What's the fuss about recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

[sharon45]

IMO the 2 State solution is effectively dead. Those Israeli settlers in the West Bank aren't going back inside the 1967 borders anytime soon, Israel isn't going to give up it's stranglehold on the West Bank and Gaza, it won't stop expanding onto Palestinian farmland, nor will it allow the Palestinians to control the distribution and sale of Palestinian water and natural gas. But I could be wrong.

The 2 state solution was never taken seriously by Israel. Their plan has always been to absorb the occupied territories into "Greater Israel" and they never, ever were going to give the Palestinians a country alongside their borders. The idea was - since 1967 - to slowly claim Palestinian land block by block and house by house until there was nothing left. Whether it took 50 or 100 years wasn't an issue...they'd just keep building settlements while at the same time pretending to "want peace." Once the West Bank is 100 percent settlements, they'll start creeping into Gaza because the Palestinian people are in the way of what Israel considers their god-given beachfront property.

And the supporters of Israel essentially respond with that the Palestinians were never serious except to ultimately drive the Jews into the sea.

 

[Arctish]

No, sorry if you misunderstood, but I only mentioned Netanyahu, I said what followed.

I agree.

I think Netanyahu would just say "talk is cheap and people can always change their minds" and refuse to negotiate unless some other one-sided demand of his was met. I think he's just raising a ruckus as stumbling block to progress. He's trying to force people to deal with nonsense before they can deal with substance. And it's working.

The thing is, both sides claim that the other is impeding the process, hence why their conflict never seems to go any further than constant political talk and a war every once in a while over this 70 year span.

It went pretty far when the Oslo Accords were in effect. But then Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Zionist who called him a traitor to the Jewish people for agreeing to a plan that allowed the establishment of a Palestinian State in part of Eretz Yisrael, his successors tried to walk back Israel's commitment under the Accords, the attempt to negotiate a different deal fell apart at Camp David, Baruch Goldstein killed dozens and wounded over 100 other worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs, and the Second Intifada broke out.

Netanyahu boasted he sabotaged the Oslo Accords. He was opposed to the formation of a Palestinian State from his start in politics. Right now, he's doing all he can to keep one from forming.

Abbas was the chief negotiator at Oslo for the PLO, and his name is on the Accords. He signed it on behalf of the Palestinian people. He's been committed to making the Palestinian State a reality from his start in politics. Right now, he's doing all he can to form one.

Accusing them of sharing the same level of disinterest in a Palestinian State is unfair to both of them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let everything there continue. Palestinians are better off today than they were 80 years ago.

It's been 70 years, nobody seems interested enough in a two-state plan to actually carry it through, and as was pointed out with Netanyahu, talk is not only cheap, people can always change their minds.

Plenty of people have been interested enough in a 2 state solution to call for it, negotiate for it, fight for it, appeal to the UN for it, and otherwise be fully engage in the process of bringing it about. But they're up against plenty of people who don't want it, will sabotage it, fight to prevent it, and insist on unreasonable terms before they'll even sit down to discuss it. Negotiations for a 2 state solution are at an impasse because the Zionist expansionist parties, both in the US and Israel, wield enough influence to stymie any progress.

IMO the 2 State solution is effectively dead. Those Israeli settlers in the West Bank aren't going back inside the 1967 borders anytime soon, Israel isn't going to give up it's stranglehold on the West Bank and Gaza, it won't stop expanding onto Palestinian farmland, nor will it allow the Palestinians to control the distribution and sale of Palestinian water and natural gas. But I could be wrong.

The 2 state solution was never taken seriously by Israel. Their plan has always been to absorb the occupied territories into "Greater Israel" and they never, ever were going to give the Palestinians a country alongside their borders. The idea was - since 1967 - to slowly claim Palestinian land block by block and house by house until there was nothing left. Whether it took 50 or 100 years wasn't an issue...they'd just keep building settlements while at the same time pretending to "want peace." Once the West Bank is 100 percent settlements, they'll start creeping into Gaza because the Palestinian people are in the way of what Israel considers their god-given beachfront property.

I completely agree.

In fact, I don't see how anyone could disagree given the history and the current state of affairs, although I expect a certain amount of smoke blowing from certain Zionist apologists.

The smoke: Let all the above continue ("settlements" are not something evil), as it's just a normal traditional battle for land, with no one being right or wrong, and the contending tribes each trying to get what it wants.

The U.S. is not causing it to happen by where it puts an embassy.

It should also establish an embassy to the Palestinians in E. Jerusalem. Though it's not clear that any Palestinian government or state exists which could be recognized. But still, go ahead and put an embassy there and receive any Palestinians who want to make demands. Have Americans receive complaints from Palestinians who want to blame the U.S. for something.

The U.S. should not give material support to either side in the dispute over land. But it could pass on complaints to the Israelis.

And it should carry on business with all nations there, e.g., trade, arms sales, protection for shipping, putting down terrorists, protecting tourism/travel. If, in this normal process of U.S. neutrality and legitimate protection for peaceful commerce and travel, either side of the land dispute gains ground over the other -- well, that's just the normal historical process.

The process that's been going on there overall has made the region better off than it was 60-70 years ago. Overall the mideast is better off, Arabs are better off, as a result of the success of the Israeli state. But of course there's always winners and losers in all change that goes on.

Most of the "losers" could turn things to their benefit by just getting with the program and recognizing how to participate in the success of the winners, instead of hating them for their superior performance. Those who produce a higher standard of living, as Israel has done, do it mostly in ways which also spread benefit to others.

 

[Ford]

IMO the 2 State solution is effectively dead. Those Israeli settlers in the West Bank aren't going back inside the 1967 borders anytime soon, Israel isn't going to give up it's stranglehold on the West Bank and Gaza, it won't stop expanding onto Palestinian farmland, nor will it allow the Palestinians to control the distribution and sale of Palestinian water and natural gas. But I could be wrong.

The 2 state solution was never taken seriously by Israel. Their plan has always been to absorb the occupied territories into "Greater Israel" and they never, ever were going to give the Palestinians a country alongside their borders. The idea was - since 1967 - to slowly claim Palestinian land block by block and house by house until there was nothing left. Whether it took 50 or 100 years wasn't an issue...they'd just keep building settlements while at the same time pretending to "want peace." Once the West Bank is 100 percent settlements, they'll start creeping into Gaza because the Palestinian people are in the way of what Israel considers their god-given beachfront property.

And the supporters of Israel essentially respond with that the Palestinians were never serious except to ultimately drive the Jews into the sea.

Get back to me when that drive gets underway in earnest.

Over the last half century (at least), Israeli expansion beyond the land it was granted by the UN has continued unabated. Whether occupied during wartime or conquered slowly via settlements, the territory controlled by the state of Israel has gone far past what their state was given.

Palestinian territory has, as a result, disappeared acre to acre. What counts for Palestinian land has been shrinking since the foundation of the modern state of Israel, not a single square foot of that land has been given back, and not a single square foot of Israeli land has been taken by the Palestinians. The borders of Israel have expanded ever since it was founded, and not a scrap of Palestinian land has been repatriated.

That's the reality. It is a slow, methodical land grab that is Israel essentially saying "thanks to the UN for giving us this territory, and now we're going to expand it at the expense of the people living on the land we want, and we don't give a fuck what anyone thinks."

If it were any other country than Israel, we'd call it ethnic cleansing.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I already clarified I'm not praising Trump. I'm only pointing out people taking both sides of the same issue. You are very desperate to turn me into a Trump supporter. Why is that?

...

Hmm, an interesting answer.

And no, Assange is not a Russian agent.

Well, certainly Assange is at least a Russian puppet. Where do you think WikiLeaks gets the majority of it's information. You don't specifically support Trump. But you only hammer the other side. That in of itself, helps trump. But are you willing to agree based on the links that I have provided, that the dems tend to favor a two state solution and want a negotiated settlement; whereas the republicans are moving to one-state solution where Pals have no right and there is no pressure on Israel to make concessions?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of people have been interested enough in a 2 state solution to call for it, negotiate for it, fight for it, appeal to the UN for it, and otherwise be fully engage in the process of bringing it about. But they're up against plenty of people who don't want it, will sabotage it, fight to prevent it, and insist on unreasonable terms before they'll even sit down to discuss it. Negotiations for a 2 state solution are at an impasse because the Zionist expansionist parties, both in the US and Israel, wield enough influence to stymie any progress.

Negotiations are not at an impasse at all. Rather, they don't even exist because Israel will no longer make concessions in order to get the Palestinians to talk.

 

[untermensche]

The smoke: Let all the above continue ("settlements" are not something evil), as it's just a normal traditional battle for land, with no one being right or wrong, and the contending tribes each trying to get what it wants.

Not smoke.

Proof of Israel's nature and crimes. No different from Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and trying to take it. A crime on the same level.

An absolute violation of international law and UN Resolutions. Which I suppose only mean something when the US wants to attack somebody.

But nobody can do anything about it because the criminal is protected by the world's largest criminal.

The criminal nation that invaded Iraq and caused untold misery to millions, rounded innocent people up and tortured them for sport.

And now Europe and surrounding nations are still cleaning with the mess the US criminal attack of Iraq caused.

 

[Arctish]

Plenty of people have been interested enough in a 2 state solution to call for it, negotiate for it, fight for it, appeal to the UN for it, and otherwise be fully engage in the process of bringing it about. But they're up against plenty of people who don't want it, will sabotage it, fight to prevent it, and insist on unreasonable terms before they'll even sit down to discuss it. Negotiations for a 2 state solution are at an impasse because the Zionist expansionist parties, both in the US and Israel, wield enough influence to stymie any progress.

Negotiations are not at an impasse at all. Rather, they don't even exist because Israel will no longer make concessions in order to get the Palestinians to talk.

What concessions did Israel make?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. What concessions? Be specific and cite the documentation, please.

 

[funinspace]

Plenty of people have been interested enough in a 2 state solution to call for it, negotiate for it, fight for it, appeal to the UN for it, and otherwise be fully engage in the process of bringing it about. But they're up against plenty of people who don't want it, will sabotage it, fight to prevent it, and insist on unreasonable terms before they'll even sit down to discuss it. Negotiations for a 2 state solution are at an impasse because the Zionist expansionist parties, both in the US and Israel, wield enough influence to stymie any progress.

IMO the 2 State solution is effectively dead. Those Israeli settlers in the West Bank aren't going back inside the 1967 borders anytime soon, Israel isn't going to give up it's stranglehold on the West Bank and Gaza, it won't stop expanding onto Palestinian farmland, nor will it allow the Palestinians to control the distribution and sale of Palestinian water and natural gas. But I could be wrong.

The 2 state solution was never taken seriously by Israel. Their plan has always been to absorb the occupied territories into "Greater Israel" and they never, ever were going to give the Palestinians a country alongside their borders. The idea was - since 1967 - to slowly claim Palestinian land block by block and house by house until there was nothing left. Whether it took 50 or 100 years wasn't an issue...they'd just keep building settlements while at the same time pretending to "want peace." Once the West Bank is 100 percent settlements, they'll start creeping into Gaza because the Palestinian people are in the way of what Israel considers their god-given beachfront property.

I completely agree.

In fact, I don't see how anyone could disagree given the history and the current state of affairs, although I expect a certain amount of smoke blowing from certain Zionist apologists.

The smoke: Let all the above continue ("settlements" are not something evil), as it's just a normal traditional battle for land, with no one being right or wrong, and the contending tribes each trying to get what it wants.

The U.S. is not causing it to happen by where it puts an embassy.

<snip>

The U.S. should not give material support to either side in the dispute over land. But it could pass on complaints to the Israelis.

And it should carry on business with all nations there, e.g., trade, arms sales, protection for shipping, putting down terrorists, protecting tourism/travel. If, in this normal process of U.S. neutrality and legitimate protection for peaceful commerce and travel, either side of the land dispute gains ground over the other -- well, that's just the normal historical process.

The process that's been going on there overall has made the region better off than it was 60-70 years ago. Overall the mideast is better off, Arabs are better off, as a result of the success of the Israeli state. But of course there's always winners and losers in all change that goes on.

Most of the "losers" could turn things to their benefit by just getting with the program and recognizing how to participate in the success of the winners, instead of hating them for their superior performance. Those who produce a higher standard of living, as Israel has done, do it mostly in ways which also spread benefit to others.

Additionally, white unicorns regularly have trouble differentiating pink from purple hues...

"It" being the US government:

It should also establish an embassy to the Palestinians in E. Jerusalem. Though it's not clear that any Palestinian government or state exists which could be recognized. But still, go ahead and put an embassy there and receive any Palestinians who want to make demands. Have Americans receive complaints from Palestinians who want to blame the U.S. for something.

Are you really so clueless? Suggested reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority

 

[sharon45]

Accusing them of sharing the same level of disinterest in a Palestinian State is unfair to both of them.

It's merely what I've heard from both sides over many years, but hardly that they are near the same in attitude.

 

[sharon45]

Plenty of people have been interested enough in a 2 state solution to call for it, negotiate for it, fight for it, appeal to the UN for it, and otherwise be fully engage in the process of bringing it about. But they're up against plenty of people who don't want it, will sabotage it, fight to prevent it, and insist on unreasonable terms before they'll even sit down to discuss it. Negotiations for a 2 state solution are at an impasse because the Zionist expansionist parties, both in the US and Israel, wield enough influence to stymie any progress.

Negotiations are not at an impasse at all. Rather, they don't even exist because Israel will no longer make concessions in order to get the Palestinians to talk.

What concessions did Israel make?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. What concessions? Be specific and cite the documentation, please.

I at least remember Israel getting rid of some settlements over a decade ago.

 

[untermensche]

Israel does things in it's interest and calls them concessions.

Maintaining a few crazed settlers in Gaza prevented the massive attacks Israel has carried out several times since.

Removing them was not a concession. It was a murderous sick plan.

 

[Jayjay]

The Gaza settlers moved to West Bank, so it's not so much "getting rid" of settlements as it was just relocating them.

 

[sharon45]

The Gaza settlers moved to West Bank, so it's not so much "getting rid" of settlements as it was just relocating them.

Well, I didn't keep tabs on them, just remember it seemed like they were making it as a traumatic event.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hmm, an interesting answer.

And no, Assange is not a Russian agent.

Well, certainly Assange is at least a Russian puppet.

Not even close.

Where do you think WikiLeaks gets the majority of it's information.

It did seem that the DNC "hack" was done by an insider. His best information, the stuff that made him famous, came from Snowden and Manning.

You don't specifically support Trump. But you only hammer the other side. That in of itself, helps trump.

You have a vivid imagination, but then we do seem to live in an age where if you criticize both sides people will accuse you of only criticizing their own side. Why are you so desperate to turn me into a Trump supporter. Why is that?

 

[sharon45]

You don't specifically support Trump. But you only hammer the other side. That in of itself, helps trump.

You have a vivid imagination, but then we do seem to live in an age where if you criticize both sides people will accuse you of only criticizing their own side. Why are you so desperate to turn me into a Trump supporter. Why is that?

Some could be influenced by the old Jesus fallacy from Matthew 12:30 of "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You don't specifically support Trump. But you only hammer the other side. That in of itself, helps trump.

You have a vivid imagination, but then we do seem to live in an age where if you criticize both sides people will accuse you of only criticizing their own side. Why are you so desperate to turn me into a Trump supporter. Why is that?

Some could be influenced by the old Jesus fallacy from Matthew 12:30 of "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

A fundamentalist religious attitude. That sounds right in line with when Bush Jr. said that if you aren't with him then you are with the terrorists.

 

[Arctish]

Accusing them of sharing the same level of disinterest in a Palestinian State is unfair to both of them.

It's merely what I've heard from both sides over many years, but hardly that they are near the same in attitude.

I don't know what you've heard from both sides over many years, but the history of the conflict clearly shows Israel has no interest in stopping its expansion until it meets opposition so great the State of Israel is actually threatened. The Palestinians haven't the strength to stop the loss of territory or the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. The best the Palestinians can do is appeal to the UN for recognition of their human rights under international law, something the US has blocked for decades.

The notion that the only reason there isn't peace in the Middle East is because both parties are being equally unreasonable is based on a flawed understanding of what exactly is the issue. Zionists want all of the area where Jews lived in ancient times to become part of the State of Israel, but they don't want the resident population of non-Jews to become Israeli citizens. Even secular Jewish Israelis have an interest in securing the natural resources of Palestine for their State.

The Palestinians want to remain in their homes, retain their property, and participate in their government. They want the government that rules over them to work for them, not against them. They want their basic human rights and their rights as the indigenous population of Palestine to be recognized and respected.

Those two goals are fundamentally at odds.

It's unreasonable to demand that the Palestinians surrender their homes and their human rights. But that is precisely what the Israelis want.

 

[Arctish]

What concessions did Israel make?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. What concessions? Be specific and cite the documentation, please.

I at least remember Israel getting rid of some settlements over a decade ago.

They withdrew from their illegal settlements in Gaza before they locked the prison doors. That's not a concession. They haven't conceded that the Palestinians have a right to live in Gaza. They've merely delayed the Zionist expansion into all of Gaza until after they've secured the West Bank.

A genuine concession would be to formally recognize the right of the indigenous population of Palestine to live in their ancestral homeland, even if they aren't Jewish.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I already clarified I'm not praising Trump. I'm only pointing out people taking both sides of the same issue. You are very desperate to turn me into a Trump supporter. Why is that?

...

Hmm, an interesting answer.

And no, Assange is not a Russian agent.

Oh boy! Well, the Assange charge deserves it's own thread. Let's get back on topic. Earlier you stated that "Trump did what congress wanted, including the Democrats in congress." Then I pointed out several links stating that this isn't true. The democrats remain committed to the two-state solution. Yes, they believe that the embassy should be moved to Israel's capital Jerusalem. But that it would be part of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. Whereas, the republicans and Trump are moving in the direction of being against the two-state solution. They are now adopting the Christian right's opinion that all of the west bank belongs to Israel and that it should all be a Jewish state. No rights for Palestinians. IMO, this is a very dangerous position. It puts us at odds with the rest of the world. And it isn't right.

Do you disagree or not? You say that you equally bash Trump and the republicans - prove it!