changed was their culture that bound them. Originally, that culture is lost in the sands of time. Subsequent cultures/nation/city states have been Syria, Egypt, Canaan/Philistines (from which the name derives), Israel, Roman, Greek/Byzantine, Christian, Muslim, and today's displaced inhabitants. So your designation of the Israelites as the "ancient inhabitants" is not true.

It is also important to note that a majority of Arabs and Jews share DNA that traces back to common ancestors a few thousand years in the past.

Israel was more than willing to listen to the UN when it decided in their favor to take Arab lands.

The jews didn't seek to take the land by conquest




So, your moral principle is Might Makes Right. It's a good thing for you that the United States pulled your bacon out of the fire when the Japanese were poised to overrun Australia on the theory of Might Makes Right. You probably sang a different tune back then.

while we are all greatfull the US won the war in the Pacific, Japan was never going to overrun Australia, it was as they say a bridge too far but they certainly didn't want Australia to become a US base. The US fought the battles in the Pacific for their own agenda




Finally, you got something right. Finally?




Well, that didn't last long - you're back on the wrong track. The area has ALWAYS had Arabs. What changed was their culture that bound them. Originally, that culture is lost in the sands of time. Subsequent cultures/nation/city states have been Syria, Egypt, Canaan/Philistines (from which the name derives), Israel, Roman, Greek/Byzantine, Christian, Muslim, and today's displaced inhabitants. So your designation of the Israelites as the "ancient inhabitants" is not true.

It is also important to note that a majority of Arabs and Jews share DNA that traces back to common ancestors a few thousand years in the past.

Yes we know the arabs are an abrahamic people, makes all the more a wonder that they make the jews their enemies. There seems to be an adage that you keep what you conquer, but you are right the arabs are the phillistines of today even centred in the ancient phillistine cities

The jews didn't seek to take the land by conquest

Quibble - They ACCEPTED the land which already belonged to others. Better?


Japan was never going to overrun Australia,

Without the US, maybe.


We seem to be far off the track here. My point with all this is that the Israeli-Palestinian argument/dispute/fight/war was unfairly begun in Israel's favor. The world had tremendous sympathy for what the Jewish people suffered under the Nazis and that influenced the decision to offer them a homeland where they did.

At the time, few stood up for the Arabs being displaced. Some of the reasons supporting Israel have been beyond bizarre.

Ed Koch, ex-NYC mayor, actually claimed, seriously, the Jews had a right to the land because God gave it to them. Chaim Potok argued the Jews had a right to the land because "they made the desert bloom", while the Palestinian owners were just sheep and goat herders. I don't know which reason is stranger or less rational.

How the Jews could go along with the 1947 arrangement after experiencing the horrors of the death camps is something I will never understand.

Israel has a chance to do the right thing with the Palestinians. Settling hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank is not the right thing.

Israel has a chance to do the right thing with the Palestinians. Settling hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank is not the right thing.

Israel tried to do the right thing at the start but this was quickly eclipsed by war, they could still make them citizens of a greater Israel but the palestinians didn't accept it then and they won't accept it now, so you will have two tiny states with indefensible ill defined borders and this is what allowed the situation to develop in the first place. The whole ME is the result of the failed idea of racial partition

Still we have progress the UAE, and other gulf states, have thrown the palestinians under a bus, no doubt tired of the endless propaganda and war

Israel tried to do the right thing at the start but this was quickly eclipsed by war,

You're repeating yourself.


they could still make them citizens of a greater Israel but the palestinians didn't accept it then and they won't accept it now,

Why should they "accept" being citizens of their own state? Another repetition from you.


so you will have two tiny states with indefensible ill defined borders and this is what allowed the situation to develop in the first place.

The "situation" started when the UN gave Arab lands to Israel. I thought you already knew that.

All of the above has already been asked and answered. You're going round and round in circles and my patience in trying to advise you of the facts is wearing thin. You need to make more of an effort to learn or else you'll continue to wallow in ignorance.



The whole ME is the result of the failed idea of racial partition

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Whatever history book you're reading, throw it away. NOW!

You're repeating yourself.

a failing you have also succomed too




Why should they "accept" being citizens of their own state? the concept of citizenship eludes you



The "situation" started when the UN gave Arab lands to Israel. I thought you already knew that.

at the risk of being tedious the UN attempted to solve a problem by separating to populations with different idiology. What you failed to recognise is the lands were already conquered and had been for decades, THEY WERE NO LONGER ARAB LANDS


All of the above has already been asked and answered. You're going round and round in circles and my patience in trying to advise you of the facts is wearing thin. You need to make more of an effort to learn or else you'll continue to wallow in ignorance.

you are not the only one who is frustrated, you seem stuck on the idea it was arab land exclusively. In fact it has had so many conquerers and occupiers it could belong to anyone





You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Whatever history book you're reading, throw it away. NOW! the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you have taken a decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance

a failing you have also succomed too

I have succumbed to nothing. What I have done is reply to your repeated statements. You say the same things over and over. Of course, my replies are the same. Why wouldn't they be?


the concept of citizenship eludes you

It's a simple concept. You will need to elaborate on this comment.


at the risk of being tedious the UN attempted to solve a problem by separating to populations with different idiology.

At the same risk, you refuse to understand that the UN had no right to remove a population from their lands to award those lands to a different population. What is so hard for you to grasp?


What you failed to recognise is the lands were already conquered and had been for decades, THEY WERE NO LONGER ARAB LANDS

Who did the lands belong to? Martians?

Thank you for saying this and being FINALLY so clear. Here we see an ABSOLUTE LIE from you. This is the lie that supports everything you have said. The question now is: Just why do you engage in this blatant falsehood?


you seem stuck on the idea it was arab land exclusively.

It IS/WAS Arab land exclusively! Whose do you think it was? Martians again?


In fact it has had so many conquerers and occupiers it could belong to anyone

This is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it is impossible to reply to it.


the apple doesn't fall far from the tree,

Are you now saying that I am a Palestinian? So what? True or not, that does not change the facts. In logic, that's called an argumentum ad hominem. You have failed to convince of your position, so you attack the person not the argument. You're revealing your true colors.


you have taken a decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance

This is where you go fundamentally wrong. Taking a stance is not an argument. You've made another logical fallacy. In any case, right at the beginning, I stated that "If ever there were two sides to a question, this is one of those times". Hardly a "decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance".

However, if you were honest, you would realize the stance I take is based on the facts of the situation. We've done them ad infinitum, so there's no need to go over them again. I suggest you read this thread again, be honest, and arrive at an honest resolution. I suspect you are already aware of an honest resolution, but something is holding you back.

It's a simple concept. You will need to elaborate on this comment.

The palestinians become stateless person by their own volition, instead of using peaceful means to gain ascendency in the longer term




At the same risk, you refuse to understand that the UN had no right to remove a population from their lands to award those lands to a different population. What is so hard for you to grasp?

what you fail to grasp is the UN removed noone. The UN legitimised a situation that already existed




Who did the lands belong to? Martians? see you are resorting to the rediculous. Before the British mandate, the land belonged to the Ottoman's (Turks) who took it from the arabs, so the arabs had not "owned" it for centuries. They were allowed to have a largely nomadic existence under the Ottomans. I suppose that you consider they owned Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon too






It IS/WAS Arab land exclusively! Whose do you think it was? Martians again?

I think the Turks would have an opinion on that. The arabs have as much chance of reconquering the land as we have of conquering Mars




This is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it is impossible to reply to it.
yes discussions of martians usually is


What I am saying is your argument is blatantly anti semetic or blatantly semetic depending on which side of the genetic fence you sit. You cannot argue for the arabs without arguing for the jews, they are each one side of the same coin. I am personally happy the jews were returned to their ancestral homeland and I cannot argue against their occupancy for the same reason I cannot argue against my own occupancy of this continent. I am continually confronted by the argument this is aboriginal land in the same way you confront the jews with the argument that it is arab land. Neither argument is valid

Isn't it just like the humans with power, authority and influence to carve things up the way they see fit? The UN as a body is no different, and decides things according to the inner machinations of its most influential members. Maybe it sounded good then, when the decision was made, but sure could stand some tweaking now since the affected parties can agree on a solution on their own so the underdog Palestinians, absent big brothers, allies, and backers like the Israelis Have fewer less appealing options.

A decided and maybe unfair imbalance for sure.

Isn't it just like the humans with power, authority and influence to carve things up the way they see fit? The UN as a body is no different, and decides things according to the inner machinations of its most influential members. Maybe it sounded good then, when the decision was made, but sure could stand some tweaking now since the affected parties can agree on a solution on their own so the underdog Palestinians, absent big brothers, allies, and backers like the Israelis Have fewer less appealing options.

A decided and maybe unfair imbalance for sure.

If the palestinians agreed to live peacefully there would be no issues eventually, walling off the west bank has considerably reduced conflict but while ever Hamas seeks the annilihation of the jews the problem cannot be resolved. What needs to be done is gaza bulldozed and its inhabitants relocated, a territory swap so the palestinians could have contiguous territory

The Palestinians didn't want to live peacefully under Israeli rules. Still don't. Even a rat fights back when cornered, and out numbered.

speaking of a two state solution each with defendable borders, tal, as things are now the palestinians are divided a situation neither party wants

The Palestinians have always been a loose collection of settlements making them ripe for conquest and exploitation. The perfect target for conquerors and bullies. We wouldn't be here if they could defend themselves from Israeli expansion.

Come to think of it Clete, non of us would be here if the natives could defend themselves against the invaders to their lands. Guess we can't blame the Israeli's from doing what every other sovereign nation has done before, and still doing.

The palestinians become stateless person by their own volition, instead of using peaceful means to gain ascendency in the longer term

I am personally happy the jews were returned to their ancestral homeland and I cannot argue against their occupancys

I started my usual rebuttal of your nonsense when it occurred to me this is going nowhere. As I previously said, you just repeat your falsehoods until it gets really tiresome. The facts are blindingly obvious, yet you refuse to see them. What in the world is going on with you?

Then I got it! A tipoff was your "personal happiness" when "the jews were returned to their ancestral homeland".

The answer lies in your Bible belief which has nothing to do with the facts. In your view, the Bible says the Jews will return to Palestine which they now call Israel. The prophecy promises the Jews will be converted after a Jewish state is established, and after the Second Coming of Jesus. This will occur only after the Jews have their own nation/state. Maybe other reasons also, but the point is made - your Bible tells you so.

A part of Christian Protestantism - fundamentalists - have made an unfortunate agreement among themselves that God is to be replaced by the Bible. Clearly a violation of the First Commandment, but the evangelical fundamentalist community would never see it that way. How could they? To them, the Bible IS God.

(Oddly, Catholic Christianity has done something similar. In their case, they have replaced God with Mother Church. This is particularly true among the clergy - not all, but a goodly fraction.)

You should know that the Jews are very aware of this silliness, but are willing to accept it in return for the support it offers to Israel.

I think we can now end this seemingly endless discussion.

I think we can now end this seemingly endless discussion.

by all means; our discussion was fruitless. I don't accept your contentions regarding the Palestinians or the Church. Christians do not worship the Bible or the Church

Christians do not worship the Bible or the Church
Of course, too many do, thus the yelling and screaming about having to wear masks and social distance when attending church services. Far too often I've read about ministers who reassure their members, "God will protect you from Covid-19."

Church is believers, not a building. Matthew 16:18.

Christians do not worship the Bible or the Church

"Worship" is the wrong word. If it were that obvious, there'd be no debate. The situation is more subtle than that.

Here's an example: In the Catholic Church child abuse sex scandal, it doesn't take a theologian to know that God would want the abuse to stop and for the offenders to receive their just desserts. Instead, these criminals were transferred to other parishes to save Mother Church from the notoriety of a major scandal. Mother Church was placed above God.

As for the fundamentalists and the Middle East conflict, God would surely have wanted a solution that was fair to the Israelites and fair to the Palestinians. However, the solution turned out to be a "might makes right" solution. Not an answer God would have given. The fundamentalists support this answer because it reflects a Bible prophecy concerning the end times. The Bible was placed above God.

Do I speak for God? Of course not. All I do is try to discern what are obvious principles of morality while ignoring the politics of any given moment.

As for the fundamentalists and the Middle East conflict, God would surely have wanted a solution that was fair to the Israelites and fair to the Palestinians. However, the solution turned out to be a "might makes right" solution. Not an answer God would have given. The fundamentalists support this answer because it reflects a Bible prophecy concerning the end times. The Bible was placed above God.
And that prophecy has been majorly taken out of context.

and the swamp wins again. Clinesmith got a slap on the wrist by FISA judge James Boasberg for intentionally altering evidence . He ADMITTED to falsifying the evidence !! Boasberg sentenced Clinesmith to 12 months probation and 400 hrs community service.

His reasoning is preposterous . Clinesmith changed an email confirming Carter Page had been a CIA source to one that said the exact opposite....explicitly forging the words “not a source” before he forwarded it. Clinesmit's hatred of Trump is obvious. Don't forget that Mueller pulled him from the investigation after Horowitz found text messages from Clinesmith expressing hatred of Trump. When Trump won he texted 'the crazies had won' . In another text he wrote 'viva la resistance ' The idiot judge gave him the light sentence because he reasoned Clinesmith LIKELY BELIEVED his alterations were the truth and therefore it was an honest mistake .

As Quid likes to say 'come on man' !!! You want to know why I don't respect the judiciary ....here is an example . George Papadopoulos made false statements and served jail time . Judge Sullivan refused to drop charges against Michael Flynn even after the DOJ had dropped the charges .

So if someone lies to the FBI they get hounded and end up in jail . But if an FBI attorney lies to FISA .....aint no big thing !