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

[Jolly_Penguin]

What is the capital of Palestine according to Palestinians? Is it not Jerusalem as well? We should put our embassy there for both Israel and Palestine.

Would that be acceptable to Israel?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Trump did what congress wanted, including the Democrats in congress. Also the Republicans in congress. Both.

I just find it odd when the Democrats are saying "how crazy, you did what I wanted!" They didn't want him to do what they told him to do?

Again, Trump did what a majority of republicans wanted. The democrats (including Clinton and Obama) favor two-state solution, cooperation between the parties, and etc. Republicans are moving towards Israeli unilateral action, no compromise, single state but with no Palestinian states. The two sides are not the same....

That's not what the Democrats in the Senate did when the voted unanimously for this six months ago.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump did what congress wanted, including the Democrats in congress. Also the Republicans in congress. Both.

I just find it odd when the Democrats are saying "how crazy, you did what I wanted!" They didn't want him to do what they told him to do?

Again, Trump did what a majority of republicans wanted. The democrats (including Clinton and Obama) favor two-state solution, cooperation between the parties, and etc. Republicans are moving towards Israeli unilateral action, no compromise, single state but with no Palestinian states. The two sides are not the same....

That's not what the Democrats in the Senate did when the voted unanimously for this six months ago.

Again, you are so desperate to find the good in Trump that you often miss the details. Check out this link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-correct-about-history-jerusalem-embas/

"Here’s the caveat: The same resolution that passed the Senate 90-0 also included this provision: The Senate "reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution."

It is interesting that the above resolution was passed 90-0, obviously including many republicans. But republicans have been trending away from two state solution. Trump certainly leaped away.... It's okay if you want to paint the democrats as too biased towards Israel also. But to paint both sides as having the same position is false.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump did what congress wanted, including the Democrats in congress. Also the Republicans in congress. Both.

I just find it odd when the Democrats are saying "how crazy, you did what I wanted!" They didn't want him to do what they told him to do?

Again, Trump did what a majority of republicans wanted. The democrats (including Clinton and Obama) favor two-state solution, cooperation between the parties, and etc. Republicans are moving towards Israeli unilateral action, no compromise, single state but with no Palestinian states. The two sides are not the same....

That's not what the Democrats in the Senate did when the voted unanimously for this six months ago.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-resolution/508/text

Is this the bill you are talking about from 6 months ago? If so, can you show where it says to move the capital to Jerusalem? If not, which bill are you talking about?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That's not what the Democrats in the Senate did when the voted unanimously for this six months ago.

Again, you are so desperate to find the good in Trump that you often miss the details. Check out this link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-correct-about-history-jerusalem-embas/

"Here’s the caveat: The same resolution that passed the Senate 90-0 also included this provision: The Senate "reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution."

It is interesting that the above resolution was passed 90-0, obviously including many republicans. But republicans have been trending away from two state solution. Trump certainly leaped away.... It's okay if you want to paint the democrats as too biased towards Israel also. But to paint both sides as having the same position is false.

I read what Jason said on some right-wing sites such as NY Post online article.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's not what the Democrats in the Senate did when the voted unanimously for this six months ago.

Again, you are so desperate to find the good in Trump that you often miss the details.

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?

"Here’s the caveat: The same resolution that passed the Senate 90-0 also included this provision: The Senate "reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution."

It is interesting that the above resolution was passed 90-0, obviously including many republicans. But republicans have been trending away from two state solution. Trump certainly leaped away.... It's okay if you want to paint the democrats as too biased towards Israel also. But to paint both sides as having the same position is false.

I did say that the Republicans supported it when I posted about it earlier, but it really isn't news if a Republican goes along with Republicans.

By the way, my source was Julian Assange.

 

[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?

"Here’s the caveat: The same resolution that passed the Senate 90-0 also included this provision: The Senate "reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution."

It is interesting that the above resolution was passed 90-0, obviously including many republicans. But republicans have been trending away from two state solution. Trump certainly leaped away.... It's okay if you want to paint the democrats as too biased towards Israel also. But to paint both sides as having the same position is false.

I did say that the Republicans supported it when I posted about it earlier, but it really isn't news if a Republican goes along with Republicans.

By the way, my source was Julian Assange.

You said that congress and the democrats supported moving the capital to Jerusalem without conditions. Are you admitting that this isn't so? BTW: quoting Assange, a demonstrated Russian agent want to be, isn't exactly moving you away from the republicans!

This issue is important. The republicans are moving away from two state solution and towards a one state with no Palestinian rights (there is a difference between Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians. One has citizenship, the other does not). And the unilateral movement of the embassy to Jerusalem is the first step. This could lead to great unrest in the middle east. I think that it's fair to criticize democrats for not being fair enough arbitrators in the conflict. However, the dems clearly favor two-state, allowing Pals citizenship within their own country. This is a huge policy difference between the sides...

 

[sharon45]

This issue is important. The republicans are moving away from two state solution and towards a one state with no Palestinian rights (there is a difference between Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians. One has citizenship, the other does not). And the unilateral movement of the embassy to Jerusalem is the first step. This could lead to great unrest in the middle east. I think that it's fair to criticize democrats for not being fair enough arbitrators in the conflict. However, the dems clearly favor two-state, allowing Pals citizenship within their own country. This is a huge policy difference between the sides...

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.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What is the capital of Palestine according to Palestinians? Is it not Jerusalem as well? We should put our embassy there for both Israel and Palestine.

Would that be acceptable to Israel?

Palestine is not a recognized country.

- - - Updated - - -

Jason Harvestdancer:
So you just quote what you hear from a person as fact rather than looking it up or using a reliable source, and you spread that (mis)information among your peers with no checks at all?!

 

[untermensche]

This issue is important. The republicans are moving away from two state solution and towards a one state with no Palestinian rights (there is a difference between Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians. One has citizenship, the other does not). And the unilateral movement of the embassy to Jerusalem is the first step. This could lead to great unrest in the middle east. I think that it's fair to criticize democrats for not being fair enough arbitrators in the conflict. However, the dems clearly favor two-state, allowing Pals citizenship within their own country. This is a huge policy difference between the sides...

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.

Israel has stalled and ultimately refused to negotiate to a conclusion for 70 years.

When that happens with the US protecting Israel from any consequences from it's stalling at the UN, nothing can possibly happen.

Except all that stealing of land that Israel has done in those 70 years.

If Israel were sincere none of that theft would have occurred. And because so much illegal taking of land has happened it is clear Israel is not a party that can be taken seriously.

It will either be forced into submission by a collective action of the whole world, the only thing lacking now is the US, or it will carry out it's criminal activity indefinitely.

 

[sharon45]

What is the capital of Palestine according to Palestinians? Is it not Jerusalem as well? We should put our embassy there for both Israel and Palestine.

Would that be acceptable to Israel?

Palestine is not a recognized country.

- - - Updated - - -

Jason Harvestdancer:
So you just quote what you hear from a person as fact rather than looking it up or using a reliable source, and you spread that (mis)information among your peers with no checks at all?!

What are supposed to count as so-called reliable sources, in order to use those when safely distributing news for colleagues?

 

[sharon45]

This issue is important. The republicans are moving away from two state solution and towards a one state with no Palestinian rights (there is a difference between Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians. One has citizenship, the other does not). And the unilateral movement of the embassy to Jerusalem is the first step. This could lead to great unrest in the middle east. I think that it's fair to criticize democrats for not being fair enough arbitrators in the conflict. However, the dems clearly favor two-state, allowing Pals citizenship within their own country. This is a huge policy difference between the sides...

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.

Israel has stalled and ultimately refused to negotiate to a conclusion for 70 years.

When that happens with the US protecting Israel from any consequences from it's stalling at the UN, nothing can possibly happen.

Except all that stealing of land that Israel has done in those 70 years.

If Israel were sincere none of that theft would have occurred. And because so much illegal taking of land has happened it is clear Israel is not a party that can be taken seriously.

It will either be forced into submission by a collective action of the whole world, the only thing lacking now is the US, or it will carry out it's criminal activity indefinitely.

Yet you keep insisting that Israel is such an evil empire, so what is the real excuse why everyone obviously drags their feet on this supposedly urgent issue?

 

[untermensche]

Israel has stalled and ultimately refused to negotiate to a conclusion for 70 years.

When that happens with the US protecting Israel from any consequences from it's stalling at the UN, nothing can possibly happen.

Except all that stealing of land that Israel has done in those 70 years.

If Israel were sincere none of that theft would have occurred. And because so much illegal taking of land has happened it is clear Israel is not a party that can be taken seriously.

It will either be forced into submission by a collective action of the whole world, the only thing lacking now is the US, or it will carry out it's criminal activity indefinitely.

Yet you keep insisting that Israel is such an evil empire, so what is the real excuse why everyone obviously drags their feet on this supposedly urgent issue?

Who is everybody?

It is Israel and the US against the world.

But the US has a veto on the Security Council. So nobody can do anything about it.

 

[sharon45]

Israel has stalled and ultimately refused to negotiate to a conclusion for 70 years.

When that happens with the US protecting Israel from any consequences from it's stalling at the UN, nothing can possibly happen.

Except all that stealing of land that Israel has done in those 70 years.

If Israel were sincere none of that theft would have occurred. And because so much illegal taking of land has happened it is clear Israel is not a party that can be taken seriously.

It will either be forced into submission by a collective action of the whole world, the only thing lacking now is the US, or it will carry out it's criminal activity indefinitely.

Yet you keep insisting that Israel is such an evil empire, so what is the real excuse why everyone obviously drags their feet on this supposedly urgent issue?

Who is everybody?

It is Israel and the US against the world.

But the US has a veto on the Security Council. So nobody can do anything about it.

That's the point, how in 70 years is this supposed to be even possible if Israel is as evil as you claim? It should be totally inexcusable, but here we are, and will be for quite some time to come.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These nations allow individuals to trade freely with Israeli citizens, with the world.

Something Israel does not allow the Palestinians to do.

It is an ugly highly repressive immoral nation.

The Palestinians have free trade with the world other than in military stuff.

Telling lies does not make you look good.

Telling lies in support of serious oppression that has lasted decades and has ruined the lives of millions shows you have no morality.

Just because your bible is full of falsehoods doesn't make it true.

 

[Arctish]

This issue is important. The republicans are moving away from two state solution and towards a one state with no Palestinian rights (there is a difference between Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians. One has citizenship, the other does not). And the unilateral movement of the embassy to Jerusalem is the first step. This could lead to great unrest in the middle east. I think that it's fair to criticize democrats for not being fair enough arbitrators in the conflict. However, the dems clearly favor two-state, allowing Pals citizenship within their own country. This is a huge policy difference between the sides...

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. Maybe there's still a chance for a fair deal. Either way, I fully support efforts to establish a state in Palestine that serves the interests of the entire population under its rule regardless of religious, ethnic, or cultural affiliation.

You mention Netanyahu said talk is not only cheap, people can always change their minds. He's the guy who proudly took credit for sabotaging the Oslo Accords. Lately he's been insisting Israel can't negotiate with the Palestinians until the Palestinian government officially acknowledges Israel as a Jewish State, and never mind the fact the Israelis themselves can't come to an agreement about that (here's a link to an article about their latest attempt).

Suppose the Palestinians did officially agree that Israel is a Jewish State. Do you think anything would change? I don't. 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.

 

[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.

 

[Arctish]

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.

 

[sharon45]

You mention Netanyahu said talk is not only cheap, people can always change their minds.

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

Suppose the Palestinians did officially agree that Israel is a Jewish State. Do you think anything would change? I don't.

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.