Israeli police, Palestinians clash at holy site

More idiotic fighting instead of talking and negotiating for peace. We can only pray that this so far endless cycle will someday be replaced by talking, cooperating and negotiations that lead to Palestinians and Israelis each having their nation side by side in mutual recognition and peace.

More idiotic fighting instead of talking and negotiating for peace. We can only pray that this so far endless cycle will someday be replaced by talking, cooperating and negotiations that lead to Palestinians and Israelis each having their nation side by side in mutual recognition and peace

A good way to start the negotiations is by the P.A. acknowledging the existance of an Israeli nation. But of course, that is impossible for the P.A. to do..

"A good way to start the negotiations is by the P.A. acknowledging the existance of an Israeli nation. But of course, that is impossible for the P.A. to do.."

This propaganda has been being regurgitated for years and years now. It's agreat deflection tool which allows for Israel to keep up it's crimes. But then again I guess there are still many "criminal Native Americans" who probably haven't recognized the U.S. either.

featherhead,

If the Palestinians are not willing to negotiate for a peaceful settlement, they will not get a Palestinian nation side by side in peace with Israel. The 'Native Americans' never got that choice. Hamas does, and they choose not to take it at this point. Hamas must finally recognize Israel's right to exist and recognize that without negotiations there cannot be peace.

This idiotic fighting solves absolutely nothing. People getting hurt and killed for 'rumours' is also a sad shame and a waste.

Israel’s government sees all of Jerusalem, including the Old City, as its indivisible capital. Palestinians see east Jerusalem, including the Old City, as the capital of a future state.

East Jerusalem is Palestinian land according to a UNSC resolution, the International Court of Justice, and every country in the world (except Israel, US, and a few tiny pacific Islands). Why doesn't the article state this very important fact.

BTW, could this clash be in any way related to the following: "The mayor of Jerusalem has announced a plan to demolish an area of Arab East Jerusalem to make way for an upmarket district of luxury hotels and gardens."

I don't believe UNSC resolutions refer specifically to East Jerusalem as Palestinian land. The land was captured by Jordan and then by Israel.

As to what will happen to East Jerusalem in the future, that needs to be decided in negotiations. Negotiations that, so far, Palestinians have been rejecting in favor of fighting meaningless fights such as the one decribed in this article.

BTW, this clash is in no way related to any planned demolition, because the plans have been postponed and Netanyahu has urged the mayor to reconsider the plan altogether.

The UNSC was very clear about the land can not be acquired by war. Several years later, the International Court of Justice declared that that land belongs to the Palestinians.

If the Palestinians want to give that land up, its up to them. But until then, it belongs to the Palestinians and the Israelis have no business whats so ever to occupy that land. That part does not need to be negotiated, it was decided many years ago, it belongs to the Palestinians.

I do not want to get caught up in other of your easily deleted tangents. However, as I wrote earlier I do believe the UNSC does not specifically says East Jerusalem is Palestinian land. You claimed it does. Reading the resolution says it does not. In addition, the judges of the International Court of Justice were certainly not unanimous in their decisions on this issue and this shows how difficult this case is. In fact, their decisions were being made way after both Jordan and Israel had captured the land and were obviously influenced by the current political climate more than the actual realities of the case as it was and really is.

The reality is that Palestinian Arabs have not controlled the areas in dispute as a nation for hundreds of years. They certainly did not last century or the century before. They did not control it when it was captured by Jordan or Egypt. The only hope they have of both control over those areas and further getting their own nation is brought about by Israel having taken over this territory. There was no international discussions of giving the West Bank or Gaza to the Palestinians before Israel took them over.

Negotiations instead of this stupid fighting is the only way to get them the nation for which they yearn. No negotiations means things stay as they are. That is not good for anyone is the long run except people who want to fight such as the ones described in this article.

I do believe the UNSC does not specifically says East Jerusalem is Palestinian land.

The UNSC resolution states very clearly that land can not be acquired by war (and land taken during 1967 war must be returned). Several years later, the International Court of Justice repeated that statement when it ruled on the legality of the wall.

In the court's final ruling, it was very close to unanimous (13:1). But all (100%) judges of the International Court of Justice agreed that the land (all of Gaza, all of the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem) was in fact Palestinian.

If you had listened to Norman Finkelstein, you would have understood that, he explains that very clearly.

So there is really nothing to negotiate about the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It belongs to the Palestinians, 100%. Israel is preventing negotiations by refusing to accept these facts.

You claimed it does. Reading the resolution says it does not. In addition, the judges of the International Court of Justice were certainly not unanimous in their decisions on this issue and this shows how difficult this case is.

Sigh. Please do try to stop on topic a bit. You said UNSC referred to East Jerusalem as Palestinian land. I said I thought you were mistaken. I checked and you were. The UNSC did not refer to East Jerusalem as Palestinian land. The ICJ ruling was overturned by the UN anyway. All of the resolutions are non-binding anyway. The only thing that counts is negotiations for peace. Land for peace as is referred to clearly and plainly in UNSC. You claim you are unfamiliar with the idea of land for peace. However, the UN is not and the world is not.

Never mind Finklestein, you need to re-read the UNSC again.

What part of "inadmissible" don't you understand? The UNSC resolution stated very clearly that land can not be acquired by war (and land taken during 1967 war must be returned). If they took it by war, it does not belong to them and they must leave it.

Before deciding on the legality of the wall, the International Court of Justice had to determine whose land it was and they unanimously determined that the land was and is Palestinian. That part has not been "overturned". All of Gaza, all of the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem is Palestinian. There is nothing to negotiate about the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It belongs to the Palestinians, 100%.

The point is that the land taken in 1967 was not taken from the Palestinians. It was not controlled by the Palestinians. It was not legally controlled by anyone. It was illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt. That is one of the main problems with the conflict. The land was never controlled by the Palestinians.

However, the UNSC is quite clear that land must be returned in return for peace with Israel, recognition of Israel and normalized relations with Israel. At the time, they were talking about land being returned to Jordan and Egypt, not to the Palestinians. As I wrote, The UNSC did not refer to East Jerusalem as Palestinian land. Again, that means negotiations. To get their land, there must be negotiations. There must be land for peace. The UN ruled on this in 1967 and the Palestinians still have not managed to completely understand this. Neither it seems have you.

Anyway, these stupid fights do nothing for the Palestinians. Negotiations will, if they continue until there is a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

I definitely don't see the UNSC resolution the way you do, surprise surprise. Regardless on how you choose to interpret the UNSC resolution, the International Court of Justice decision is clear and it specifically says that all of Gaza, all of the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem is Palestinian. There is nothing to negotiate about the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It belongs to the Palestinians, 100%. What has to be negotiated is a just settlement to the refugee problem, not whether the OPT is Palestinian or not.

Yes, that is quite a surprise that we don't see things the same way. You are neglecting to consider that neither the UNSC resolutions nor the ICJ decision are binding. The ICJ is not the ICC. The UNSC do specifically mention land for peace. This is not a matter of seeing or not seeing. It says it right there in black and white. What it does not say is that East Jerusalem is Palestinian land. You said it said that and it does not.

I understand exactly what your position is. First, Israel gives back all the occupied territories. Then they let back all the Palestinians that want to claim the right of return and if there is still a state of Israel lasting long enough to do it, you think all the Palestinians should also be compensated. Oh, also, there should be a vote amongst all the Palestinians and Israelis to decide the new govenment in what was formerly Israel. That is your opinion. However, no international body agrees with it.

The UNSC resolutions specifically state that the deal is land for peace and that the peace and security of each state, including Israel, must be respected. So, you are not going to get your wish. The Palestinians get their land, only after negotations. That is what the UN says. More importantly, there is no other solution that will be acceptable to all sides (except for you, of course!)

Just to add, the ICJ agrees with me:

The Court considers that it has a duty to draw the attention of the General Assembly, to which the present Opinion is addressed, to the need for these efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region.

So, again, the UN, the world and I agree that silly fighting as we can see in this article is not the solution. Negotiations leading to a real and true peace is.

Oh my! This is going nowhere very fast. I never said there is nothing to negotiate. I agree that there needs to be a negotiated solution based on international law to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region.

Interesting that you bring up "international law". It is precisely based on international law that the International Court of Justice ruled that all of Gaza, all of the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem is Palestinian. This is not one of the outstanding problems that needs to be negotiated. It belongs to the Palestinians, 100%. The outstanding problems are things like the just settlement to the refugee problem, not whether the OPT is Palestinian or not.

Its not a question of Israel "giving back" occupied territories, its not theirs to give. They must LEAVE the occupied territories, they should not be their, according to international law. In the international community, the only ones to see it the way you do are the governments of Israel, US, and a few tiny Pacific Islands; you're in great company.

And while they are occupying Palestinian land, Israel should not build new structures and much less destroy Palestinian ones.

If you agree with what I quoted that there needs to be a negotiated solution based on international law to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region. Then we agree.

However, you continue with your second paragraph and you decide what is negotiable and what is not. That is where you lose me. It is clear in the UNSC that the borders are also negotiable. It is also clear that there will be land exchanges and that the Palestinian nation will not be exactly the same shape as the West Bank and Gaza are. There are no international rulings saying otherwise.

You are correct that it is not a question of 'giving back' land, because if they were giving it back, it would be going to Jordan and Egypt and it will not be going to them.

Since I have never written that I think Israel should not leave the occupied territories, your last two sentences about Israel leaving has nothing to do with me or 'my great company'. I believe in a two state solution with both side by side in peace. I have always said this and I continue to say it. This will only come about through negotiations leading to land for peace which is what is suggested by UNSC.

So, it is time for the Palestinians and Israelis to say they are willing to go back to the negotiating table and make peace and stop fighting about this kind of silliness that we see in this article.

Sorry, should have been:

You are correct that it is not a question of 'giving back' land, because if they were giving it back, it would be going to Jordan and Egypt and it will not be going to the Palestinians as they did not control it before Israel occupied it.

Sorry again. I did not see your last post. Without getting into particulars, I agree in principle with your opinion about Israel building new structures/destroying Palestinian structures in the occupied territories. They are counterproductive to peace. That is why I was pleased to see construction postponed in East Jerusalem and Netanyahu asked the Jerusalem mayor to reconsider scrapping the project entirely.

The International Court of Justice stated that all of Gaza, all of the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem is Palestinian.

What part of that statement do you not understand. It does not belong to Israel, it does not belong to Egypt, and it does not belong to Jordan. It belongs 100% to the Palestinians.

I read the decision by the ICJ (quite a number of times)and it says no such thing about 100% belonging to the Palestinians. Now, that is what might result from negotiations, but it does not say that. It was merely ruling on the legitimacy of the wall that Israel put up in the territories and saying that it was illegitimate to put up on wall on occupied territory. That is not quite the same as you are saying.

If you would read closely, I have not made any decision on what belongs to Israel or not. I believe in a Palestinian state made from the West Bank and Gaza through land for peace negotiations. The reality is that, although it will become the Palestinians state, it has not been Palestinian controlled for hundreds of years. It was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, Jordan and Egypt and now Israel. So, this talk of giving it back to the Palestinians as if it were taken from a Palestinian country is incorrect. BTW, there is no debate that it did belong to Egypt and Jordan. In fact, Jordan even officially annexed it. Funny, did not hear anyone in the international community complaining about that or the Gazans rotting under Egyptian rule. Now that Israel is in control, the Palestinians finally have a chance at getting their nation for the first time in hundreds of years. How is that for irony?

It would be nice if both sides took advantage of this irony and made peace through land for peace negotiations as described in the UN and the ICJ and to which all logical and reasonable subscribe instead of this nonsensical fighting over symbols and what have you. Stop fighting and start talking.

Well at least you accept that it is occupied territory, and so does not belong to Israel. Eventually you'll come to understand that it belongs to the Palestinians, not after negotiations, but now.

sabiwabi,

I have always accepted, and in fact have used, the term occupied territories. Why wouldn't I? They are occupied after all. I also accept that territory now being occupied will, after negotiations, become the Palestinian state. I believe it should become the Palestinian state. I have never said anything other than this.

What I don't accept is any notion that Israel does not have a right to exist side by side in peace with Palestine. Both sides need to accept this and stop fighting. This idiocy with symbols and violence over basically nothing that we can see in this article should be replaced by the two sides talking until all the disagreements are settled and the two sides can live in peace. That is what I want and what most, if not all, Palestinians and Israelis really want.