The Media Industry

Trump touted the Abraham Accords as a 'new dawn' for the Middle East. 9 months later, Gaza erupted.

That didn't take long to get out there. Trumps "Arab Accords" clearly was an inconvenient truth that knawed at the Liberal media and zealotry club. So now that we have the flare-up in Palestine, they immediately sprung to action in order to completely crush the goodwill created by the VERY PUBLIC display of Arab leaders bonding with Trump. We know it is very important to have their support.

NOBODY said it solved the Palestine issue but the brain-washing, lying, LIBERAL fronts for the DNC are attempting to change the narrative.

This is what we should be focusing on; not ballots. The media is the fraud. Their lies, disinformation and brainwashing is the true fraud.
 
bystander said:
Trump touted the Abraham Accords as a 'new dawn' for the Middle East. 9 months later, Gaza erupted.

That didn't take long to get out there. Trumps "Arab Accords" clearly was an inconvenient truth that knawed at the Liberal media and zealotry club. So now that we have the flare-up in Palestine, they immediately sprung to action in order to completely crush the goodwill created by the VERY PUBLIC display of Arab leaders bonding with Trump. We know it is very important to have their support.

NOBODY said it solved the Palestine issue but the brain-washing, lying, LIBERAL fronts for the DNC are attempting to change the narrative.

This is what we should be focusing on; not ballots. The media is the fraud. Their lies, disinformation and brainwashing is the true fraud.
Click to expand...

The efforts to make this Trump's fault are absurd. At times, the Right overstated the significance of the Abraham Accords. However, they were an unmitigated positive, because they normalized relations between Islamic states and Israel. That is a good thing and is significant (just not wildly so). Furthermore, they were never designed to be a solution to the Palestinian issue within Israel. Any effort to spin them that way to diminish their significance or make them look like a failure because the Palestinians are freaking out now. is fraudulent and baldly partisan.
 
mchammer said:
Ha ha! Who is more corrupt? Media or Trump? Is it even close?
WaPo Head 'Fact Checker' Glenn Kessler Heckled Over Lab-Leak Flip-Flop | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...

Ultimately, they tripped over their own dicks on this (as Trump often did), and now it's biting them. A responsible media would have always said, "we do not know exactly where the virus came from, but we are exploring all possible leads and waiting on the facts." Nobody would have blamed them for that, and it would have been truthful. But instead, they had to (without evidence or basis) dismiss it as a racist conspiracy theory just to burn Trump. Well, obviously every sane person always knew the theory was at least plausible and not something to dimiss, and now the evidence is showing that it might actually be the most plausible theory. So they have egg on their face - again.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Ultimately, they tripped over their own dicks on this (as Trump often did), and now it's biting them. A responsible media would have always said, "we do not know exactly where the virus came from, but we are exploring all possible leads and waiting on the facts." Nobody would have blamed them for that, and it would have been truthful. But instead, they had to (without evidence or basis) dismiss it as a racist conspiracy theory just to burn Trump. Well, obviously every sane person always knew the theory was at least plausible and not something to dimiss, and now the evidence is showing that it might actually be the most plausible theory. So they have egg on their face - again.
Click to expand...
Would that be a side effect of TDS?
 
Mr. Deez said:
The efforts to make this Trump's fault are absurd. At times, the Right overstated the significance of the Abraham Accords. However, they were an unmitigated positive, because they normalized relations between Islamic states and Israel. That is a good thing and is significant (just not wildly so). Furthermore, they were never designed to be a solution to the Palestinian issue within Israel. Any effort to spin them that way to diminish their significance or make them look like a failure because the Palestinians are freaking out now. is fraudulent and baldly partisan.
Click to expand...

Struggling to understand how any deal that didn't include the Palestinians and allowed Israel to continue stealing land with settlements was an "unmitigated positive". Was it a positive for Israel? Absolutely. Was it a positive for the Arab partners? Yes. Did it do anything to fix the Palenstinian issue? Nope. In fact, it made it worse because the US suddenly supported the forced removal of Palestinians from land they've lived on forever.

This should not be considered an approval for Hamas to send rockets into Israel. There is nothing that justifies that. The riots at Al-Aksa Mosque and other areas around the pending settlement are completely within reason.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Struggling to understand how any deal that didn't include the Palestinians and allowed Israel to continue stealing land with settlements was an "unmitigated positive". Was it a positive for Israel? Absolutely. Was it a positive for the Arab partners? Yes. Did it do anything to fix the Palenstinian issue? Nope. In fact, it made it worse because the US suddenly supported the forced removal of Palestinians from land they've lived on forever.
Click to expand...

It's a positive, because Islamic countries are basically accepting and recognizing the right of the Jewish state to exist and engaging it with civility. Again, it's not as big of a deal as Trump supporters think it is, but it is a positive. Something can be a positive without resolving the Palestinian issue, which in all likelihood will never be resolved without an all-out war.

I think we in the West lack perspective on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We think it's the biggest issue in the region, and though it's certainly important, to the people who actually live in Israel and in nearby Arab countries, it's one of many. There are also a myriad economic, security, and trade issues. Ultimately, that's why bilateral agreements between Israel and Arab states can exist and be positive without that one issue being resolved.

Seattle Husker said:
This should not be considered an approval for Hamas to send rockets into Israel. There is nothing that justifies that. The riots at Al-Aksa Mosque and other areas around the pending settlement are completely within reason.
Click to expand...

I have every confidence that the Palestinians have some legitimate complaints especially anecdotally. However, so long as they're firing rockets into civilian neighborhoods, hiding behind women and children, and supporting leaders who don't accept the right of Israel to exist, they're not going to be taken seriously outside of anti-Westerners, Marxists, and Jew-haters. Basically, they need to completely reject the Hamas ideology to get any kind of meaningful concession.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I have every confidence that the Palestinians have some legitimate complaints especially anecdotally. However, so long as they're firing rockets into civilian neighborhoods, hiding behind women and children, and supporting leaders who don't accept the right of Israel to exist, they're not going to be taken seriously outside of anti-Westerners, Marxists, and Jew-haters. Basically, they need to completely reject the Hamas ideology to get any kind of meaningful concession.
Click to expand...
And they turned down every good deal in the past that would have been better than anything they can get today.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I think we in the West lack perspective on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We think it's the biggest issue in the region, and though it's certainly important, to the people who actually live in Israel and in nearby Arab countries, it's one of many. There are also a myriad economic, security, and trade issues. Ultimately, that's why bilateral agreements between Israel and Arab states can exist and be positive without that one issue being resolved.
Click to expand...
No, Israel and Arab states can have bilateral agreements because even the Arabs don’t like the Palestinians.
 
Bingo!

190236168_330272961789899_8956694909466380568_n.jpg
 
mchammer said:
And they turned down every good deal in the past that would have been better than anything they can get today
Click to expand...

They turned them down, because they're beholden to the Hamas ideology. All land and statehood offerings were conditioned on the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a permanent Jewish state. They simply aren't willing to do that. They'd rather hold out for an opportunity for Israel to be rejected by the international community and them being permitted to murder any Jew who won't leave. Kinda hard to negotiate with that.

Personally, I used to be a lot more favorable to the Palestinians. They have some legitimate complaints. However, when Hamas was put in charge, it became pretty obvious what their true position was. I also got sick of Israel getting lectured about being an "apartheid state" by a bunch of countries that have been expelling and/or murdering Jews, Christians, and pretty much anybody who's not a Muslim for centuries.

mchammer said:
No, Israel and Arab states can have bilateral agreements because even the Arabs don’t like the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

I don't know that they dislike them as much as that they're frustrated with them and tired of their bad faith. Keep in mind that at one point, pretty much all Arab and Islamic nations hated Israel and wanted the entire Middle East to be Jew-free. However, over time many of them have become more reasonable and accepted that the Jewish state will exist and that it's also a pretty good trading partner and a reliable ally to have, especially against really bad apples like Iran. After several decades, I think they expect the Palestinians to reach a similar conclusion rather than stubbornly holding onto the "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" mentality. The fact that they won't has to annoy them.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's a positive, because Islamic countries are basically accepting and recognizing the right of the Jewish state to exist and engaging it with civility. Again, it's not as big of a deal as Trump supporters think it is, but it is a positive. Something can be a positive without resolving the Palestinian issue, which in all likelihood will never be resolved without an all-out war.

I think we in the West lack perspective on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We think it's the biggest issue in the region, and though it's certainly important, to the people who actually live in Israel and in nearby Arab countries, it's one of many. There are also a myriad economic, security, and trade issues. Ultimately, that's why bilateral agreements between Israel and Arab states can exist and be positive without that one issue being resolved.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a positive for Israel and the Arab countries, specifically economically. The deal did nothing for the Palestinians. Actually, the US support for Israel and settlements during the prior administration contributed to conditions that materialized now. Rather than playing an honest broker we supported Israel 100%. Of course, you can see that the Biden Administration, though using more moderated language, is taking much of the same tact as the prior administration although I strongly doubt Trump admin would have pushed for a Cease-fire so quickly. Has the Biden admin taken a stance on settlements? From an outsider's perspective, that slow erosion of any potential land that is left for the Palestinians will always be a flash-point.
 
Mr. Deez said:
They turned them down, because they're beholden to the Hamas ideology. All land and statehood offerings were conditioned on the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a permanent Jewish state. They simply aren't willing to do that. They'd rather hold out for an opportunity for Israel to be rejected by the international community and them being permitted to murder any Jew who won't leave. Kinda hard to negotiate with that.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but from the beginning the Palestinians were trying to remove all Jews as much as their capabilities allowed them. There was also some allowance for Jews to move into Palestine in the early 20th century. But once the populations started becoming significant there was periodic violence against Jews.

There was no modern state in the region but according to Sikes-Picot nation states were going to be carved out after WW1. I think at the time there was a 2 state proposal for Palestine where state would be Jewish and the other Arab. Because of the population ration at the time (many many more Arabs than Jews), the Jews voted for 2 states and the Arabs 1. They weren't very thorough but they did try to remove or rule over the Jews much like the Jews are doing now in Israel.

Then slowly the tables turned population wise. Arabs have been split over the 2 state issue where now Israel is firmly in the 1 state camp. They will not stop taking over Israel by any means necessary unless they are stopped by an external force.

I don't support violence and taking of land by Israel, but history says the Arabs would be doing the same thing if they were in the same situation as the Jews. I think it would be best to let what happens happen but be careful as the US not to approve of or facilitate the violence and land grabs. Maybe the best thing the US could do is work with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan to repatriate the Palestinian Arabs where possible.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Yep, it's a positive for Israel and the Arab countries, specifically economically. The deal did nothing for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

It didn't, but does it have to? Again, I don't see a reason why treaties with other nations have to be contingent on Israel making concessions to people who aren't a party to the treaties. Early in our history we obviously had major problems with the Native Americans. Nobody expected us to resolve those problems to make treaties with other nations.

Seattle Husker said:
Actually, the US support for Israel and settlements during the prior administration contributed to conditions that materialized now. Rather than playing an honest broker we supported Israel 100%. Of course, you can see that the Biden Administration, though using more moderated language, is taking much of the same tact as the prior administration
Click to expand...

That's because we were never an honest broker. We're on the side of the Israelis. They are the American ally. The Palestinians are not. I wouldn't call them an enemy, but they're definitely not an ally. Democrats will throw around some different rhetoric for appearances, but they don't take a wildly different approach. In ten years as the intersectional/social justice coalition becomes more dominant in the Party, that might change, but we're not at that point yet.

Seattle Husker said:
although I strongly doubt Trump admin would have pushed for a Cease-fire so quickly.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but I'm not sure that the determinative pressure came from the United States but from within.

Seattle Husker said:
Has the Biden admin taken a stance on settlements? From an outsider's perspective, that slow erosion of any potential land that is left for the Palestinians will always be a flash-point.
Click to expand...

I think the Administration is largely indifferent to settlements. However, I don't think those are the real barrier to a peace agreement, and the settlements don't really take potential land off the table. Let's suppose Israel got rid of the settlements. Does anyone really think that would change the game? Israel got rid of its settlements in Gaza. Did that induce the Palestinians to play ball? No.

But what if the Palestinians were willing to recognize and accept the Jewish state and renounce terrorism? Would that change the game? Obviously nobody can guarantee it, but there is some history on this. You'll recall that Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula after the Six-Day War and installed settlements. However, Anwar Sadat (Egypt) basically agreed to accept the Israeli state, and in return, Israel withdrew the occupying force, returned Sinai to Egypt, and turned over the settlements. I'm not generally a Sadat fan, but he showed real leadership when it was very controversial in the Arab world and did the right thing. Both countries have largely been at peace since then. What if the Palestinians were willing to reach a similar understanding? I'll bet Israel would be far more willing to play ball. If they didn't, I'd be far more critical of Israel.

But until Hamas becomes unpopular with the Palestinians, none of that is going to happen.
 
Monahorns said:
Not only that, but from the beginning the Palestinians were trying to remove all Jews as much as their capabilities allowed them. There was also some allowance for Jews to move into Palestine in the early 20th century. But once the populations started becoming significant there was periodic violence against Jews.

There was no modern state in the region but according to Sikes-Picot nation states were going to be carved out after WW1. I think at the time there was a 2 state proposal for Palestine where state would be Jewish and the other Arab. Because of the population ration at the time (many many more Arabs than Jews), the Jews voted for 2 states and the Arabs 1. They weren't very thorough but they did try to remove or rule over the Jews much like the Jews are doing now in Israel.

Then slowly the tables turned population wise. Arabs have been split over the 2 state issue where now Israel is firmly in the 1 state camp. They will not stop taking over Israel by any means necessary unless they are stopped by an external force.

I don't support violence and taking of land by Israel, but history says the Arabs would be doing the same thing if they were in the same situation as the Jews. I think it would be best to let what happens happen but be careful as the US not to approve of or facilitate the violence and land grabs. Maybe the best thing the US could do is work with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan to repatriate the Palestinian Arabs where possible.
Click to expand...

By all census data Arabs outnumbered Jews by up to 10 to 1 even when the UN voted to create Israel in 1948. There were prominent politicians, particularly in the UK, who spoke against creating Israel given the population disparity and commissions done to evaluate the feasibility of creating a Jewish state given the dynamics. It's been a **** show ever since.
 
No doubt that Israel has done some amazingly ****** things, but fighting with everything you have against a group with a stated goal of killing you is not unreasonable.
 
2003TexasGrad said:
By all census data Arabs outnumbered Jews by up to 10 to 1 even when the UN voted to create Israel in 1948. There were prominent politicians, particularly in the UK, who spoke against creating Israel given the population disparity and commissions done to evaluate the feasibility of creating a Jewish state given the dynamics. It's been a **** show ever since.
Click to expand...

So I was wrong on population. But once they had political power Israel changed their direction.
 
iatrogenic said:
No doubt that Israel has done some amazingly ****** things, but fighting with everything you have against a group with a stated goal of killing you is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...

The problem is that not all Palestinians have the same opinion. There are Christian Palestinians and some that are more secular who don't have any animus against Israel. Treating individuals as groups is bad generally. I know Israel has to protect itself and it can't do that 100% individually but it should cause you to think.
 
Monahorns said:
The problem is that not all Palestinians have the same opinion. There are Christian Palestinians and some that are more secular who don't have any animus against Israel. Treating individuals as groups is bad generally. I know Israel has to protect itself and it can't do that 100% individually but it should cause you to think.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Israel should ask the bad guys to group together separate from the good guys when retaliating for a few thousand rockets falling on Israel.
 
Israel-Palestine is like Texas-Comanches. You can make a good faith deal with them but not all of them feel obliged to honor it. PAlestine Authority would deal but Hamas will undeal
 
iatrogenic said:
Yes, but those practical realities are more important to Israel when rockets are raining down.
Click to expand...

I get that. My hope is that when rockets aren't being lobbed over the fence that wheat can be separated from the tares. If possible.

I also wish Jordan and Egypt would be more willing to move Palestinians into their countries. Or at least make a path way for those who want to.
 
Monahorns said:
I get that. My hope is that when rockets aren't being lobbed over the fence that wheat can be separated from the tares. If possible.

I also wish Jordan and Egypt would be more willing to move Palestinians into their countries. Or at least make a path way for those who want to.
Click to expand...

The descendants of Palestinians whose families just a generation or two back lived in Israel want to go back though, hence the problem. Again, Israel was populated mostly by Arabs when Israel was created in 1948 and they didn't all just willingly leave. Israel isn't going anywhere but it's just too soon for the children and grand children of many of those Palestinians to say **** it we are going to Egypt. Whether we like it or not, there were Palestinians forcibly removed from their lands and homes. Not all of them but it still happened. This problem isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Arabs hold grudges and are very stubborn culturally. They feel jilted and revenge is also something culturally ingrained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top