Bibi Wins, Two State Solution Dies?

[Frankfooter]

Of course here's the kind of things from Palestinians that frank needs to ignore.

In the past 24 hours, two Palestinians died in separate attacks on police with knives. Upset over these attacks, Palestinians respond by attacking police with stones and firebombs. Also a public transit bus is firebombed, and a Palestinian driver ran down 3 police officers then others attacked the emergency responders. Also worth noting is that a strong majority of Palestinians support these kinds of attacks.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/thre-israeli-police-struck-by-car-on-mount-of-olives/

Of course discussing violent attitudes amongst many Palestinians would distract frank from pedantic arguing over news reports.

Were there also attacks on Palestinians, or do you only care if people on one side are attacked?
And bear in mind, I'm mostly interested in ignoring all of you once I get my apology from fuji.

 

[Frankfooter]

Because if it happened now it would be hamastan, he wants the Palestinians to get a peaceful, free country, which isn't possible right now, as he so clearly said, "conditions would have to change for that".

As Obama stated:
"Afterwards, he (Netanyahu) pointed out that he didn't say 'never,' but that there would be a series of conditions in which a Palestinian state could potentially be created," Obama said. "But, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet any time soon."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-...-very-dim-after-netanyahu-s-remarks-1.3008111

Which is why your and my point is correct:

Netanyahu was elected on a promise not to establish a Palestinian state while he was in office.

Its only your idiotic claim that promising to never let it happen while he's in power and can do anything about it constitutes 'support'.
You really should just apologize.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And bear in mind, I'm mostly interested in ignoring all of you....

I don't blame you.

It must be annoying to repeatedly hear about how you've got your facts wrong and how your attempts to distort quotes by taking them out of context aren't fooling anyone.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't blame you.

It must be annoying to repeatedly hear about how you've got your facts wrong and how your attempts to distort quotes by taking them out of context aren't fooling anyone.

You mean this quote?

Netanyahu was elected on a promise not to establish a Palestinian state while he was in office.

or this one?
"Netanyahu was then asked specifically whether he meant that a Palestinian state would not be established if he were reelected prime minister. He answered, “Correct.”"

 

[Moviefan-2]

You mean this quote?

I was thinking of the ones below, which include factual errors and deliberate distortions of the context.

There was no mention of it just being 'current', no time frame at all, just a promise to never allow a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu was elected on a promise to not allow a Palestinian state while PM, which is the opposite of supporting the two state solution.

There is no mention of 'today' or any other time reference in that answer, he answered that he would not allow a Palestinian state to be established if he was PM, period.

Again, that's a translation issue and its not relevant to the second statement.

If Netanyahu meant 'today' he would have or could have answered 'today' to the question instead of 'correct'.

Netanyahu is killing the two state solution, and you know what is left.

You're not even consistent. You say there was "no time frame at all" but then go on to claim that Netanyahu said Palestinian statehood would not be achieved while he was PM. Actually, that would be a time frame.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how Netanyahu's position on an independent Palestinian state is "not relevant" to whether or not he would allow the Palestinians to achieve statehood while he is PM.

 

[Frankfooter]

I was thinking of the ones below, which include factual errors and deliberate distortions of the context.













You're not even consistent. You say there was "no time frame at all" but then go on to claim that Netanyahu said Palestinian statehood would not be achieved while he was PM. Actually, that would be a time frame.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how Netanyahu's position on an independent Palestinian state is "not relevant" to whether or not he would allow the Palestinians to achieve statehood while he is PM.

What is the factual error in those quotes?
fuji presented one article that had the word 'time' in the translation and I linked three articles that didn't have it.
Whether its there or not is immaterial to the argument, but its not a factual error.

As for the time period question, fuji is the one who's been inconsistent. He previously said Netanyahu might support the two state solution in 20 or 30 years, deleted the post and now refuses to answer the question or put a time frame on when Netanyahu might support a Palestine

All I've said is what fuji has previously said, Netanyahu was elected on a promise to not allow a Palestinian state while PM.
fuji continues to argue that constitutes supporting the two state solution and continues to say I lied about something, the same something he has personally stated.
"Netanyahu was then asked specifically whether he meant that a Palestinian state would not be established if he were reelected prime minister. He answered, “Correct.”"

Netanyahu was elected on a promise not to establish a Palestinian state while he was in office.

What is it exactly that you accuse me of lying about?
Be specific.

I'm tired of yours and fuji's crap on this matter.
The both of you should just apologize and admit you are wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What is the factual error in those quotes?
fuji presented one article that had the word 'time' in the translation and I linked three articles that didn't have it.
Whether its there or not is immaterial to the argument, but its not a factual error.

As for the time period question, fuji is the one who's been inconsistent. He previously said Netanyahu might support the two state solution in 20 or 30 years, deleted the post and now refuses to answer the question or put a time frame on when Netanyahu might support a Palestine

All I've said is what fuji has previously said, Netanyahu was elected on a promise to not allow a Palestinian state while PM.
fuji continues to argue that constitutes supporting the two state solution and continues to say I lied about something, the same something he has personally stated.
"Netanyahu was then asked specifically whether he meant that a Palestinian state would not be established if he were reelected prime minister. He answered, “Correct.”"


What is it exactly that you accuse me of lying about?
Be specific.

I'm tired of yours and fuji's crap on this matter.
The both of you should just apologize and admit you are wrong.

Your assertion that the word "today" was not used was a factual error. There were some reports that didn't include the word, and others did (Breitbart News also reported that he used the word "today"). It is correct to say there are differing accounts but factually wrong to state as an absolute that it was not used.

Your distortions include your assertions that he was not talking about the situation "today" in his follow-up response. The statements were all part of an interview segment about Palestinian statehood and it was established in the first sentence that Netanyahu was talking about the situation "today" -- a situation where Islamist extremists are a serious threat to the Jews.

Indeed, that is the real point that you are missing.

Among your many distortions, it is definitely wrong-headed to say that opposing Palestinian statehood under the current circumstances "is the opposite of supporting the two-state solution." In fact, it is entirely consistent with a desire for a peaceful two-state solution that continues to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The time frame question isn't about how long Netanyahu will be PM. The issue is how to establish a two-state solution when Jew-hating terrorists still want to kill all the Jews and destroy Israel.

It's ridiculous to try to make Netanyahu the issue. The Palestinians were offered an independent state under Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert and those offers were rejected.

The Palestinians won't accept a two-state solution until they learn to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. That is the issue.

 

[Frankfooter]

Your assertion that the word "today" was not used was a factual error. There were some reports that didn't include the word, and others did (Breitbart News also reported that he used the word "today"). It is correct to say there are differing accounts but factually wrong to state as an absolute that it was not used.
.

It wasn't used in the three reports I'd read, it was only used in the one that fuji used.
It wasn't a factual error, since the reports I read didn't use the word, it was the correct reading of what they reported.

I'd say Obama's quote on the matter is also quite relevant:
"Afterwards, he (Netanyahu) pointed out that he didn't say 'never,' but that there would be a series of conditions in which a Palestinian state could potentially be created," Obama said. "But, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet any time soon."

And
"Netanyahu, in the election run-up, stated that a Palestinian state would not occur while he was prime minister," Obama said. "And I took him at his word that that's what he meant.

We know Obama wants a two state solution and has tried to work towards it. Now that Netanyahu has stated he won't let it happen while PM, who is Obama going to work with?
How does that support the two state solution?

And once again, what is your accusation of lying based on, so far you have provided nothing?
You and fuji should just apologize.

 

[fuji]

It wasn't used in the three reports I'd read

All three were the same bad translation taken from Haaretz. Two other translations AND Obama's summary all captured it correctly.

But you continued to make the claim EVEN AFTER you had been shown the correct translation and, worse, EVEN AFTER you had been shown an extended statement from Netanyahu discussing explicitly his view.

I'd say Obama's quote on the matter is also quite relevant:
"Afterwards, he (Netanyahu) pointed out that he didn't say 'never,' but that there would be a series of conditions in which a Palestinian state could potentially be created," Obama said. "But, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet any time soon."

That is accurate. The conditions of course are actual conditions, factual realities, not made up by Netanyahu. You really can't have a Palestinian state under current conditions, it isn't possible: it really would turn into a terrorist enclave and attack Israel.

Now that Netanyahu has stated he won't let it happen while PM, who is Obama going to work with?

He should work with the Palestinians to create the conditions for a Palestinian state. Namely, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and demilitarization of Hamas.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It wasn't used in the three reports I'd read, it was only used in the one that fuji used.
It wasn't a factual error, since the reports I read didn't use the word, it was the correct reading of what they reported.

It is an error to state that he didn't use the word when there are conflicting reports.

I accept that you may have initially believed what you wrote was accurate. Nonetheless, the accuracy of the statement is determined by the facts, not by your intent.

Far more significant, in my view, is the fact that you've tried to pretend the comments are "not relevant" to the question and answer that followed, when it is quite clear that Netanyahu was describing the situation as it currently exists in the Middle East.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We know Obama wants a two state solution and has tried to work towards it.

He might want it but I wouldn't suggest he has done anything meaningful to try to achieve it.

In fact, Obama seems to have a difficult time accepting the reality that the Islamist extremists are making significant progress in the Middle East.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And once again, what is your accusation of lying based on, so far you have provided nothing?
You and fuji should just apologize.

You should go back and re-read post #910. I said that I didn't think you were a liar but that you are ill-informed and that your opinions are not supported by any critical thinking.

I stand by those comments.

As for my statement that you have posted things that are erroneous and that deliberately distort the context, I have proven both charges. You will get no apology from me.

 

[Frankfooter]

I accept that you may have initially believed what you wrote was accurate. Nonetheless, the accuracy of the statement is determined by the facts, not by your intent.

Far more significant, in my view, is the fact that you've tried to pretend the comments are "not relevant" to the question and answer that followed, when it is quite clear that Netanyahu was describing the situation as it currently exists in the Middle East.

Then my quotes are accurate, since at the time of those quotes the only source provided for the quote didn't use the word 'today'.
There was no error on my part to accurately quote what was reported and most certainly no reason for an accusation of 'lying'.
Since you have also accused me of lying when all I did was accurately quote news reports you owe me an apology.

 

[basketcase]

Were there also attacks on Palestinians, or do you only care if people on one side are attacked?
And bear in mind, I'm mostly interested in ignoring all of you once I get my apology from fuji.

No. I care about pointing out your ridiculous hypocrisy. You've gone on for pages about what Netanyahu may think yet couldn't bother a word about how both Hamas and Fatah's armed wing are dedicated to Israel's destruction. You also couldn't care less that a majority of Palestinians support attacks on Israeli civilians and a large majority support the kinds of attacks I listed.

You really have shown yourself as a joke on this issue.

Meanwhile I have no problem criticizing Israel WHEN THEY DESERVE IT. I would have preferred Hertzog as PM (he still has a chance to be since Bibi hasn't formed a coalition yet). I am glad that Netanyahu won't offer Bennet anything greater than education minister in his potential coalition. I oppose settlements in general but support the idea of agreed upon land swaps. Most significantly I support the idea of a negotiated lasting peace. Of course I realize that Hamas and significant numbers of Palestinians are opposed to anything that allows Israel and Jews to remain.

 

[basketcase]

...
And bear in mind, I'm mostly interested in ignoring all of you once I get my apology from fuji.

Bullshit. Your first post in this forum said that you wouldn't be posting here yet that didn't stop you from wading in with both feet. Fuji didn't call out your lies until much later.

 

[basketcase]

...
It's ridiculous to try to make Netanyahu the issue. The Palestinians were offered an independent state under Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert and those offers were rejected.

The Palestinians won't accept a two-state solution until they learn to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. That is the issue.

But he won't want to wade into that cesspool (because it would mean showing that Palestinians play a major role in the lack of peace)

 

[basketcase]

Then my quotes are accurate, since at the time of those quotes the only source provided for the quote didn't use the word 'today'.....

Normal rational people would admit they were wrong when contrary evidence showed up. Instead you have dug yourself deeper. You original claims were not lies, just misinformed. Now that you have seen the actual details and ignore them is what makes you a liar and a fraud.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Then my quotes are accurate, since at the time of those quotes the only source provided for the quote didn't use the word 'today'.
There was no error on my part to accurately quote what was reported and most certainly no reason for an accusation of 'lying'.
Since you have also accused me of lying when all I did was accurately quote news reports you owe me an apology.

What you are is a drama queen.

I didn't accuse you of lying. I said you posted comments that were erroneous. In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and accepted that you may have believed your erroneous statements were correct at the time you posted them.

However, the accuracy of your statements is determined by the facts, not by your intentions. What you posted was erroneous, regardless of what you believed at the time.

 

[fuji]

You original claims were not lies, just misinformed. Now that you have seen the actual details and ignore them is what makes you a liar and a fraud.

Exactly. He has seen the correct translation and read Netanyahu's extended discussion yet he still paidqq

 

[Frankfooter]

What you are is a drama queen.

I didn't accuse you of lying. I said you posted comments that were erroneous. In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and accepted that you may have believed your erroneous statements were correct at the time you posted them.

However, the accuracy of your statements is determined by the facts, not by your intentions. What you posted was erroneous, regardless of what you believed at the time.

I checked a few posts and it does look like you didn't accuse me of lying, as fuji has repeatedly and Basketcase has as well. I apologize for lumping you in with those two idiots.
But I also stand by my posts, they are accurate. Three articles backed the translation I've used and only one backed fuji's, I'll stand by my comments.
You are the one who is wrong.