Japan Today
world

Two dead in 'Day of Rage' over Jerusalem; Palestinian president defiant

96 Comments
By Ali Sawafta and Nidal al-Mughrabi

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

96 Comments
Login to comment

Now we can see the benefits to the US. Obviously, the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims should sit quietly and accept this decision.

"The United States has credibility with both sides. Israel will never be, and should never be, bullied into an agreement by the United Nations, or by any collection of countries that have proven their disregard for Israel's security," Haley told the U.N. Security Council.

This is a perfect example of crazy, corrupt conservative logic. The leaders of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip both declared the US is no longer a credible partner for peace, yet Ambassador Haley states otherwise. I'm sure she knows far more than the Palestinian leaders.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Trump is too stupid to realize it, but what he has effectively done is pave the way for a one-state solution. The only question now is what sort of state it will be: a genuine democracy with equal rights for all, regardless of ethnicity or religion, or an apartheid ethnocracy with Palestinians being corralled into impoverished South African-style Bantustans.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The only question now is what sort of state it will be: a genuine democracy with equal rights for all, regardless of ethnicity or religion, or an apartheid ethnocracy with Palestinians being corralled into impoverished South African-style Bantustans.

We all no the answer to this. To think the Israelis would magically stop committing human rights abuses against the Palestinians under a one-state solution is ridiculous.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

A stupid doesn't know that he is a troublemaker in every action he does...and he doesn't know that everybody know that he is a stupid and a troublemaker. I'm talking about an "innocent" kindergarten child (male) who became a president. What a shame!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Crazy

A one-state solution is not in cards for quite some time. Only 1/3 of Palestinians and 1/5 of Israeli's (including Israeli Arabs) support are in favor. See hereL

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Huge-majority-opposes-one-state-solution-481801

Numbers like that don't change easily.

As I see it, there is no solution. And never will be. So long as the Palestinians do not want to make peace with Israel and they Israelis don't want to make peach with Palestine.

Which is where they are now.

So, screw them. All of them.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Everything has to be done in the larger framework of a comprehensive deal with both parties signing on. Unilateral actions just make the prospects of a long-term, permanent solution less likely and increase the chance for violence.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

We all no the answer to this. To think the Israelis would magically stop committing human rights abuses against the Palestinians

Yep. It is a grim record. Another think to think about is whether Hamas can stop committing human rights violations against Palestinians.

Trump has thrown more petrol on the fire here.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The Israeli army said hundreds of Palestinians were rolling burning tyres and throwing rocks at soldiers across the border.

Burning tyres? That must mean it's another Saturday night in Palestine.

As Friday prayers ended at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, worshippers made their way toward the walled Old City gates, chanting "Jerusalem is ours, Jerusalem is our capital" and "We don't need empty words, we need stones and Kalashnikovs".

Stones AND Kalashnikovs? That means it's Friday.

"Whoever moves his embassy to occupied Jerusalem will become an enemy of the Palestinians and a target of Palestinian factions," said Hamas leader

Doesn't Hamas consider everyone to be their enemy, and a potential terrorist target of peace loving Muslims everywhere?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

There is absolutely no chance of there ever being a peaceful resolution to this problem. The Hamas charter calls for end of Israel. No one can afford to shake hands with someone who's sworn to kill you.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Now we can see the benefits to the US. Obviously, the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims should sit quietly and accept this decision.

No, but going out in the streets causing violence and mayhem won’t help their cause and won’t change.

This is a perfect example of crazy, corrupt conservative logic.

So making sense is crazy? Ok......

The leaders of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip both declared the US is no longer a credible partner for peace,

Hamas are the absolute last people to talk about peace.

yet Ambassador Haley states otherwise. I'm sure she knows far more than the Palestinian leaders.

No, she doesn’t, but she does know that moving the embassy is the right thing to do.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

I support a two-state solution but I'm not sure it will be the panacea that some people imagine. If a two-state solution is agreed tomorrow, what prevents wealthier Israeli Jews from buying up the entirety of East Jerusalem in the same way that they are doing now? What will the laws of this new Palestinian state have to look like in order to prevent this, if that's their goal? It seems to me like the new Palestinian ethno-state will have to enshrine racial and religious discrimination into its constitution to survive. Is that something we want to encourage? We rarely discuss what happens after the two state solution is agreed.

The real problem that the Palestinians face is that Jews are, and will always be, deeply interested in owning the land. Far more interested than the Arabs. They will still be interested in the land 1000 years from now.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, but going out in the streets causing violence and mayhem won’t help their cause and won’t change

That's your opinion. The people out in the streets clearly disagree.

So making sense is crazy? Ok......

The assertion that the move doesn't inflame the situation does not make sense. You have repeatedly stated the move does not affect the situation. Now, that is crazy.

Hamas are the absolute last people to talk about peace.

Okay. However, this doesn't change the fact that Ambassador Haley was incorrect when she said the US still has credibility with both sides.

No, she doesn’t, but she does know that moving the embassy is the right thing to do.

The embassy move being the correct thing to do is your opinion. Nonetheless, Haley sharing that opinion does not change the fact that she was incorrect when she declared the US still has credibility with both sides.

Nice attempt to obfuscate. The issue being discussed was how incorrect Haley was with her credibility comment. You reply that Hamas knows nothing about peace and that Haley knows the move is the right thing to do.

I do give crazy, corrupt conservatives point for being consistent in there attempts to obfuscate. Obfuscation, however, is not a sound argumentative strategy. It merely makes one look uninformed, unintelligent, and incorrect.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

At least when Israel completely steals all of Palestine, it can be destroyed completely without sacrificing Palestinian lives.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Trump has done calculating politic moves. With words he earn millions donation from Jews group and plan to earn more when chaos ensue. "Chaos is a ladder." Petye Baelish

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The assertion that the move doesn't inflame the situation does not make sense.

It does inflame the situation, but only amongst those who have a very poor understanding of what this actually changes, and more importantly, what it does not. Should foreign policy be determined by the lowest common denominator?

However, this doesn't change the fact that Ambassador Haley was incorrect when she said the US still has credibility with both sides.

The US has always been pro-Israel. It's 'credibility' stems from the fact that it has the military strength to unilaterally enforce any future peace deal. Credibility does not mean being completely impartial or even-handed, otherwise we would have asked Palau or Vanuatu to facilitate the peace process.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There is absolutely no chance of there ever being a peaceful resolution to this problem. The Hamas charter calls for end of Israel. No one can afford to shake hands with someone who's sworn to kill you.

Nobody here has defended Hamas.

Are you going to defend Israel stealing land?

Just making sure we are looking at this from all sides.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It does inflame the situation, but only amongst those who have a very poor understanding of what this actually changes, and more importantly, what it does not. Should foreign policy be determined by the lowest common denominator?

Agreed. However, foreign policy being crafted in an intelligent way that does not exacerbate tensions, even if it appears as though that is pandering to the lowest common denominator, is how progress is made.

The US has always been pro-Israel. It's 'credibility' stems from the fact that it has the military strength to unilaterally enforce any future peace deal. Credibility does not mean being completely impartial or even-handed, otherwise we would have asked Palau or Vanuatu to facilitate the peace process.

Having military might does not make one credible. The DPRK is a prime example. Credibility is being at least mostly impartial and even-handed.

Nonetheless, Haley's claim that the US still has credibility with both sides is demonstrably false, and was the issue being debated.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

That's your opinion. The people out in the streets clearly disagree.

They can disagree, that’s their opinion, but it’s not going to solve anything. When my kids cry when they want something they THINK they’ll get their way, they won’t....ever.

The assertion that the move doesn't inflame the situation does not make sense. You have repeatedly stated the move does not affect the situation. Now, that is crazy.

No, I’m sorry, let me rephrase that, “it’s not going to help” that makes logical sense. It’s set in stone now.

The embassy move being the correct thing to do is your opinion. Nonetheless, Haley sharing that opinion does not change the fact that she was incorrect when she declared the US still has credibility with both sides.

Yes, it’s my opinion and there are millions that share that opinion and the President is fulfilling his promise thst the other 3 Presidents promised, but never lived up to that promise.

Nice attempt to obfuscate. The issue being discussed was how incorrect Haley was with her credibility comment. You reply that Hamas knows nothing about peace and that Haley knows the move is the right thing to do. 

Yes, that’s correct. So how has Hamas delegated peace for the time its been in power? By not recognizing the Jewish State, by firing Qussam rockets into Israel.

I do give crazy, corrupt conservatives point for being consistent in there attempts to obfuscate.

You keep saying that and every time, you get hit right back with opposing viewpoints that pull the legs from underneath you guys.

Obfuscation, however, is not a sound argumentative strategy. It merely makes one look uninformed, unintelligent, and incorrect.

Code word for, you got me backed in a corner, shucks!

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The only thing more predictable than muslims declaring a "Day of Rage" (as opposed to every other religion that declares peace) - are the hapless western liberals who support their violence without question

Can’t read anything here supporting violence or supporting Hamas.

More predictable is rightists refusing to condemn land theft.

Are you going to be the first or isn’t that in the script?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It's suicidal for Muslims to turn violent in Israel. But, if that is what they desire, so be it. . . .

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Just give those poor people a country already.

Jeez. Bush- this is the second post that I have had to agree with you on.

More predictable is rightists refusing to condemn land theft.

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself

3 ( +6 / -3 )

2 dead, several hundred to follow.  If only they were white and not from "the Middle East" the death toll would be so much lower.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

otherwise we would have asked Palau or Vanuatu to facilitate the peace process.

Both have sided with Israel and the US along with the marshall islands in voting against proposition 242 so I wouldn't choose either of them

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Aly

Both have sided with Israel and the US along with the marshall islands in voting against proposition 242 so I wouldn't choose either of them

What is proposition 242? If you are referring to UN security council resolution 242 on Israel passed in 1967, it was unanimously passed with the support of the US. Nobody voted against it. Neither of the two countries I mentioned even existed at the time. You might want to reassess the accuracy of whatever information source you are relying on.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Can’t read anything here supporting violence or supporting Hamas.

How about Goodlucktoyou's comment suggesting Israel can be destroyed?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Just 3 more years to go. Patience everyone.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What is proposition 242? If you are referring to UN security council resolution 242 on Israel passed in 1967, it was unanimously passed with the support of the US. Nobody voted against it. Neither of the two countries I mentioned even existed at the time. You might want to reassess the accuracy of whatever information source you are relying on.

My mistake. Not proposition 242

Urging Concerted Action to Revive Peace Talks, General Assembly Adopts Six Resolutions on Question of Palestine, Situation in Middle East

The Assembly adopted a resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/71/L.21) by a recorded vote of 153 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States),

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11861.doc.htm

But still shows my point- the countries in question are not neutral

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Vanuatu cannot be a honest broker because

Vanuatu and Israel established relations in 1993 and relations are conducted through Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem.[20] Vanuatu recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Vanuatu#Relations_with_Israel

So maybe it is You who might want to reassess the accuracy of whatever information source you are relying on.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As of 2006, Palau had the highest voting coincidence with Israel in the United Nations.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Palau_relations

You who might want to reassess the accuracy of whatever information source you are relying on. Neither of these 2 countries is Neutral

0 ( +2 / -2 )

https://www.unwatch.org/un-to-adopt-20-resolutions-against-israel-3-on-rest-of-the-world/

some more reading material on those 2 countries' UN voting record

enjoy

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Aly

But still shows my point- the countries in question are not neutral

No it really doesn't. Do you know why countries like the US, Canada, Australia, and Palau consistently vote against this endless stream of anti-Irael resolutions (and most European countries now also abstain)? Because they understand that peace will come only through mutually agreed terms and negotiations. It will not be resolved through non-binding votes at the UN. The sort of anti-Israeli resolutions that Nikki Haley was referring to do at least as much harm to the peace process as recognising a capital or moving an embassy. How can you think otherwise?

If the only neutral arbiter of the peace process is one that consistently votes for these resolutions, please name a country you think is neutral. Maybe Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Maybe Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan?

Oh silly me, I forgot none of these countries even recognise Israel as a country.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes, that’s correct. So how has Hamas delegated peace for the time its been in power? By not recognizing the Jewish State, by firing Qussam rockets into Israel.

How has Israel "delegated" peace? By committing atrocious violations of Palestinians' human rights.

You keep saying that and every time, you get hit right back with opposing viewpoints that pull the legs from underneath you guys.

Not quite. I have pointed out numerous times when crazy, corrupt conservatives' replies to posts have no relevance to the post being replied to.

Code word for, you got me backed in a corner, shucks!

Not code for anything given my post was quite clear.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

No it really doesn't. Do you know why countries like the US, Canada, Australia, and Palau consistently vote against this endless stream of anti-Irael resolutions (and most European countries now also abstain)?

Yes because of the close ties to Israel

Because they understand that peace will come only through mutually agreed terms and negotiations.

That is such BS. Everybody knows there is no please process and that the two sides are not even equal. So how can any terms be mutually agreed to?

It will not be resolved through non-binding votes at the UN. The sort of anti-Israeli resolutions that Nikki Haley was referring to do at least as much harm to the peace process as recognising a capital or moving an embassy. How can you think otherwise? 

How can you think that condemning apart tide is anti Israel? Was condemning the white apartheid in South Africa antiwhite?

If the only neutral arbiter of the peace process is one that consistently votes for these resolutions, please name a country you think is neutral.

switzerland

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I meant peace process

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No it really doesn't.

Yes it does. One of the countries you named has an embassy in Jerusalem. The other Has a higher voting consistency With Israel than even the United States. How can you not see how these two countries are not neutral?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Aly

That is such BS. Everybody knows there is no please process and that the two sides are not even equal. So how can any terms be mutually agreed to?

Indeed, they are not equal when you look at the reality of the situation. One side has lost two wars and has been completely intransigent for decades. They have turned down multiple offers of peace and even walked away from the table when Israel was prepared to bend over backwards to make the two-state solution a reality. They ignored warnings that their refusal to compromise would only embolden the right wing and the settler movement in Israel and we see what has happened. Should there be no price at all to pay for losing wars and refusing to negotiate in good faith? This is why my sympathy for the Palestinians has run out (and believe it or not, I used to be very pro-Palestinian). It's long overdue for the Palestinians to grasp the reality of their precarious situation and accept most of what Israel is prepared to offer even if it's now a fraction of what they could have had in the early 2000s, or 1967 and 1948.

The real victims here are the ordinary Palestinians in small towns who just want to get on with their lives and couldn't care less about the US embassy or whether Palestine will be allowed to have a standing army post independence. The perpetrators of this crisis are those who have an interest in internationalising this conflict and using the Palestinians as a cudgel to promote their own religious or political pan-Arab interests. I have actually met many Palestinians who will admit to me that they don't mind Israel and that Palestinians should have accepted the various peace offers made decades ago, but they don't dare admit this publicly or to other Arabs who's identities are now defined by the plight of the Palestinians. The real problem is that these voices are silenced in the West Bank and democracy does not exist. But don't take my word for it, let's listen to Mosab Hassan Yousef:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NaiX-hvVQ

How can you think that condemning apart tide is anti Israel? Was condemning the white apartheid in South Africa antiwhite?

It's not. But passing dozens of a non-binding UN resolution sponsored by some of the world's worst human rights abusers is a waste of time when you could have passed one encouraging both sides to resolve their differences.

switzerland

Sure. But what happens if Israel or the new Palestinian state violates the agreement and the US sides with Israel? Is Switzerland going to send in troops to enforce the peace? Also, I'm not saying Palau or Vanuatu should be the negotiators. I plucked them out of the air as two relatively inconsequential countries with very little political or military clout. My point was that the US is the only country that can establish and enforce peace, not because it is neutral or un-biased, but precisely because it does have a pro-Israel bias and a massive military. If the US is not onboard, the peace will not be lasting.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

'The Israeli army said hundreds of Palestinians were rolling burning tyres and throwing rocks at soldiers across the border.'

And what do they expect when the troops defend themselves?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

France, Italy, Germany, Britain and Sweden called on the United States to "bring forward detailed proposals for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement".

Why don't France, Italy, Germany, Britian and Sweden bring forward THEIR detailed proposals for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement?

Just give those poor people a country already.

They did in 1947. But instead the Arabs and Palestinians decided they wanted it all and launched a war followed by Jordan, Egypt and Syria take the land designated for the Palestinians.

But still shows my point- the countries in question are not neutral

So any country that voted against the resolution isn't neutral. Wouldn't that imply that any country that voted for the resolution also isn't neutral just bias the other way? So it would seem only those countries that abstained have the possibility of being neutral.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

*Indeed, they are not equal when you look at the reality of the situation. One side has lost two wars and has been completely intransigent for decades. They have turned down multiple offers of peace and even walked away from the table when Israel was prepared to bend over backwards to make the two-state solution a reality. *

Spoken like a true Israeli spokesman. Know what is really offered. That was a bunch of Palestinian settlements that were still under the control of Israel. No Israeli government has ever recognize the Palestinian state. So please don’t go there. What you said is pure and simply false.

They ignored warnings that their refusal to compromise

Compromise? Compromise what? I don’t even have a state.

would only embolden the right wing and the settler movement in Israel and we see what has happened.

Which are illegal

Should there be no price at all to pay for losing wars and refusing to negotiate in good faith?

In your opinion Israel negotiated in good faith?

This is why my sympathy for the Palestinians has run out (and believe it or not, I used to be very pro-Palestinian). It's long overdue for the Palestinians to grasp the reality of their precarious situation and accept most of what Israel is prepared to offer even if it's now a fraction of what they could have had in the early 2000s, or 1967 and 1948.*

. The very fact of the matter is that Israel is recognized under international law at its 1967 borders. To try and justify the settlements right now- what you’re doing is arguing against international law. Period

The real victims here are the ordinary Palestinians in small towns who just want to get on with their lives and couldn't care less about the US embassy or whether Palestine will be allowed to have a standing army post independence.

Real victims are all the Palestinians.

switzerland

Sure. But what happens if Israel or the new Palestinian state violates the agreement and the US sides with Israel?

the United States always will side with Israel but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to. There can be sanctions, travel bans etc. US is not all-powerful

Is Switzerland going to send in troops to enforce the peace? Also, I'm not saying Palau or Vanuatu should be the negotiators. I plucked them out of the air as two relatively inconsequential countries with very little political or military clout. *

But my Initial point to you was that they are biased And therefore would not make good arbitrators. And you decided to get off on a tangent but OK.

My point was that the US is the only country that can establish and enforce peace, not because it is neutral or un-biased, but precisely because it does have a pro-Israel bias and a massive military. If the US is not onboard, the peace will not be lasting.

No it’s not. China and Russia any of these other superpowers the European Union is well can take the United States place and probably will

If you want to drink the Kool-Aid that the United States is an indispensable nation go ahead. I for one don’t buy it

2 ( +4 / -2 )

They did in 1947. But instead the Arabs and Palestinians decided they wanted it all and launched a war followed by Jordan, Egypt and Syria take the land designated for the Palestinians.

They walked in they declared their own state unilaterally.

What if I was to walk in tomorrow and declare Brooklyn as my own country. What I be able to complain then that the United States is not willing to share? What you’re saying is ridiculous

1 ( +3 / -2 )

But don't take my word for it, let's listen to Mosab Hassan Yousef:

who is he?

Mosab Hassan Yousef (Arabic: مصعب حسن يوسف‎; born May 5, 1978)[3] is a Palestinian who worked undercover for Israel's internal security service Shin Bet from 1997 to 2007.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef

ah I see. Let me get this straight: you want me to take the word of an Israeli spy. You’re funny

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They did in 1947. But instead the Arabs and Palestinians decided they wanted it all and launched a war followed by Jordan, Egypt and Syria take the land designated for the Palestinians.

Here’s another good analogy. You still my wallet, and you come back and then you say hey I’m going to split the money with you 50-50 aren’t I generous

2 ( +4 / -2 )

They walked in they declared their own state unilaterally.

No, they didn't. But if that is your belief then there is no point even trying to have a rational discussion.

Here’s another good analogy. You still my wallet, and you come back and then you say hey I’m going to split the money with you 50-50 aren’t I generous

Well except the Palestinians never owned the wallet, so not a very good analogy.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Well except the Palestinians never owned the wallet, so not a very good analogy.

Ridiculous.

Posesion is nine-tenths of the law. In recent history, first it was the Ottomans. The British back stabbed the Shariff of Mecca giving independence to all Arabs and then the French and British signed their SECRET pact dividiving up the area into their own spheres of control. This is also when the Brits offered the Zionists parts of Palestine, something they had no right to do. So Jews and the Zionists were invited to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers while it was under British military occupation. When exactly were the Palestinians able to own it?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

They did in 1947. But instead the Arabs and Palestinians decided they wanted it all

You know, with a name like Mike O'Brien, one would think you would have some understanding of being occupied by a foreign country. Maybe not. The Arabs and Palestinians saw the injustice of it all as well as Britain reneging on their promise of independence.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Aly

They walked in they declared their own state unilaterally. What if I was to walk in tomorrow and declare Brooklyn as my own country. What I be able to complain then that the United States is not willing to share? What you’re saying is ridiculous

Whether you like it or not, this is how international law works. They declare their own state and if other sovereign states recognise it, Israel becomes a sovereign state. This is what happened. The Arabs knew this and that's why they tried to destroy Israel, but they failed, twice. Either you choose to accept the reality that Israel now exists or you choose to live in a permanent state of war, in which case Israel has every right to occupy enemy territory until a peace treaty is agreed.

Let me get this straight: you want me to take the word of an Israeli spy. You’re funny

He's not just any 'Israeli spy'. He is the son of one of the leaders of Hamas. His moral courage and principled stand against violence prevented the deaths of many people. I think that is commendable.

Which are illegal

The act of forcible popuation transfer into occupied territory is an illegal act by the state under international law, but it's important to remember that the settlers themselves are never illegal or culpable merely by their presence in occupied territory. It's obviously a complicated issue.

The very fact of the matter is that Israel is recognized under international law at its 1967 borders. To try and justify the settlements right now- what you’re doing is arguing against international law. Period

It's not that simple actually. The fact that Israel is internationally recognised along the 1967 borders is irrelevant to whether those borders can be altered under international law. The real problem is that territorial conquest through war is illegal now. But this situation is extremely complicated and opinions are divided. In any event, the security council could approve any peace deal which includes redrawing the borders to include certain settlements.

In your opinion Israel negotiated in good faith?

That's a difficult question considering there is basically a stalemate at the moment without any real negotiations. I don't have much confidence in Netanyahu to deliver peace, but I think people like Barak and Olmert were definitely negotiating in good faith.

Real victims are all the Palestinians.

Especially the Palestinian refugees who are treated like second-class citizens in the surrounding Arab countries.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

 Either you choose to accept the reality that Israel now exists or you choose to live in a permanent state of war,

Another comment that makes no sense.

Arafat recognized Israel back in 1993. What must be "chosen" is the fact that Israel and the Zionists will NEVER negotiate honestly or equally and have minipulated the discussion that the Palestinians must earn the right to have as State. Despicable country!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

but I think people like Barak and Olmert were definitely negotiating in good faith.

Barak wanted the 2000 Clinton peace deal to be the final and last agreement with no concessions/agreements later on for something like "good behavior".

The Palestine that would have emerged from such a settlement would not have been viable. It would have been in about half-a-dozen chunks, with huge Jewish settlements in between - a Middle East Bantustan. The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state’s eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state.

Other quotes from Chomsky and Tanya Reihart describing how bad the 2000 settlement was for the Palestinians. No WAY Arafat could agree to it.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/misrepresentation-baraks-offer-camp-david-generous-and-unprecedented/3991

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

You know, with a name like Mike O'Brien

You know assuming something just based on someones name is inane, especially when it is an online name that might not even be real.

understanding of being occupied by a foreign country

Jews have live in the geographical region called Palestine for well over 2000 years, hardly foriegn occupiers.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

You know assuming something just based on someones name is inane, especially when it is an online name that might not even be real.

Fair enough. You never know.

Jews have live in the geographical region called Palestine for well over 2000 years, hardly foriegn occupiers.

I agree, and in relative peace to. But that table was turned over when the Brits decided to create the Zionist homeland back in 1917 without consulting the Arabs.

The British government acknowledged in 1939 that the local population's views should have been taken into account, and recognised in 2017 that the declaration should have called for protection of the Palestinian Arabs' political rights

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The only possible outcome to the situation is the reunification of Palestine, and those who deny this are like the investors in a Ponzi scheme who insist it will last forever.

The end might come through a peaceful acceptance of the inevitable by the Israeli regime, it's violent overthrow by its population, foreign intervention to end the crimes against humanity, or some combination of those.

And BDS is the only path to the peaceful resolution.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Whether you like it or not, this is how international law works. They declare their own state and if other sovereign states recognise it, Israel becomes a sovereign state.

So let the palestinians declare their own state unilaterally.

Either you choose to accept the reality that Israel now exists or you choose to live in a permanent state of war, in which case Israel has every right to occupy enemy territory until a peace treaty is agreed.

Another comment that makes no sense.

Exactly.

Either YOU choose to accept the reality that a palestinian state MUST exist or you live in a perpetual state of war.

Arafat recognized Israel back in 1993. What must be "chosen" is the fact that Israel and the Zionists will NEVER negotiate honestly or equally and have minipulated the discussion that the Palestinians must earn the right to have as State

There was a recognition of Israel back in 2000. If Israel had returned back to the 1967 borders it would have been recognized back in 2000. Hamas AND Hezbollah along with Syria and Iran agreed. The israelis didn't.

He's not just any 'Israeli spy'. He is the son of one of the leaders of Hamas. His moral courage and principled stand against violence prevented the deaths of many people. I think that is commendable.

He's an israeli spy. And YOU wanted me to take his word for it. YOUR credibility is out the window.

The act of forcible popuation transfer into occupied territory is an illegal act by the state under international law, but it's important to remember that the settlers themselves are never illegal or culpable merely by their presence in occupied territory.

Oh come on!! Seriously??

It's obviously a complicated issue.

That's what the powers that be will tell U- Its complicated. It isn't. Israel needs to return to its 1967 borders. THATS not complicated.

It's not that simple actually.

Yes it is

The fact that Israel is internationally recognised along the 1967 borders is irrelevant to whether those borders can be altered under international law.

Huh?

What are you talking about?? Oh come on!! Seriously??

Especially the Palestinian refugees who are treated like second-class citizens in the surrounding Arab countries.

Because the israelis are treating them so much better??

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well except the Palestinians never owned the wallet, so not a very good analogy.

Ridiculous.

exactly.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Well except the Palestinians never owned the wallet, so not a very good analogy.

And Yet THEY are being told to compromise. As Fuzzbit said

Ridiculous

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No, they didn't. But if that is your belief then there is no point even trying to have a rational discussion.

Yes they did.

Jews have live in the geographical region called Palestine for well over 2000 years, hardly foriegn occupiers.

really?

In 1933, the Jewish Agency and the Nazis negotiated the Ha'avara Agreement (transfer agreement), under which 50,000 Jews would be transferred to Palestine. The Jews' possessions were confiscated and in return the Nazis allowed the Ha'avara organization to purchase 14 million pounds worth of German goods for export to Palestine (which was used to compensate the immigrants). The Nazis did not normally allow Jews to leave with any money or to take more than two suitcases. The agreement was controversial and the Labour Zionist leader who negotiated the agreement, Haim Arlosoroff, was assassinated in Tel Aviv in 1933. The assassination was a long source of anger between the Zionist left and Zionist right. Arlosoroff had been the boyfriend of Magda Ritschel some years before she married Joseph Goebbels.[84] There has been speculation that he was assassinated by the Nazis to hide the connection, which only emerged recently but there is no evidence for it.[85] In Palestine, Jewish immigration (and the Ha'avara goods) helped the economy to flourish. A port and oil refineries were built at Haifa and there was a growth of industrialization in the predominantly agricultural Palestinian economy.

Between 1929 and 1938, 250,000 Jews arrived in Palestine (Fifth Aliyah). 174,000 arrived between 1933 and 1936, after which the British increasingly restricted immigration. Migration was mostly from Europe and included professionals, doctors, lawyers and professors from Germany. German architects of the Bauhaus school made Tel-Aviv the world's only city with purely Bauhaus neighbourhoods and Palestine had the highest per-capita percentage of doctors in the world.

As fascist regimes emerged across Europe, persecution of Jews massively increased, and Jews reverted to being non-citizens deprived of civil and economic rights, subject to arbitrary persecution. Significantly antisemitic governments came to power in Poland (the government increasingly boycotted Jews and by 1937 had totally excluded all Jews),[86] Hungary, Romania and the Nazi created states of Croatia and Slovakia, while Germany annexed Austria and the Czech territories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, they didn't. But if that is your belief then there is no point even trying to have a rational discussion.

Yes they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Can’t read anything here supporting violence or supporting Hamas. 

Stay tuned, it'll come.

More predictable is rightists refusing to condemn land theft. 

How?

How has Israel "delegated" peace? By committing atrocious violations of Palestinians' human rights.

How much money has the Palestinian government has received over the years and what have they done with it, built new schools, proper infrastructure in Gaza, how about condemning Hamas and the Palestinian governments for not using the millions they have received from Israel and other nations and use that money for their people instead of using it to build rockets and buy weapons? Now that's atrocious.

Not code for anything given my post was quite clear.

Ok, so no rebuttal to that, I get it. The left rarely do.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

More predictable is rightists refusing to condemn land theft. 

How?

Are you going to defend land theft by the Israelis?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Are you going to defend land theft by the Israelis?

No, now what about the Palestinians supporting terrorist attacks and why don't they use the money they receive build up their land, they have more than enough.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No, now what about the Palestinians supporting terrorist attacks and why don't they use the money they receive build up their land, they have more than enough.

Fair enough. I’ll tear into Hamas and those who support its disgraceful policies all day. It’s just that I try to look at both sides without prompting, the rest of the rightists just focus on one side.

Good to read you see both. Israel’s conduct has been awful too, hasn’t it? Do you think support for a country engaged in land-stealing ( something you don’t support ), is the right thing to do? Shouldn’t this be unequivocally decried by all, including the US government?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Are you going to defend land theft by the Israelis?

I'm not sure using words like theft helps. It certainly helps convince people that Israel is bad, but it muddies the water for people who really want to understand what Israel might be guilty of. The crime of theft does not exist in international law. For this reason Israel can never will be guilty of 'land theft'.

If you want to be more precise, what you should be asking is this: "Are you going to defend violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention?"

The inevitable problem you will run into is that someone will then ask which state's territorial integrity is being violated when Jordan no longer claims the West Bank and no Palestinian state is internationally recognised. Or whether the settlers are actually being forcibly relocated into occupied territory or are moving on their own accord. There are obviously good reasons for why this problem has not been solved for decades. Both sides have very persuasive arguments.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, now what about the Palestinians supporting terrorist attacks and why don't they use the money they receive build up their land, they have more than enough.

The Palestinians have more than enough money or land? Either way, it's a demonstrably false statement.

Why don't they use money to build up the land? First, they don't have enough money to develop the land they do have, which is fractured and riddled with Israeli checkpoints. Second, the Israelis would likely destroy any significant improvements to the land when it commits another atrocity against the Palestinians.

What about Palestinian support for terrorists? What about Israeli terrorism perpetrated through the IDF? What about US support for terrorists?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Aly

So let the palestinians declare their own state unilaterally.

They can do this today. I would probably support it. If they receive a critical mass of recognition from the international community, Palestine will be a sovereign state.

Either YOU choose to accept the reality that a palestinian state MUST exist or you live in a perpetual state of war.

Even if a Palestinian state were to exist, Israel could legitimately occupy it if it poses a security threat. So recognising Israel and its right to exist seems critical to peace (and yes, I know that this has been done in 1993 and even earlier actually).

Oh come on!! Seriously??

Yes, seriously. Even though it's a violation of the Geneva convention to forcibly transfer your own civilians into occupied territory, those civillians still have basic human rights. They cannot be summarily killed, evicted or be dispossessed of their property by those being occupied.

What are you talking about?? Oh come on!! Seriously??

The Security Council can sanction a peace treaty that contains a clause that would otherwise be vioation of the UN Charter. Israel can ask to keep settlements. Personally, I don't support this, but it is possible.

He's an israeli spy. And YOU wanted me to take his word for it. YOUR credibility is out the window.

I fail to see how someone who switches sides in a conflict loses credibility. I also don't see how my credibility is affected by showing someone who is pointing out facts that many Palestinians woud agree with and can be independently verified in many cases.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Good to read you see both. Israel’s conduct has been awful too, hasn’t it? Do you think support for a country engaged in land-stealing ( something you don’t support ), is the right thing to do? Shouldn’t this be unequivocally decried by all, including the US government?

That depends. Again, I don't think it's an easy answer and that's why this problem won't be solved, at least not in our lifetime. But I do think that the embassy should move to the capital of Israel and that's Jerusalem.

The Palestinians have more than enough money or land? Either way, it's a demonstrably false statement.

No, it's not.

Why don't they use money to build up the land? First, they don't have enough money to develop the land they do have,

But they have enough money to fund terrorism, build Qussam rockets and fund a huge terror network, it's not free, it costs millions to do this.

which is fractured and riddled with Israeli checkpoints.

And yet, they still find a way to launch attacks, quite well I might add.

Second, the Israelis would likely destroy any significant improvements to the land when it commits another atrocity against the Palestinians.

If the Palestinians launch ANY type of physical attack, they would and should to root out any weapon or leader that would wage war against them.

What about Palestinian support for terrorists? What about Israeli terrorism perpetrated through the IDF? What about US support for terrorists?

You have scum and terrorists on both sides, but the Palestinians refuse to recognize the Jewish state and as long as that doesn't happen, the peace process can never go forward.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They can do this today. I would probably support it. If they receive a critical mass of recognition from the international community, Palestine will be a sovereign state.

Yeah right. Look at Israel's reaction when they asked for recognition at the UN.

Even if a Palestinian state were to exist, Israel could legitimately occupy it if it poses a security threat. So recognising Israel and its right to exist seems critical to peace (and yes, I know that this has been done in 1993 and even earlier actually).

Again, the whole arab world including Hamas Hesbollah and Iran floated a peace proposal which the Israelis dubbed as the PEACE OFFENSIVE- recognition of israel in its 1967 borders. It was the Israelis not the palestinians who rejected it.

Even though it's a violation of the Geneva convention to forcibly transfer your own civilians into occupied territory, those civillians still have basic human rights. They cannot be summarily killed, evicted or be dispossessed of their property by those being occupied.

You've got it backwards. Its the Israelis doing that to the palestinians. Not the other way around

I fail to see how someone who switches sides in a conflict loses credibility

He didn't just switch sides. He was a spy.

I also don't see how my credibility is affected by showing someone who is pointing out facts that many Palestinians woud agree with and can be independently verified in many cases.

Try going there and tellingg thtem that

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I also don't see how my credibility is affected by showing someone who is pointing out facts that many Palestinians woud agree with and can be independently verified in many cases.

Well next time try to verify your facts without using Israeli spies thank you very much

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Good to read you see both. Israel’s conduct has been awful too, hasn’t it? Do you think support for a country engaged in land-stealing ( something you don’t support ), is the right thing to do? Shouldn’t this be unequivocally decried by all, including the US government?

That depends.

I’m talking about land stealing. You said you don’t defend it.

What does it depend on?

@M3M3M3

What persuasive arguments do settlers have for settling on land which doesn’t belong to them? We can obfuscate all day but the majority of the world sees this for what it is.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What does it depend on?

Who's land it belongs to.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Who's land it belongs to.

What land to the settlers have the right to settle on?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What do you think? What's your opinion?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Jimizo

What persuasive arguments do settlers have for settling on land which doesn’t belong to them? 

There are a number of arguments. First, the legal argument against the settlers rests solely on Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. There is no other rule of international law that prevents the free movement of people. Article 49 prevents forcible population transfers into occupied territories during war. The aim was to stop what happened during WW2 where the Nazis forcibly relocated their own citizens in order to Germanize occupied territories in places like Poland. The question in the case of Israel and the West Bank is whether the Geneva convention applies considering that the land belongs to no internationally recognised sovereign (after Jordan renounced its claim over most of the territory). There is a non-binding ICJ advisory opinion saying that the Geneva Convention does apply even in cases where the land belongs to no state. Fair enough, I accept that. The next important question is whether the settlements are forcible transfers, because only forcible transfers are prohibited. I think it's hard to argue that the settlers are being forced to move into occupied territories. They seem to be moving according to their own will.

Most countries regard the settlements as illegal simply because the security council has passed resolutions which just summarily declare them to be in violation of international law without any explanation. The security council has no authority to unilaterally reinterpret the text of the Geneva convention. They are not the relevant body that can make that determination, the ICJ is (but admittedly Israel is unlikely to ever consent to its jurisdiction in this dispute if somebody brings a case)

The bitter truth is that nothing in international law makes the settlements illegal. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't. The Geneva convention does not ban voluntary movements because it is not concerned with preserving the ethnic homogeneity of an area.

Finally, the most convincing argument for why the settlements are not illegal under Article 49 is to look at the absurb conclusions we would have to draw if they are illegal. From 1945 to 1949, the allies occupied Germany. During this time, many private citizens from the occupying powers (France, the UK, America, etc) moved into West Germany. Were they illegal settlers? Was it a violation of the Geneva convention to allow this? Can Germany evict them today? The answer is obviously no, because these movements were not forcible.

That said, I do not support the settlements because, like most people, I think they are a huge impediment to peace and a viable future Palestinian state. There are also many individual cases of arbitrary injustice where Palestinians are bulldozed out of their homes for dubious security concerns or to build the security walls. These are morally wrong but I don't think we can call this theft, at least not in a legal sense.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Aly

Yeah right. Look at Israel's reaction when they asked for recognition at the UN.

Well, the UN does not create states, it only recognises existing ones. If the Palestinians can declare a state without being occupied by Israel out of security concerns, then it could happen. That's obviously what the peace process is trying to resolve. Simply recognising Israel is not enough if the next move will be to destroy it. If Israel doesn't have security guarantees, it is not going to end the occupation.

He didn't just switch sides. He was a spy.

What's wrong with that? One of my relatives was conscripted by the Nazis during WW2, he defected at the first available opportunity and spent the rest of the war feeding intelligence to the British. What do you think about him? Or do you disagree that Hamas is a pretty nasty terror organisation?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If Israel doesn't have security guarantees, it is not going to end the occupation.

Asking for a security guarantee while building houses in their back yard.

Silly Zionist logic.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@M3M3M3

That’s the obfuscation I’m talking about. We can split hairs about whether this legally constitutes theft but those on the ground who see the bulldozers, the vast majority of the international community and those with any moral sense see this for what it is. Some of the settlers themselves are messianic crackpots backed up by other religious crackpots in the US and these people couldn’t give a toss about international law. They have a more cosmic outlook.

It’s a moral disgrace.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well, the UN does not create states, it only recognises existing ones. If the Palestinians can declare a state without being occupied by Israel out of security concerns, then it could happen.

Yeah and some day pigs might fly. That could happen too. You and I both know this is never going to happen

That's obviously what the peace process is trying to resolve.

No the peace process was trying to do is buy more time for Israel to snap up more land

Simply recognising Israel is not enough if the next move will be to destroy it. If Israel doesn't have security guarantees, it is not going to end the occupation.

The idea that a stateless people are able to destroy a nation that has nuclear weapons and is friends with the strongest country in the world is laughable. That they need security guarantees from people who don’t even have a country is just plain silly.

He didn't just switch sides. He was a spy.

What's wrong with that?

It just means He is liking credibility and so are you for not only using him as a source but failing to tell everyone that he was a spy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That’s the obfuscation I’m talking about. We can split hairs about whether this legally constitutes theft but those on the ground who see the bulldozers, the vast majority of the international community and those with any moral sense see this for what it is. Some of the settlers themselves are messianic crackpots backed up by other religious crackpots in the US and these people couldn’t give a toss about international law. They have a more cosmic outlook. 

Very well said.

It’s a moral disgrace.

Absolutely. Including anyone who supports a nation-state like that

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Jimizo

That’s the obfuscation I’m talking about. We can split hairs about whether this legally constitutes theft but those on the ground who see the bulldozers, the vast majority of the international community and those with any moral sense see this for what it is.

I understand where you're coming from, but it's not obfuscation. You can come up with the most compelling moral argument for why the settlements should not exist and I would probably agree with you, but I will still point out that your argument won't survive the dispassionate meat grinder of international law. Israel is aware of its rights and they are going to insist on exercising them, for better or worse. It's quite tempting to simplify the conflict and claim that we've won the moral argument, but I'm not sure that brings us closer to peace. The solution is inevitably going to be highly technical and rules based. It will split a thousand hairs. Ultimately, I think acknowledging that this is the most unprecedented and complicated mess the world has ever seen, with mistakes and culpability on all sides, brings us closer to solving it. But maybe that's not a particularly satisfying thing to hear.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I thought the Palestinians ALREADY had a state- called Jordan. Wasn't it created at the same time as Israel back in the late 1940s? Alternately, why doesn't one (or more) of the surrounding Arab countries offer up some of THEIR land for the Palestinians? They are all far larger than Israel, and could easily slice off a few thousand KMs for their brothers. Or, are they more content to use the Palestinians as attack dogs, keeping them penned up in camps and permanently at the boil, instead of offering them refuge and legal status?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Jews have live in the geographical region called Palestine for well over 2000 years, hardly foriegn occupiers.

> really?

Yes, really. The fact that many Jews came to the area in the 20's 30's and 40's does not negate the fact that there were already Jews there and had been Jews there for thousands of years.

Well except the Palestinians never owned the wallet, so not a very good analogy.

> And Yet THEY are being told to compromise. As Fuzzbit said

If they didn't own the wallet then being offered any of the wallet is a bonus not a compromise.

No, they didn't. But if that is your belief then there is no point even trying to have a rational discussion.

> Yes they did.

No, they didn't. The claims was "They walked in they declared their own state unilaterally." Which did not happen. Your own link describes how the declaration came about, you know the part played by Britian who controlled the area and the actions of the UN. And you fail to mention that the declaration was followed by recognition by numerous countries and being admitted to the UN.

At the time of Israel's declaration the Palestinians could have issued their own declaration forming Palestine in the area designated by the UN. But instead that land, in general, was claimed by other Arab countries.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Attilathehungry

I thought the Palestinians ALREADY had a state- called Jordan. Wasn't it created at the same time as Israel back in the late 1940s? Alternately, why doesn't one (or more) of the surrounding Arab countries offer up some of THEIR land for the Palestinians?

Stop making sense.

I've said it before, but the Muslims have umpteen holy cities, including the big "M," while the Jews basically have one, or in reality, a half of one.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes, really. The fact that many Jews came to the area in the 20's 30's and 40's does not negate the fact that there were already Jews there and had been Jews there for thousands of years.

And so were the palestinians.

Well except the Palestinians never owned the wallet, so not a very good analogy.

And Yet THEY are being told to compromise. As Fuzzbit said

If they didn't own the wallet then being offered any of the wallet is a bonus not a compromise.

But the people YOU are defending did in fact steal the wallet which makes YOU a defender of theives.

No, they didn't. The claims was "They walked in they declared their own state unilaterally." Which did not happen.

Yes it did.

The Israeli Declaration of Independence,[note 1] formally the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708) by David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[2][3] and the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.[4] It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, which would come into effect on termination of the British Mandate at midnight that day.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence

And you fail to mention that the declaration was followed by recognition by numerous countries and being admitted to the UN

AFTER israel declared itself a state. Did you think the state was recognized before its formation??

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Peace on earth, good will to all men" -- but not in Trump's world. He rejects that notion. He wants war on earth, and ill will to all he dislikes. Not a Christian.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Since the year 2000:

1,242 Israelis have been killed by the nearly defenseless and weaponless Palestinians

9,510 Palestinians have been killed by the armed to the teeth Israelis.

134 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians

2,167 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Peace on earth, good will to all men" -- but not in Trump's world. He rejects that notion. He wants war on earth, and ill will to all he dislikes. Not a Christian.

Ridiculous.

It's the Zionists and their devious plots that are creating part of the turmoil in the ME, while part is also the hegemonic desires of the gas and oil crime gangs. Mostly this is about Israel and Iran with the Sauds and the US taking sides. The US Comgress is more to blame than Trump. Furthermore, if Trump wants "war on earth", then why did he just recently tell Saudi Arabia to stop their war and blockade of food and care for Yemen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And so were the palestinians.

And I didn't say they weren't, while someone did say (or at least imply) the Jews weren't there.

But the people YOU are defending did in fact steal the wallet which makes YOU a defender of theives.

No, they didn't. They were given the wallet and the international community recognized their right to have the wallet. Meanwhile the people YOU are defending were offered their own wallet and not only didn't take the offered wallet but attempted to destroy the other wallet.

No, they didn't. The claims was "They walked in they declared their own state unilaterally." Which did not happen.

Yes it did.

We have been over this and you posted the same link before. First, they were already there. Second, they were given the state by action of the international community.

AFTER israel declared itself a state. Did you think the state was recognized before its formation??

Well, of course they couldn't be recognized until the state had actually been formed. But considering the international community basically said 'here is some land for you go and form a country' so by implication the community had agreed to the country's formation BEFORE they declared themselves as one.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And I didn't say they weren't, while someone did say (or at least imply) the Jews weren't there.

And YOU implied that the palestinians were not there by saying that somehow the Israelis had more of a right to that land.

No, they didn't.

Yes they did.

They were given the wallet and the international community recognized their right to have the wallet.

They took the wallet by force. And the proof is in the pudding. They are evicting palestinians from their homes and builiding settlements and YOU still want to say they didn't steal the land during their formation. They haven't even stopped!!

Meanwhile the people YOU are defending were offered their own wallet and not only didn't take the offered wallet but attempted to destroy the other wallet.

No. They were offered half of the money that was in their wallet.And buy the way, what you call evicting people out of their homes? isnt that taking their wallet?

We have been over this and you posted the same link before. First, they were already there.

The ones that were there were not the ones who started evicting palestinians from their homes.

Second, they were given the state by action of the international community.

it wasn't the international community's to give them nor right for them to take it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is so terrible of Trump. What a bad political decision. The Presidents before him refrained from moving the capital to Jerusalem and we had decades of peace. No terrorism, no rioting, no bombings. Now we know what is going to happen. Adherents of the religion of peace are threatening war, rage, fire, hell, revenge.

Anyone should know that having an embassy in the capital of a country will result in peace-loving people going absolutely wild and threaten mayhem

Outrageous.

I mean, it’s not like the United States has ever given any money to the Palestinians.

Good job Mr President.

Let them rave for a while. That’s what they do best.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Two dead.

What a waste.

If Arab leaders HONESTLY cared for their people, the Middle East would be totally different.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The only just solution left is the one state solution. Everybody can live there. All Palestinians to have the right to return, Jews from overseas to have the right to make Aliyah and move there for religious reasons. People who've been wronged, the right to financial compensation, everyone has equal rights. Palestinians who have land deeds or can prove that their property was seized would be offered the right to return to that property, Current occupants be moved to a new development. A lot of people on all sides tried for war crimes, Israeli politicians, prime ministers, PLO leaders, Hamas members. The biggest problem is the bad blood. Palestinians aren't just going to forgive and forget over night. It would be like de segregating the south. The legacy of past conflict will extend for generations, socially and economically. Especially if they've lost friends, family or children to Israeli attacks. Israelis would have to accept that through fair democratic process, Israel may not necessarily be Jewish governed or Jewish ruled, but in this day and age, there should be no religious states.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Joe. That's an excellent idea! I'll second that.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Or the rich Saudi’s could make some land available in their huge country and make a home for the Palestinians. Include free transport to Mecca and Meddina.

They won’t.

The elephant in the room is that Arabs don’t like or care about Palestinians.

the anti-semitism in the world, media and news forums is scary.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The US Congress is more to blame than Trump.

So the president who makes the decision is less to blame... That's ridiculous.

The notion that Trump cares what Congress thinks is ridiculous too. It was Sheldon Adelson, one of Trump's biggest donors, that pushed Trump into this. That's what Trump cares about. Donors and their money.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump is a retard, this just proves it, the part of the world is a tinder box waiting to go off at any moment in time, he just leaves me speechless with his stupid comments.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

in this day and age, there should be no religious states.

Ideally. But until people stop hating Jews for being Jewish, it stands to reason that they should have their own country.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites