# Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.

The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.

Trump told the leader that under his administration the U.S. will “recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel,” the campaign statement read, repeating his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Tel Aviv.

Hillary Clinton also met Netanyahu for less than an hour in Manhattan,CBS reports. Reporters were barred from covering either event.

Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital

Finally we may have a US president who is bold enough to take a fresh look at this conflict and smart enough to realize that US hedging on this issue only prolongs the conflict.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 26, 2016)

I read that and all I see is $$$$


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

Yes he said that before. The ZOG owns the US Government.  They bow to Israel, he will be wearing a skullcap pledging his allegiance to Israel at the western wall if elected. Hillary  will do the same.  Their kids are not married to Jews for naught.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> I read that and all I see is $$$$


They have a pill for that.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I read that and all I see is $$$$
> ...


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 26, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


 They have a pill for welfare leeches?


----------



## Bleipriester (Sep 26, 2016)

So Trump will move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Not the end of the world I guess.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


lol  They have a pill for people who hallucinate $'s.


Bleipriester said:


> So Trump will move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Not the end of the world I guess.


Actually, it could be the beginning of the end of the conflict.  The undivided city of Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, and no one is going to do anything to change that fact, so refusing to recognize facts that cannot be changed, only prolongs the conflict.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> 
> The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.
> 
> ...


Well, that's nice. I'm sure he checked the feasibility and examined the possible backlash, from the Muslim world. He has a plan so it won't turn into another intifada, he has considered and talked about it with the European allies and was able to reassure them, that doing so won't turn more of the European Muslim community to extremism. My point is, this is why a Trump presidency is such a bad idea. He thinks his instincts are a substitute for informed decisions.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> 
> The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.
> 
> ...


Do you think Trump could find either on a map?


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> ...


 Who cares? Why keep bending over them?


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Who's them?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Sep 26, 2016)

Praise God!  Jerusalem *is *the Capitol of Israel!  All of it!


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> ...


It is a fact that the undivided city of Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, and it is a fact that no one is going to do anything to change it, and it is a fact that refusing to acknowledge unchangeable facts only prolongs this conflict, 

The Jerusalem Embassy Act passed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in Congress and it requires the President to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the embassy there unless the President certifies every six months that it wants to delay this move for national security reasons.  All President Trump has to do is not certify there are national security reasons to delay this move and it is done.  Europeans may grumble and Muslims may rant and rave but at the end of the day, it will have settled one of the most important issues in the conflict and that will mean progress toward ending the conflict.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


 the muslim world


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

Penelope said:


> This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.



Yep.  The Jews are evil.  How DARE they have their capital in the place, you know, where their capital has been for thousands of years?!  The NERVE of them.  I tell you, they are evil.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


How do you see it ending the conflict? You just admitted to both the Muslim world and Europe would look at it unfavorably and possibly violently in the case of the Muslim world. What to you is the end of the conflict?


----------



## Bleipriester (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Actually, it could be the beginning of the end of the conflict.  The undivided city of Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, and no one is going to do anything to change that fact, so refusing to recognize facts that cannot be changed, only prolongs the conflict.


Actually, the Jews must share the city with the Muslims. I don´t care about which city should be capital according to whomever. Equality is the key to the end of the conflict. Zion servants usually get very bloody hands and Trump´s statement that his USA wants to befriend everyone can only suffer from Zionism and not benefit. Trump must stay away from Zionism or all his statements are null and void. However, Putin gave a symbolic tank to Netanyahu and nobody shouted that Zionism took over Russia, so it is very early to determine anything.

IDF tank held by Russia since 1982 returns to Israel


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I didn't say it would end the conflict, I said it would be a step in that direction.  The conflict ends when all the important issues are settled, so settling this issue will be a step toward ending the conflict.  Holding out unrealistic expectations for the Muslims by refusing to acknowledge unchangeable facts only prolongs the conflict.  Europeans and Muslims may not like it, but there is nothing they can do about it, and before too long the Trump administration will move on to the next issue, refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs, and these moves collectively will put pressure on the Palestinians to try to get their act together so that credible negotiations can be held some time in the future that will reach some sort of realistic agreement.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


I hope that the government cares, since interference in the region by Bush can be considered the main reason for the current instability. Like I said the fact that Trump makes this statement on the bases of this 1 hour conversation, makes the job of a possible Trump presidency more difficult because he limits his options without looking at it from all angles. It's at best irresponsible and very possibly dangerous.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

It is absolutely unrealistic to expect Jerusalem NOT to be the capital of Israel.  Every nation gets to choose its own capital.  This is not part of the negotiations.  

The question is whether or not Jerusalem will also be the capital of a Palestine, when one comes fully into existence.  That is up for negotiation -- because that will depend on the final borders established by treaty.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Bleipriester said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it could be the beginning of the end of the conflict.  The undivided city of Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, and no one is going to do anything to change that fact, so refusing to recognize facts that cannot be changed, only prolongs the conflict.
> ...


Jews and Muslims do share the city and Muslim citizens of Israel have all the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel.  When Israel annexed the eastern part of the city, it made all the Arabs who lived there permanent residents with the right to apply to become Israeli citizens.  Few have, but even those who haven't have all the same rights in Jerusalem as Israeli citizens; they are entitled to all the social welfare benefits and they may vote in municipal elections, but few do.  The conflict continues only because much of the world has fostered unrealistic expectations in the minds of many Muslims, this is a step toward correcting that error.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


You seem to be saying that the end of the conflict would be, throwing the full support of the US behind Isreal, completely screwing the Palistinians and hoping everybody will accept it? What in the last 60 years or so of this conflict makes you think this will happen? I'll tell you what happens in the real world. Israel emboldened by US support will start settling all what is left of the Palistinian territory, creating huge resentment from the rest of the international community and for sure will start the next intifada, probably supported by the entire Muslim world. It will make protecting US interests in the region nearly impossible. Strengthen IS again and probably cause other negative effects I can't even begin to foresee.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


You are misinformed.  Trump made this statement many weeks ago and only reiterated it after the meeting with Netanyahu.  Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act with a near unanimous vote in the 1990's and there is still strong bipartisan support for it.   

Both Iran wars were because the ME  was already dangerously unstable and the current instability is the result of Obama behaving irresponsibly by withdrawing US troops from Iraq against strong warnings from the Pentagon that it would be a disaster and his failure to take the lead in settling the Syrian civil war back in 2012.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.
> ...



You got that right.  The British made a huge mistake to let them move there.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Really, you don't think theirs a causal connection, between invading Iraq and needing to have troops stationed there?


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Only because of ZOG.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

Bleipriester said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it could be the beginning of the end of the conflict.  The undivided city of Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, and no one is going to do anything to change that fact, so refusing to recognize facts that cannot be changed, only prolongs the conflict.
> ...



Israel is playing Russia and the US.


----------



## Bleipriester (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Actually, the Muslims are those who the ones in need of social welfare. But what i actually meant was a state of Palestine.


----------



## Bleipriester (Sep 26, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


That´s not the truth. Russia does not serve Israeli interests.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


No, I said acknowledging unchangeable facts is a step toward ending the conflict.  It is a fact that Jerusalem is he capital of Israel and that is not going to change.  It is a fact that all of the Israeli communities in the West Bank take up less than 2% of the West Bank, and it is a fact that the Israeli plans drawn up in the 1980's and virtually unchanged today for developing the West Bank designate only 6.8% of the land for development, all of it in area C.  It is a fact that a Palestinian state is not feasible in the near future because their entire leadhership is made up of warring terrorist gangs.  There simply is no rational basis for believing acknowledging all of these facts would lead to more trouble and turmoil than denying them for all these years has.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Bleipriester said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


The state of Palestine is only a state of mind.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

Bleipriester said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...



Really , Putin and Bibi have a private line.  Israel will be on the side of who gives it more.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Soon it will be history, the same way Judea was centuries ago.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 26, 2016)

East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy said:


> East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.



There is no international law requiring Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem or any other specific territory.  In fact, there are a fair number of treaties which explicitly negate any assumptions of eventual boundaries  and require the conflict to end through negotiation and mutual agreement and treaty between the parties.

IF Palestine ends up with some parts of Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty -- THEN the Palestinians can make their capital anywhere they want within their territory.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


The fact that Israel has taken over East Jerusalem over international objections might be unchangeable but it is be no means morally right. The fact that they have encroached on more of the  Palistinian territory is equally if not more reprehensible. You suggest to give these actions an acceptance and try to sell it, as in some weird way a solution to something. I'll ask it again. How does giving Israel everything and the Palestinians nothing solve this conflict? You keep on rephrasing without answering that simple question.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Jews and Muslims do share the city and Muslim citizens of Israel have all the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel.



Actually, in point of fact, the Jewish citizens of Israel and the Muslim citizens of Israel do not have the same rights.  The Jewish citizens have fewer rights.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> The fact that Israel has taken over East Jerusalem over international objections might be unchangeable but it is be no means morally right. The fact that they have encroached on more of the  Palistinian territory is equally if not more reprehensible.



The mere presence of Jews (or even Israeli citizens) on a particular plot of soil is neither morally wrong, nor legally an encroachment on sovereign territory belonging to another, nor an eventual determination of sovereignty (unless you believe that Palestine MUST be Judenrien).  The border has not yet been determined.  That is the source of the conflict -- determining the border between the State of Israel and the nascent State of Palestine.  The whole point of reaching an agreement is to decide which territory will be Palestinian and which will remain Israel.  

The sooner the international community recognizes this basic fact and stops with the cry of "but its Palestinian territory" the sooner we will be over the conflict.  And the sooner the international community recognizes that neither the existence of Jews in Palestine nor the existence of Arab Muslims or Christians in Israel prevents sovereignty of those States the sooner we will be over the conflict.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that Israel has taken over East Jerusalem over international objections might be unchangeable but it is be no means morally right. The fact that they have encroached on more of the  Palistinian territory is equally if not more reprehensible.
> ...


In 1980, Israel officially absorbed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. That's something completely different from what amounts to people migrating from 1 sovereign country to another. That's saying this place is ours. And they have the military presence to prove it.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that Israel has taken over East Jerusalem over international objections might be unchangeable but it is be no means morally right. The fact that they have encroached on more of the  Palistinian territory is equally if not more reprehensible.
> ...


To make an analogy. What you are claiming would be like claiming that the US shouldn't be allowed to control it's own immigration policy. Not for nothing I'm guessing you would probably have objections to that.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup,  et al,

Yes, this decision is a mess.  Of course, I don't think that Donald Trump can be any worse as a President that any of the mainstream professional political candidates.  While I don't think he is the best that America can offer, most of the better qualified potential leaders have find politics as somewhat nasty and unappealing.



forkup said:


> In 1980, Israel officially absorbed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. That's something completely different from what amounts to people migrating from 1 sovereign country to another. That's saying this place is ours. And they have the military presence to prove it.


*(COMMENT)*

The US Policy in refusing to recognize any Jewish or Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem was thought to be an incentive to Israelis and Palestinians resolve the matter under the parameters of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations.  The Question of Jerusalem would have been answered if both sides had come to the negotiations.

But the ability for the diplomatic officers, at any level, has been --- to say the least --- disappointing.  The US has spend millions (and millions) on Shuttle Diplomacy over the last quarter century --- all for not.  This is primarily because the US State Department has not been able to muster the little gray cells to formulate a viable strategy.   Similarly, US Diplomatic performance has not been able to keep the UN Membership on track with the intent expressed by the Great War Allied Powers, or the WWII Allied Powers that supported A/RES/181(II) in the formation of the States through self-determination.  

Since the US Department of State has not been able to flush the poorly equipped Foreign Service with the competence and proficiency necessary to meet today's challenges, the Department of State needs to back away from the failed concepts behind Secretary Kerry's efforts, and shift all its efforts into supporting the Government of Israel. 

You cannot always compromise the integrity and create a lasting peace.  Sometimes you just have to say:  That is just the way it is going to be. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



_“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.” _
_
_


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> forkup,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this decision is a mess.  Of course, I don't think that Donald Trump can be any worse as a President that any of the mainstream professional political candidates.  While I don't think he is the best that America can offer, most of the better qualified potential leaders have find politics as somewhat nasty and unappealing.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> I don't think that Donald Trump can be any worse as a President that any of the mainstream professional political candidates.


I have to disagree with this assertion. You seem pretty well informed of international politics and history so I hope you bear with me. The way I interpret the last 70 years is that peace was mostly kept by the fact that nations ( world leaders) can be counted on to be rational. I'm of course not claiming that the world has become peaceful, but large scale conflict has become rare. The few exceptions can be usually boiled down to leaders not thinking things all the way through. This is the reason, I find professional politicians reassuring, because by and large they all play by the same rules, this creates a certain predictability in world politics, reduces misunderstanding and in general helps to keep the world safe. Trump speaks off the cuff, is petty and in my view doesn't seem to act rational all the time. And he sure as hell is no typical politician. This breeds uncertainty and not a bit of fear. My point is, I might be wrong and Trump might be putting out an act to get elected, I don't know for sure, but Roccor neither do you. So I rather go by the devil I know, at least I can be pretty sure, Clinton will think before she acts.
On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> To make an analogy. What you are claiming would be like claiming that the US shouldn't be allowed to control it's own immigration policy. Not for nothing I'm guessing you would probably have objections to that.



Not so.  States have the privilege of determining their own immigration policy over the areas within their territorial borders as long as those rights do not infringe upon the basic human rights against discrimination based on race, gender, age, ability, ethnicity or religion.  In order for Palestine to have those rights -- they must first become a State and second make a peace treaty with Israel defining the borders between them.  

Palestine will NEVER have the right to set an immigration policy which forbids Jews from living in their territory (that is against IHL).

Palestine does not have the right to determine immigration policy in land that it only *wants* to eventually have sovereignty over.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?



Did the OP say that the Palestinians shouldn't be given anything?  I seem to have missed that.  How is acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel denying Palestinians "anything"?


----------



## IsaacNewton (Sep 26, 2016)

So dipshit trump looks at the book 'How to get people to attack us' and he picks number 3 on the list. For no other reason than a few political points. Why doesn't he just promise to bomb the golden dome of the rock? I'm sure the evangelical fake kristians in the US and the selfish side of the jews in Israel would love that. 

This is why you can't have people with the mental power of an 8 year old in authority. Much like Kim Jung Un they threaten real human beings with mass death because of their selfish ignorance.


----------



## Slyhunter (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


The end of the conflict when every Arab still on Jewish soil recognize the Jewish state as the supreme law of the land.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?
> ...



Jerusalem was to be a neutral zone, but when has anything mattered to the Jews in Israel.  They are above international law. Its a police country, with Israel in charge. Its not a democracy, except for the secular jews who can do whatever they want, and the orthodox seem to get away with their zealot ways.  Never have the zealots got along with the seculars.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



The British moved them in to protect he Suez Canal.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?
> ...





toomuchtime_ said:


> recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel


There is no mention of what the Palestinians would get. *Undivided* Jerusalem implies that Palestine would need another capital. And this he also said clearly stating the posters preference.


toomuchtime_ said:


> refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



So, by "anything" you meant Jerusalem -- that the Palestinians won't get Jerusalem as part of their State.


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


you saw the last quotes right?
refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs
What does that leave on the table for the Palestinians?


----------



## forkup (Sep 26, 2016)

I'm going to call it quits for now. I want to thank everybody who I talked to tonight.It's fun to be able to stay on message and a conversation not turning into a profane shouting match. Goodnight everybody.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> ... questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs
> What does that leave on the table for the Palestinians?



How much of the above are the Palestinians responsible for?  If the Palestinian people, as a PEOPLE, are not capable of leadership, of government, of peace with their neighbors -- then they should not have a State.  States come into being through the driving force of the people to establish one and then putting their resources into managing one.  If they are unable to do that .... shrug.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I never suggested giving Israel everything and the Palestinians nothing.  The very concept you are stating is bizarre - who has the right to give anything to either side?  No one, certainly not the Europeans or the US or the UN.  

By recognizing unchangeable facts, it is possible to move on to issues that can be negotiated, but much of the world continues to refuse to acknowledge these facts, then no progress is possible and while you may fancy yourselves an advocate for the Palestinians, what you are really advocating is a continuation of the status quo, which is not in their best interests.


----------



## Bleipriester (Sep 26, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Maybe, but doesn´t prove your claim. Putin was also a friend to former chancellor Schröder but Germany didn´t control Russia or spook like that.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


What it leaves for the Palestinians is the opportunity to get their act together by forming a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and be willing to compromise.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.
> ...


You are misinformed; 
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) *Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict*;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation.  The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf.  It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations.  Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup,  et al,

I acknowledge and respect your opinion.



forkup said:


> --- And he sure as hell is no typical politician.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The concept of:  "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know." --- is akin to the concept of:  "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The only way to break the cycle inbred party politics is to elect someone outside the mainstream.  We've had men and women in harms way since 2003 (more than a decade, more than 4500 days continuously).  I was in the North Wing of the Palace when the Administration repackaged the policy and published the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."  



Do you think we are there yet?  Less than a day ago, the news media published this: 



*In Iraq*, battle for Mosul draws many *forces* with many motives · 15h
The tacit alliance — Iraqi troops alongside Shiite militiamen, Sunni Arab tribesmen, Kurdish fighters and U.S special forces— underscores the importance of this battle. Retaking Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, would effectively break the …​And of course, we don't know how the Coalition of Forces will get along.  The Iraqi Army remnants are greatly dependent on the Iranian funded Shia Militia known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).  Mosul is Sunni.  The PMP has a reputation for capturing and torturing Sunnis after the liberation of a predominately Sunni region.  And of course, the current administration has put the US Special Forces right there.  And again, like we so often do, will take a shellacking for allowing it to happen.  Even if the PMP fight, we will probably catch hell for fight along side the Iranian Proxy.

I am sure your "devil you know" argument has merit.  And I believe that many people hold to that opinion.  But I would rather see a dumb ass get the Presidency rather than one of the mainstream politicians that have we've seen seriously screw-up in the past. 

BTW:  During the *Battle for Mosul (2004)* one of the prominent US Military Commanders in the Area was David Petraeus. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Eloy (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


242 addressed the parties to the war, not the Palestinians, and the parties to the war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have already settled their land issues, so 242 is irrelevant.  It made no mention of Palestinians territories, only land that was captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan.  It is simply ot relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Arabs.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


The whole world is still waiting for the *Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.*


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 26, 2016)

forkup,  et al,

This is going to sound callous.



forkup said:


> By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians, that form the backbone of the Jihadist Insurgency - terrorist campaign, civil unrest, and the instigators of critical incidents, may not see it now - but at some point into the future they will want to upgrade from a failed parasitic state totally dependent on foreign donation, to something with the potential of achieving a standard of living and the human development level comparable to that of Israel.  And when that happens, Israel must have the infrastructure ready to relocate Israeli Settlers (on a dime) and the utility infrastructure to immediately open commercial transportation avenues; as well as turn the spigots on huge volumes of desalinized water into the South East Israel and all of the West Bank. 

There must be the where with all to crank-up the small, intermediate and light industry in the West Bank, such that the unemployment level drop from from 38% (62% for females), to virtually full employment (as near as practicable).

The US needs to help Israel to pre-position infrastructure to handle this, plus to develop some solutions to resolve the Beduin issues.

I know that many people would prefer to let the Arab Palestinians sink into oblivion; but at some point, once the generational transmission of jihadism subsides _(probably two generations away)_.  Israel will have to be the engine of success for the Arab Palestinians _(none of the neighboring countries will be able to assume that role)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


No, only crazy people or people who are too stupid to understand 242 is irrelevant to the current conflict are.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy,  et al,

And they are going to be waiting a long time.



Eloy said:


> The whole world is still waiting for the *Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.*


*(COMMENT)*

Israel will not make that kind of concession until they have some reasonable expectation that Hostile Arab Palestinians no longer pose a threat.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Eloy (Sep 26, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


The Israelis do not have a leg to stand on. They are scofflaws. The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy,  et al,

Yeah, yeah.  It does not matter what you call Tibet, the Crimea, or the West Bank.  Until the parties negotiate a settlement, there will be no change.



Eloy said:


> The Israelis do not have a leg to stand on. They are scofflaws. The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.


(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians have no unified voice and no single position.  The people in the Gaza Strip want to back the various violence drive organizations.  They do not want peace.

The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank, just want the status quo to continue because they think their standard of living is sufficient.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 26, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Not by the whole world, and since no one is going to do anything about it, what difference does it make what they think.  Israel has excellent relations with most of the world and improving relations with the ME Arabs so if you have any interest in the welfare of the Palestinians you will join Trump in recognizing unchangeable facts on the ground so it may be possible to move on to other issues that can be negotiated.  On the other hand, if you have no interest in the welfare of the Palestinians and are just wallowing in hatred of Israel or Jews, then you will continue posting this kind of nonsense.


----------



## proudveteran06 (Sep 27, 2016)

Penelope said:


> This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.



 The Jews destroy but ISIS doesn't?? Another sick remark from the Racist Jew Hating Pro Palestinian


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> (i) *Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict*;



... "from territories".  Not "from all territories".

And certainly no specific requirement to withdraw from Jerusalem. 

It also states:  (_ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every *State* in the area and their right to live *in peace within secure and recognized boundaries* free from threats or acts of force;_


(I am quite familiar with all of the 242 arguments, as well as the commentary on them).


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.



Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.  Employing it is a failure to have a coherent, consistent, valid argument.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.



We've been over this a bazillion times, but again, please provide text of treaty or law which defines the boundaries of the "Palestinian Territories".  Then we can see if Israel is violating those boundaries by permitting voluntary migration of individuals into those territories.  (Wait, I'll save you the trouble -- There are no boundaries.  And there are multiple treaties which expressly state that boundaries have not been set and can not be set except by negotiation, mutual agreement and treaty.  Also, its not illegal for people to voluntarily migrate.  And its not illegal for sovereign nations to fail to prevent the voluntary migration of people.)


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, yeah.  It does not matter what you call Tibet, the Crimea, or the West Bank.  Until the parties negotiate a settlement, there will be no change.
> 
> ...


You have a high regard for your understanding of what the Palestinians want to be able to state with such authority that those who are still alive in Gaza actually want to be massacred by the Israelis and those in the West Bank are happy to be under brutal occupation.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Every year in the United Nations the whole world (with the exception of Israel and the USA with some Pacific atolls formally under American possession) vote in favor of Israel ending its occupation of Palestine.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > (i) *Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict*;
> ...


Oh! please; quit the sophistry.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.
> ...


The unanimous votes annually of the entire world in the United Nations (with the exception of Israel and the USA along with some Pacific atolls) are dismissed only by condescending disregard for world opinion and international law.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.
> ...


The 1967 border of Israel.


----------



## proudveteran06 (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.


 
Too bad the Arabs didn't recognize " International Law" before 1967


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy,  et al,

I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote.  I don't think I said anything about a "massacre."



Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Since you mention the people of Gaza _(specifically)_, you will no doubt know that many of the people of Gaza consider the Government in Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority (PA), as something less than the legitimate government.  The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) call the relationship as a the political bifurcation of the West Bank and Gaza.

My attitude about the people of Gaza is based on their actions.  

•  The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) say in clear txt that "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
•  The people of Gaza that overwhelmingly voted for HAMAS, stipulates in their adopted Covenant that "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
•  The people of Gaza overwhelmingly support the HAMAS position that Armed Resistance is not a political position subject to negotiation. (Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar: For More Visit Alresalah English http://english.alresalah.ps/en/post.php?id=4702)   "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
•  Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh said that Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," but that this "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel: 
"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."​•  " Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle."​By design, HAMAS is a militant movement _(not a movement of peace)_.  The United States and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization.  There is no sense of attempting a peaceful solution emanating from Gaza.   The people of Gaza are NOT inclined to further settle their dispute with Israel by peaceful means, in such a manner that peace and security are returned.  The UNRWA describes Gaza as the "home to a population of more than 1.76 million people, including 1.26 million Palestine refugees."  The refugee count is nearly three-quarters of them would be descendants _(who never lived in Israel and have no physical ties)_ of former residence of locals now inside Israeli sovereignty.  After all, in GAZA people 65 years of age and over - account for only 2.7% of the population _(male 14,847; female 20,408) (2004 est.)_.  One would have to be a minimum of 67 years old to be a member of the 700,000 Palestinians became refugees that year, in what is known as the “Nakba”, which is Arabic for catastrophe (meaning at most, there could only be 50,000 people of Gaza that could have been a resident _(mostly infants - 3 years old)_; or true members of the "Nakba."  _(But that is another discussion.)_ 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 27, 2016)

proudveteran06, et al,

Something is wrong here.dd



proudveteran06 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem (c_orpus separatum_) was  formally recommended and adopted by the General Assembly under the 1947 Resolution A/RES/181(II).  It was the Jordanians _(not the Israelis)_ and the Arab Palestinians that stripped away the special status of Jerusalem when it Annexed the West Bank and made Jerusalem part of the Hashemite Kingdom.  All this was discussed in the Lausanne Conference of 1949 with the UN Conciliation Commission (UNCCP). The annexation was "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented" voted in favor of annexation.

It should be remembered that the (so-called) 1967 Borders were based on the Armistice lines which were to form the basis for discussion, but negotiated adjustments of the Green Line was still possible in the formulation of Permanently International Boundaries (PIBs).  Once the Treaties went into effect, the Green Line went into the annals of history; but were no longer officially recognized except as historically associated with the two Armistice Agreements which terminated.  Since that time, those negotiations with the Palestinians (except for the Oslo Accords) are still to transpire --- except for the Treaties between Israel and two of the Arab Parties to the conflict (Egypt and Jordan) to the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Penelope (Sep 27, 2016)

proudveteran06 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.
> ...



What does ISIS have to do with the Palestine/ Israel problems. Yes the Jews destroyed every country they entered.  Well known.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Of course that's not true, but then again, none of what you have posted is true.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> The 1967 border of Israel.



Okay, so when people start talking about the "1967 borders", I know right away where they are coming from.  It is a common phrase repeated ad nauseum in the media and has become a kind of shorthand for a particular idea.  It has become so ubiquitous that it has even crept into formal speeches and reports by those who should know better.  Unfortunately, it is not an idea which is present in any treaty or legal instrument relative to the conflict.   There is no "border" and the line generally meant came about in 1949, not 1967.

The idea is this:  There is a particular territory which is "owned" by "some sort of entity called "Palestine" (or at the least NOT "owned" by the State Israel) and if all the Jews would just go back across this line -- then there would be peace.  

What the treaties and legal instruments ACTUALLY say is entirely different.  In fact, the treaties specifically say that the 1949 Armistice Lines MUST NOT be determined to be borders.  Its clear, emphatic language.  It is absolutely indisputable.  

The Israeli position, the position which is re-iterated time and time again, in treaties and in resolutions, is that the border between Israel and a nascent Palestinian State must be negotiated, mutually agreed upon and be made part of a treaty between Israel and Palestine.  

We've witnessed what an Israeli unilateral withdrawal will accomplish.  There is absolutely no indication that the result will be different in the "West Bank".  The only way to peace is a negotiated settlement.

And again, as I've said this many times, the mere presence of Jews in an eventual Palestine is not a barrier to Palestinian sovereignty or government.  Just as the presence of Arabs in Israel is not a barrier to Israeli sovereignty or government.  And I would emphasize that if the Arab Muslims and Christians of Palestine are unable to live peacefully with some Jews in their midst -- then they are NOT ready to become a State.  If you can't be neighbors to raise your children, you can't be neighbors to raise an economy.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 27, 2016)

Shusha,  et al,

Well --- I think you are correct.  I think when the Arab Palestinians say "1967 Borders," the actually mean the pre-1948 War configuration.  That is not happening.  That is an unreasonable request since the Armistice Lines of 1949 represented the lack of Arab League military success.



Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > The 1967 border of Israel.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

And, such a demand would create a second dispute in that there are Permanent International Borders established by Treaty.

Our Friend "Shusha" is very correct.  To say 1967 Border is to be ambiguous as hell.  The Jordanians, with the assistance and approval of the Arab Palestinians _(right of self determination)_, Annexed the entire West Bank in 1950.  In terms of the dispute in 1967, the two Arab Countries that were parties to the conflict were reached separate agreements and established treaty bound separate and independent treaties covering the borders.                                                                     
In many respects, the 1988 UN Resolution Acknowledging the Declaration of Independence, is also ambiguous, in that it uses the language --- "their territory occupied since 1967." ---  has also been overtaken by events.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## guno (Sep 27, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> 
> The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.
> 
> ...


Christian Fundamentalists Are Irrelevant: Only Jews Matter On Israel


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote.  I don't think I said anything about a "massacre."
> 
> ...


Given the brutal occupation of Palestinians by the Israelis for half a century and how talking to the Israelis has brought nothing but an oppressive blockade of Gaza with periodic massacres of the civilians there, the destruction of their infrastructure, hospitals, and schools, more hellish than Assad and the Russians are doing in Syria, the call to armed resistance makes complete sense. The right of an oppressed people to self defense and self determination cannot be denied.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy,  et al,
> ...


Perhaps this is true on your planet, but not here on Earth.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Given the brutal occupation of Palestinians by the Israelis for half a century and how talking to the Israelis has brought nothing but an oppressive blockade of Gaza with periodic massacres of the civilians there, the destruction of their infrastructure, hospitals, and schools, more hellish than Assad and the Russians are doing in Syria, the call to armed resistance makes complete sense. The right of an oppressed people to self defense and self determination cannot be denied.



Ah, okay.  My opinion of your beliefs is now cemented.  You are interested in neither factual discussion about legal matters nor in coming up with a solution to the conflict.  You are just throwing around emotional rhetoric.  Rhetoric you have clearly picked up from elsewhere and adopted without investigation or thought since it seems not to be sourced in any factual knowledge about the conflict.

Newsflash -- the Gazans HAVE self-determination in a clearly defined territorial unit.  They have had since 2005.  The consequences they experience from how they choose to employ that self-determination is the cause of their grief .  It is also evidence of their actual self-determination.  Because the Jewish people ALSO have a right to self-defense and self-determination.  Not one single more person need die in this conflict.  Not one.  The Gazans simlpy have to choose to stop attacking Israel. It is really that easy. 

Those in the West Bank also have self-determination in Areas A and B.  The consequences they experience from how they choose to employ that self-determination is the cause of their grief.  Most of that grief, far from being a "brutal occupation" is the inconvenience of having to pass through checkpoints when entering Israeli territory (no different than any other border anywhere else in the world) and, somewhat less so, when passing between areas under Palestinian Authority.  Some small number of Palestinians living in Area C have building torn down when they are built illegally.*  And not one single more person need die in this conflict. 

The solution is in peace -- not in armed resistance.  Especially, not in this ridiculously low-level of armed resistance on the part of the Palestinians and the Gazans.  Its not ENOUGH of a resistance to effect change but it is PLENTY to entrench (rightfully) the Israeli position that there needs to be a safe place for Jews to live a Jewish life. 





*Now, for those of you willing to have an actual discussion about things, rather than demonizing Israel, please don't take this as a minimization of the struggles that Palestinians have with Israel in Area C with respect to the development of their communities.  I understand the struggle.  The solutions are complicated.  Honestly, I'm not sure if I know what they are.  But it would be a good discussion if anyone was up for it.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...





Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > The 1967 border of Israel.
> ...


Everyone knows quite well what is the border of Israel since 1967 and what constitutes Occupied Palestinian Territories.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Everyone knows quite well what is the border of Israel since 1967 and what constitutes Occupied Palestinian Territories.



So all you have to contribute to this discussion is logical fallacies and appeals to emotion?  

Let's try this again.  

What reasons do you have for insisting on the "1967 borders"?  What is the purpose of choosing the 1949 Armistice Line as the eventual border between Israel and an eventual Palestine?


----------



## Eloy (Sep 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone knows quite well what is the border of Israel since 1967 and what constitutes Occupied Palestinian Territories.
> ...


International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Eloy said:


> International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.



Well, no.  "International law" requires no such thing.  Though this has certainly become a sort of shorthand for the sheeple who don't bother to investigate a bit further.

Here's a quick run-down on the important matters of 242.  RoccoR will probably come along and provide a much more detailed response.  And I welcome it.  But this is the skinny version.

242 was adopted under Chapter VI, which intends for the parties to the conflict to resolve the conflict through peaceful negotiation and treaty.  It is generally agreed (in international law) that Chapter VI resolutions can not be imposed upon the parties.  Indeed this is a common thread through all the legal instruments concerning this conflict -- negotiate a treaty!

242 speaks of the requirement for recognition of sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of all the States in the area.  Which States would those be?  (Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt).  Note the absence of one in particular.

242 calls for Israel to withdraw from "territories" -- not from "all territories" or even "the territories".  This was entirely intentional as it was recognized that the 1949 Armistice Lines were not and could not be permanent borders as they were indefensible, and this was already spelled out in the Armistice Agreement itself.

242 requires the acknowledgement of ALL parties right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. 242 requires these borders to be negotiated between the parties (Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt).  It does not assume them to be in existence.

242 requires a cessation of belligerency.  Which means the "armed resistance" that you brought up must stop in order for 242 to be implemented.

242 notes the inadmissibility of territory acquired by war.  It does not reject the admissibility of the acquisition of territory through negotiation, treaty and agreement.  Which is what the intent of 242 was.  Further, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war applies to aggressive wars.  Wars where territory is captured in order to defend against an aggressor are permissible.  Also note that this requirement applies equally to Jordan and Egypt and all other States which participated in an aggressive war against Israel.  Jordan can not acquire territory through an aggressive war.  Nor can Egypt.

242 was fulfilled with the signing of peace treaties between Israel and Jordan and Egypt.  In those treaties boundaries are established and delineated and belligerence has stopped.  And indeed, there is peace between the States which were parties to the conflict to which 242 refers, with the exception of final border agreements with Syria and Lebanon, which are still under dispute.

What's happening now is the emergence of another potential State, which is slowly becoming a reality.  That State -- Palestine -- was not a party to the conflict discussed in 242.  And therefore, has nothing to do with 242.

The Palestine/Gaza/Israel conflict is an internal conflict -- not an international one.  Its not a conflict between States. (Those conflicts have largely been resolved).  Its a conflict of warring self-determinations between the Jewish Israelis and the Arab Muslims and Christians.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 27, 2016)

Oh, also.  Oslo happened.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy, et al,

This is a matter of cause and effect.    As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate  security countermeasures were employed  to answer the issues.    

The Israeli Security Barrier (ISB) is not unique as a type of countermeasure against various There are more than two dozen such barriers employed world-wide including:  

Botswana and Zimbabwe barrier (electric fence) which is 500 km long.
China and North Korea barrier which is 1416 km long.
Indo-Bangladeshi barrier which is still under construction but will be more than 3000 km when completed.
Indo-Burma barrier which is still under construction but will be more than 1500 km when completed.
Turkmen-Uzbekistan barrier which is 1700 km long.
United States–Mexico barrier which is 3300 km long.
Uzbek-Kyrgyzstan barrier which is 800 km long.



Eloy said:


> Given the brutal occupation of Palestinians by the Israelis for half a century and how talking to the Israelis has brought nothing but an oppressive blockade of Gaza with periodic massacres of the civilians there, the destruction of their infrastructure, hospitals, and schools, more hellish than Assad and the Russians are doing in Syria, the call to armed resistance makes complete sense. The right of an oppressed people to self defense and self determination cannot be denied.



*(OBSERVATION)*

While there have been many clear indications, over the last several years of radicalized and dangerous Islamic Fundamentalism, it has been increasingly difficult to distinguish between Wahhabi type rhetoric in the Arab League and terrorist narrative in Syria and Iraq, especially since both preach intolerance and call for harsh punishments against those they view as apostates of Islam while reveling in the concept of Jihad as does HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade _(a few examples and not all inclusive)_.

*(COMMENT)*

Inside the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), there are a number of internal checkpoints.  As civil unrest and violence escalated in the oPt, so did the countermeasures response increased.  Some Arab Palestinians see the combined security effort (blockades, checkpoints, roadblocks, curfews and other restrictions) as a matter of oppression and injustice.  The situation became one of more than just a belligerent occupation.  Israel was compelled, based on the hostile activity, to ‘‘take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,—to defend the lives, safety, These actions are as much fore the safety and security of Israeli sovereign integrity, protections of its citizenry as it was for the well-being of Arab Palestinians.  Additionally, the containment of these undesirable threat to state and regional security, the suppression of the growing and dangerous links between other terrorist groups.

If the Arab Palestinians are complaining that the Article 43 measures are too oppressive, they must also accept that their actions contributed to the current climate and conditions they help to create.  You simply cannot, as a people, conduct a terrorist campaign, including bombings and rockets, then turn around and play the innocent victim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy,  et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE

I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.



Eloy said:


> International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.


*(COMMENT)*

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war.  (*U.N. RESOLUTION 242:  ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE*)

SOURCE:
•  *TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242*
•  *Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters*

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."​
Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Eloy (Sep 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Eloy, et al,
> 
> This is a matter of cause and effect.    As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate  security countermeasures were employed  to answer the issues. ...


Don't you ever get tired of blaming the Palestinian victims rather then the Israeli perpetrators, it must be asked.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Eloy,  et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE
> 
> I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.
> 
> ...


The world recognizes the Jewish state of Israel with its border of 1967. It is this state with its 1967 border which is a member of the United Nations and not a state which includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy,  et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE
> ...


Even if that were true, why would you think it is noteworthy?


----------



## Eloy (Sep 28, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza  is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Since even if it were true it wouldn't influence events on the ground, it clearly is not noteworthy to anyone who is seeking a resolution to the conflict.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 28, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


It is important to those who seek a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


No, it is important only to those who want to continue the conflict.  A peaceful resolution can only come when the Palestinians stop demanding things they know they will never get and begin to organize themselves into a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy, et al,
> ...


The Pal'istanians are self-created victims. If you spend a bit of time and read the Hamas Charter, you will quickly discover that appeals to gee-had and statements about destroying Israel are core components of Arab-Moslem terrorist ideology.

It's comically tragic that you and others screech the "islamist victim" mantra when Arabs-Moslems wage acts of war in furtherance of their politico-religious ideology.

After 68 years, israel is still putting the _had_ in gee-had.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 28, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


You know a lot.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


I know enough to understand that the Pal'istanians become a laughable joke when they wage gee-had in furtherance of their politico-religious ideology - are soundly defeated by a stronger, better equipped and trained defensive force, then whine like petulant children when their claims to victimhood are dismissed as fraudulent.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy, et al,

I think you have this ass backwards.    



Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > This is a matter of cause and effect.    As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate  security countermeasures were employed  to answer the issues. ...
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

•   The  perpetrators are those that commits illegal, criminal, or evil acts.
•   The victims are those that suffers from a destructive or injurious action as a result of the illegal, criminal, or evil acts.

In the 1948 War of Independence the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) contributed irregular forces to the act of aggression committed against Israel.

In 1967, the Israeli Government responded against an immediate threat of an imminent attack by massive Arab League forces Staging along the border after demanding the withdrawal of the UN Peace Keeping Forces.  In this case, the Arab League had taken provocative acts that amounted to a threat to use force against the territorial integrity of Israel.  With the Arab League having a past history of aggressive action against Israel.

In 1973, Israel, in responded to a sneak attack intentionally launch on the the Jewish Holiday of Yom Kipper by Arab League Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Sep 28, 2016)

Eloy said:


> It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza  is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..



Israel "occupation forces" abandoned Gaza in 2005.  Not only that -- they ethnically cleansed Gaza of every Jewish community and every Jew.  They went home to live in peace with their Gazan neighbors.  

And yet there is no peace.  Because the goal of the Gazans is NOT to live in peace with their neighbors.


----------



## fanger (Sep 28, 2016)

Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders


----------



## Shusha (Sep 28, 2016)

fanger said:


> Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders



You mean like the way Canada occupies America's borders?  

Or do you mean like defending itself against the belligerent actions of hostile forces intending to harm the citizens of Israel?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 28, 2016)

fanger said:


> Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders


Only the border with Israel and Israeli territorial waters.  Israel does not occupy Gaza's border with Egypt.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 28, 2016)

toomuchtime, et al

I'm not exactly sure as to what you are saying here.



toomuchtime_ said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*

Please refer to:  1979 United Nations — Treaty Series • Nations Unies — Recueil des Traités --- Page: 117


			
				TREATY OF PEACE 1 BETWEEN THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL said:
			
		

> Article II. The *permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel *is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II,  without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.



*(COMMENT)*

Yea, the legal interpretation of the Article 42 Criteria of the Hague Regulation is bandied about quite a bit.  But if it goes to the International Criminal Court (ICC), you will, in all probability, see the ruling in favor of Israel.


Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​
 In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.  [Part 3 --- General Principles of Law:  Article 22(2) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]

Remember when evaluating Article 43 HR obligations the conduct of containment through security barriers and naval blockades that the Government of Israel is, as an example --- but not limited to:


1. *Calls upon all States to adopt such measures* as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to: 

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts; 
(b) Prevent such conduct; 
(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct; ​2. Calls upon all States to cooperate, inter alia, to strengthen the security of their international borders, including by combating fraudulent travel documents and, to the extent attainable, by enhancing terrorist screening and passenger security procedures with a view to preventing those guilty of the conduct in paragraph 1 (a) from entering their territory;​
The Palestinians have a past history of conducting criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic,
religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians provoke and invite additional countermeasure when they praise and reward Palestinians for these criminal acts. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> toomuchtime, et al
> 
> I'm not exactly sure as to what you are saying here.
> 
> ...


Occupied is the wrong word.  I should have said Israel controls only its border with Gaza and Israel's territorial waters, while Egypt controls a border with Gaza.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 28, 2016)

The US Embassy?

Next year, in Jerusalem.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 28, 2016)

toomuchtime, et al,

“Occupied” / “Occupation” is a concept.  Imbedded in this concept is the essential component is the idea of “effective control.”   You can use any word or phrase you want.  But “control” is as good as any, as long as we both understand the intended usage.  In this case, I interpret your usage of “control” as a concept, the same as  “Occupied” / “Occupation;” except that it is absent the ridged criteria of the Hague Regulation.  



toomuchtime_ said:


> Occupied is the wrong word.  I should have said Israel controls only its border with Gaza and Israel's territorial waters, while Egypt controls a border with Gaza.



*(COMMENT)*

The reality is that the entire issue of the specific Permanent International Boundaries (PIB) in and around Israel is a philosophical, moral, legal, and ethical dilemma.  

If you read Article II of the Egyptian Treaty, you will see that the PIB between Egypt and Israel incapsulates the entirety of the Gaza Strip falls within the Israeli side of the PIB.     

If you examine the Treaty (Article 3) with Jordan, you will find that the PIB with Jordan and Israel, encapsulates the entire West Bank.

Most Respectfully,

R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 28, 2016)

Kondor3,  et al,

This is easier said than done.



Kondor3 said:


> The US Embassy?
> Next year, in Jerusalem.


*(COMMENT)*

There are just a huge number of variables that have to be taken into consideration.  That is not going to happen in a year, or even three years.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 28, 2016)

I'm thrilled with this news! As soon as the US recognizes jerusalem as Israel's capitol, all of their neighbors will throw down their arms and give up the war that they have been conducting for 68 years!


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Kondor3,  et al,
> 
> This is easier said than done.
> 
> ...


If-and-when it materializes, it will not be an output of analysis paralysis.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 28, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm thrilled with this news! As soon as the US recognizes jerusalem as Israel's capitol, all of their neighbors will throw down their arms and give up the war that they have been conducting for 68 years!


You mean the one that the Jews have been winning lopsidedly for 68 years?


----------



## Eloy (Sep 29, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I certainly agree with you about the mismatch between the Palestinians who do not have an army equipped with artillary and tanks, nor an air force that can smash a hospital or school into smithereens with the latest precision rockets, nor a navy that can bombard a civilian neighborhood from a distance and the Israelis who do, thanks to the American taxpayers.


----------



## Eloy (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza  is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..
> ...


Palestinians in Gaza are not allowed live in peace as they are massacred every once in a while, men women and children by the Israelis who control their air space, territorial waters, and their border, deciding what the people are allowed to export and import. The Israelis keep Gaza as a massive Konzentrationslager as they go about destroying ahe inhabitants who suffer extreme poverty and deprivation in the meantime.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 29, 2016)

Eloy,  et al,

Yes, you are looking at this with a limited field of view.



Eloy said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First:
In the past history of the region. Israel usually has to confront the entire a substantial number of Arab League Forces.

Second:
No Military Force in the world grants any military advantage to its opponents.  If a weaker opponent, like the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), purposely renews a conflict under a previously arranged Armistice Agreement (followed by Peace Treaties) and declares a Jihad, then that is the destiny they choose.  This was, for the HoAP this was an "elective and optional" conflict contrary to the international policy of settling "disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

When a country goes to war, just like America, it bring the entire toolbox to the front.  In most of the allied world, as opposed to the insurgent, terrorist and jihadist world, it is a US Policy to asserted that when it uses military force, *it must do so in overwhelming fashion* and seeking a decisive victory ---  in the service of vital national interests.  The law of commonality is that most other nations of the World will also seek a similar policy.

THUS, it is also reasonable to assume that this would be understood by other nations and that policy would be, in itself, a deterrent to insurgencies, terrorism and jihadism.  Opponents enter into an optional conflict at their own peril.  Any nations that brings-up the superior force issue as a valid claim is simply irrational.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## forkup (Sep 29, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> forkup,  et al,
> 
> I acknowledge and respect your opinion.
> 
> ...


Sorry it took me a while to respond. During the debate, I believe we saw my point about Trump reiterated. Clinton referred to this Donald Trump declares he would shoot Iranian ships 'out of the water' if they bother American ships . You are making the point that the situation in Iraq hasn't been brought under control by mainstream politicians. I want to mention that the reason there is a situation in Iraq because another idiot ( Bush), figured that invading Iraq was a good idea even when most of the rest of the world didn't agree. And you are planning to support another guy, who by your own admission is equally stupid, and has quite a few more drawbacks that Bush didn't seem to have. A tendency to be underprepared, petty and impulsive to name a few. Now I can and do sympathise  with the dissatisfaction a person can have with the way the political system in the US works, the sense of helplessness and disgust that it provokes. But electing Trump because of it, is like using chemotherapy to fight a cold, not only will it not work but it will surely create a whole list of bigger problems.


----------



## forkup (Sep 29, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> forkup,  et al,
> 
> This is going to sound callous.
> 
> ...


How do you propose the Palestinians upgrade like you put it, when at the same time admitting that the usual things that stabilises a country aren't there (access to water, labor and trade) not to mention the single thing as recognition of said state? I see that you acknowledge that this is not something you solve in a single term of office, yet you fault politicians of not being able to, in your first comment. I think there is a certain disconnect here, between the intelligent, rational person you seem to be and the angry, disheartened other person that you seem to represent to. I know this might come of as condescending, I apologize, since I like your posts and I think our viewpoints aren't that dissimilar at least we both seem to realise these problems are complex and this brings me back to you favoring Trump who seems not to be able to grasp this simple fact.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 29, 2016)

forkup,  et al,

I generally agree that we are not very far apart.  I'll be frank, I don't care for Donald Trump as the Republican Party Presidential Candidate (in fact I think he is rather foolish), but I like Hillary Clinton (the Democratic Party Presidential Nominee) even less...  And I don't think it would hurt America to have Jill Stein (Green Party Presidential Nominee) in the White House, or even Gary Johnson (a former Governor and the Libertarian Party Nominee) in the Oval Office. 

I do think it is time for Armeica to STOP re-electing the same members to Congress, over and over again.  And I think it is time to shake-up both the Republican and Democratic Parties by electing a Third Party.  By doing that, we would not be forklifting candidates into office that owe more in favors to the power brokers than the size of the national debt.  It is time to break those shackles, if only for one administration.



forkup said:


> How do you propose the Palestinians upgrade like you put it, when at the same time admitting that the usual things that stabilises a country aren't there (access to water, labor and trade) not to mention the single thing as recognition of said state? I see that you acknowledge that this is not something you solve in a single term of office, yet you fault politicians of not being able to, in your first comment. I think there is a certain disconnect here, between the intelligent, rational person you seem to be and the angry, disheartened other person that you seem to represent to. I know this might come of as condescending, I apologize, since I like your posts and I think our viewpoints aren't that dissimilar at least we both seem to realise these problems are complex and this brings me back to you favoring Trump who seems not to be able to grasp this simple fact.



*(COMMENT)*

Yes, we agree that the forward planning and pre-position of critical and essential infrastructure in place to kick start the Palestinians as soon as they get a grip in reality. 

I think the US should enlist the aid of Egypt _(on an earmarked quid pro quo arrangement)_ by dramatically improving _(mutually beneficial to Egypt and the Palestinians)_ the M40 and M67 from Rafah - straight into Cairo; as well as upgrading the Ports and Terminals in Rafah for container handling, bulk cargo lifting and LNG operations _(For Levant Field Processing)_.

It would  probably be best if a the M50, M55 (Eilat to Cairo) and M90 (Eilat to Newe Zohar) were modernized.  Consideration should be given to building a Desalinization Plant; with a long range plan to construct Nuclear Power Plants be built in both Rafah and Eilat; with a greatly improved freight and cargo terminal in Eilat _(coordinated with the Hashemite Kingdom - maybe as a Free Economic Zone)_.  This type of infrastructure can be started now, so that they are in operation to feed the sub-Regional Area.

It should become the biggest construction and assembly project since the time of the Pharaoh _(19 Dynasty)_ and the Temple of Abu Simbel.

The great obstacle will be finding leaders with vision and willingness of the peoples to engage in the project.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Vastator (Sep 29, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


They are more than welcome!


----------



## Shusha (Sep 29, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Palestinians in Gaza are not allowed live in peace as they are massacred every once in a while, men women and children by the Israelis who control their air space, territorial waters, and their border, deciding what the people are allowed to export and import. The Israelis keep Gaza as a massive Konzentrationslager as they go about destroying ahe inhabitants who suffer extreme poverty and deprivation in the meantime.



The conflict is never going to get resolved unless the Gazans, in this example, take some responsibility for their actions.  

Cross border exports and imports are possible between peaceful countries.  Nations do it all the time.  But why would any nation want to have trade agreements with a hostile entity actively engaged in "armed resistance"? 

What kind of government permits its citizens to suffer extreme poverty and deprivation by taking resources away from them and using them for "armed resistance"?  Should that kind of government be accepted by the international community?  

The Gazans most certainly would be "allowed" to live in peace if they gave up their "armed resistance".  They already have a defined territory, a government, the freedom to choose peace.  Why don't they do it?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 29, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> toomuchtime, et al,
> 
> “Occupied” / “Occupation” is a concept.  Imbedded in this concept is the essential component is the idea of “effective control.”   You can use any word or phrase you want.  But “control” is as good as any, as long as we both understand the intended usage.  In this case, I interpret your usage of “control” as a concept, the same as  “Occupied” / “Occupation;” except that it is absent the ridged criteria of the Hague Regulation.
> 
> ...


Legally, Gaza may be part of Israel, but currently Israel is treating it as if it is not.  Legal, philosophical, moral and ethical considerations always take a back seat to practical considerations such as security.  When the legal reality and the practical reality are out of sync, it is always the practical reality that takes precedence.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 29, 2016)

toomuchtime, et al,

Well,   ...   This is interesting.



toomuchtime_ said:


> Occupied is the wrong word.  I should have said Israel controls only its border with Gaza and Israel's territorial waters, while Egypt controls a border with Gaza.



*(COMMENT)*

The reality is that the entire issue of the specific Permanent International Boundaries (PIB) in and around Israel is a philosophical, moral, legal, and ethical dilemma.

If you read Article II of the Egyptian Treaty, you will see that the PIB between Egypt and Israel incapsulates the entirety of the Gaza Strip falls within the Israeli side of the PIB.   

If you examine the Treaty (Article 3) with Jordan, you will find that the PIB with Jordan and Israel, encapsulates the entire West Bank.



toomuchtime_ said:


> Legally, Gaza may be part of Israel, but currently Israel is treating it as if it is not.



*(COMMENT)*

Well, there are a couple of things you want to keep in mind.  

•  In 1967: the territory of the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship.
•  In 1967: the Egyptian Military Governorship became occupied by Israel.
•  In 1979: the Treaty removed set the Permanent International Borders (PIB). 
•  In 1988: the Arab Palestinian declared Independence.
•  In 1995: the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (AKA: Oslo II Accord)​The Israelis actually took positive action to insure they were relieved of any territorial control directly over the Gaza Strip.

Israel, at no time, denied the Arab Palestinians self-determination --- nor did Israel put forth any objection to the Declaration of Independence.



toomuchtime_ said:


> Legal, philosophical, moral and ethical considerations always take a back seat to practical considerations such as security.  When the legal reality and the practical reality are out of sync, it is always the practical reality that takes precedence



*(COMMENT)*

When the citizenry has no security protection from Islamic Militants, insurgents, resistance movements and other asymmetric radical Islamist, then the determination on matters of legal, philosophical, moral and ethical considerations swing as wide as the difference between the difference between Western Law and the laws of the Arab League states.

Reality is always moving, subject to changes without regard to practicality.  The attempts by the Quartet to craft a working peace was practical; but, totally ineffective.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> 
> The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.
> 
> ...








As it was meant to be under the terms of the LoN mandate of palestine that gave Jerusalem to the Jews as theirs. It was never to be arab muslim and capital of an arab muslim state. For once an American politician is accepting that Israel has the greater claim to the city and that the arab muslims should pack their bags and go


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Yes he said that before. The ZOG owns the US Government.  They bow to Israel, he will be wearing a skullcap pledging his allegiance to Israel at the western wall if elected. Hillary  will do the same.  Their kids are not married to Jews for naught.










Penelope said:


> This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.







You mean the muslims my dear as they far outnumber the Jews and still dont have enough bodies to fight a war


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...








 The best one going a 9mm lead pellet with greetting from God written on it. Then when the arab muslims have finally been sorted the world will have peace.

 I wonder which hate site you read that from as it forgot to add that islam in the M.E. leeches 10 times more money from the US to line their Swiss bank accounts with than Israel will receive over the next 5 years


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

Bleipriester said:


> So Trump will move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Not the end of the world I guess.








 Possibly the start of a new one that will have islam worried as to who will be next for the chop ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

forkup said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> ...









 We have the means to stop that from happening in Europe, all it takes is the removal of all neo marxists from positions of power and then barriers built to stop them coming here. Those here that break any laws to be deported without recourse to appeal. Once they find that the only places left for them are islamonazi nations then they will soon stop coming


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


 Israel just got granted their biggest welfare deal ever..
And I am aware other places get it too. But ISRAEL was the discussion. I am against all foreign aid. Well, pretty much


----------



## Eloy (Sep 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Palestinians in Gaza are not allowed live in peace as they are massacred every once in a while, men women and children by the Israelis who control their air space, territorial waters, and their border, deciding what the people are allowed to export and import. The Israelis keep Gaza as a massive Konzentrationslager as they go about destroying ahe inhabitants who suffer extreme poverty and deprivation in the meantime.
> ...


Your perspective is fundamentally false and no answers to your rhetorical questions will persuade you otherwise.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Sep 30, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I agree with you.  I agree with Israel's general cause, but why does Netanyahu have to request so much money?  If taken together, the Arab/Muslim countries probably get alot more money out of the U.S., but it still doesn't negate the fact that Israel is smart enough to make it on its own, without anyone's help.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 30, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


 They all are...
IDK its for defense.. maybe they are freaked out about Iran. Or maybe Obama just coddles them like the rest of the Establishment?


----------



## Bleipriester (Sep 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > So Trump will move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Not the end of the world I guess.
> ...


It is certainly everything Israel can expect from Trump.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 30, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Israel could survive without America's military aid, but the question is what would it have to do to survive without the US aid that allows it to build or acquire so much advanced weaponry and would that be in America's best interests?

Because Israel has no strategic depth it cannot sustain a major initial loss in a war and because of its small population and the fact that its army is a citizens army, its economy cannot sustain a prolonged war of any size, so without US aid, it would have to launch preemptive strikes against potential enemies to prevent them from being capable of striking Israel.    This was the policy Israel had before the US decided to sharply increase military aid to Israel during the 1973 war.  Early in the war, Israel requested significant military aid from the US and a policy decision was made in Washington that although the Pentagon believed Israel would win this war without US aid, but that providing that aid would buy the US some influence over the peace that followed.  This influence Nixon and Kissinger had purchased was what allowed Jimmy Carter to run the peace negotiations with Egypt that led to the USSR being effectively thrown out of the ME. 

You might argue that the Cold War is over and the USSR is gone, so why does the US have to continue to provide military aid to Israel and Egypt?  Because as we see now, when the US fails to take effective actions to establish peace in the ME, as Obama failed to do by withdrawing US troops from Iraq and in failing to settle the civil war in Syria, other actors like Iran and Russia step in, killing hundreds of thousands of people, making millions of them homeless refugees flooding Europe and inciting a new spread of terrorism in Europe and the US. 

Today, the one stable, peaceful region in the ME region is the border between Israel and Egypt and that peace is based on the principle establish in the treaty between these two countries that the US would supply each country with sufficient advanced weaponry to deter the other from attacking.  Because Egypt is not Israel's only potential enemy that principle has been extended to deter wars between Israel and other Arab nations.


ForeverYoung436 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The real question is why did Obama want to give Israel so much money and why did Congress want to them even more?  

The answer is, to try to persuade Israel it is not necessary to blow up Iran's nuclear weapons program and associated military programs or to reoccupy Gaza to keep its citizens safe.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...









 Even when it helps your nations economy and keeps hundreds if not thousands in work. Every penny Israel receives has to be spent in the US, that is not aid that is a strings attached loan


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


 It used to not be. And i don't think that is good enough reason. Its still OUR money to be spent on US. Or it should be. But instead we give aid to like 96% of countries. While Americans starve and go without basic needs.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...







 How about the facts and the truth to make you change yours. 

Do you agree with the UN that hamas is firing illegal weapons at Israel that constitute a war crime.

Do you agree that for Israel to lift the blockade all hamas need do is follow the terms of the Geneva conventions and International laws covering any blockade

Do you agree that hamas leadership should be made to stand trial for their crimes against humanity and face up to their criminal actions

Now who defined this territory and under which treaty was it singed by Egypt, Israel and the P.A. because until that is in place hamas has no need to follow international law


----------



## Shusha (Sep 30, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Your perspective is fundamentally false and no answers to your rhetorical questions will persuade you otherwise.



Oh, I assure you those questions are not the least bit rhetorical.  I fully intend for you to attempt to make an answer to them.  But you won't.  Because you refuse to understand that Gaza, in particular, IS acting on its own self-determination and thus have responsibility for their hostile and violent actions (their "armed resistance).  

I am curious as to what you think is fundamentally false about BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people having States and self-determination, with a peace treaty and goodwill between them.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...









 You are asking the wrong questions, you should be asking can America live without the aid it gives to Israel. Could it afford to start talks with another friendly nation and lose all the military intelligence that Israel supplies ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...









 And how will not giving aid help to redress that situation, the same people will abuse drugs and/or alcohol rather than eat,. The same people will live on the streets because that is what they want to do, it has nothing to do with aid given to other nations but to peoples attitudes. The answer is to build internment camps for the people afflicted and give them a better quality of life and dignity away from the terrors of modern life. Treat them for their mental afflictions and hope that 10% come out the other side cured. But that sounds too much like the Nazi final solution to many people so is not even mentioned.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are obviously very biased and will defend Israel on everything. Good day.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...









 Because it suits the US and its super state position to have Israel receive the aid. Israel has asked for a reduction in the past and the US refused as it would lose far too much in the way of defence R&D


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...


America would survive without Israel and Israel would survive without America, but both countries would be worse off.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...








 Far from it as I was called a Nazi not that long ago for my views, then turned by the muslims for the same thing. I keep an open mind and look at all the facts, and that leads to people getting upset over the reality of what they blame the Jews for. As in your claim that stopping aid will stop alcohol abuse and addiction and drug abuse and addiction, when the only thing that will stop these is death


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 30, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


 What? LOL


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...







 Possibly but we will never know while the status quo is in place, and the world is led by Jew haters and nazi's


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...








Two poster on the M.E. board will substantiate this, and tell you that I am very outspoken on the Jews faults past and present. Just ask sally and Irose


----------



## Eloy (Sep 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Your perspective is fundamentally false and no answers to your rhetorical questions will persuade you otherwise.
> ...


The Israelis want land more than peace.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Sep 30, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


The Israelis already have both, and it seems apparent that the Palestinians are more interested in trying to continue the conflict than in obtaining either land or peace.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 30, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



Nonsense.  Israel abandoned Gaza and all of Areas A and B even without a peace treaty.  In other words, Israel ceded territory so that Palestine could come into being -- even without a peace treaty and a final agreement.  Israel has, in fact, agreed to "land for peace" over and over and over again.  Netanyahu is still offering land for peace, though, perhaps not quite as much as Olmert offered. 

If Israel truly wanted land, they could just take it.  Its not as though she lacks the resources.  

If Palestine truly wanted peace, they could just take it.  All they have to do is be peaceful and then sit down and determine the borders.  Easy peasy.  

What is it that the Gazans want?  They have a defined territory.  They have self-determination on that territory.  What are they still fighting for?  What do they want more than peace?  

What is it that the "West Bank" Palestinians want?  They have a defined territory.  They could easily negotiate for an relatively contiguous territory (at this point, probably split north and south with a protected highway between).  What do they want more than peace?


----------



## Eloy (Oct 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Massacres of children and civilians, dropping white phosphorous on civilian neighborhoods, destroying hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, precision rocketing children at play, sniping at schoolchildren, blockading, and restricting the importation of food and materials to undo the damage of onslaughts, may be your idea of abandoning Gaza. It is not mine.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Spend a lot of time at press TV?


----------



## Eloy (Oct 1, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I wrote the truth.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...








 Nope as they have enough with all the empty lands in the Negev. Once the UN mans up and enforces the terms of the mandate in full Israel will have its full quota of palestine  less gaza.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...








 No you wrote the truth as islamonazi terrorist see it, not as the reality of what happened. 

 No massacres other than those engineered by hamas
 No W.P used illegally at the time
 No hospitals destroyed
 No schools destroyed
 No working water treatment plants targeted
 No precision targeting of children ( actually shown to be hamas who killed them )
 No sniping at schoolchildren


A legal blockade in place that the UN has deemed to be legal, and 2,500 kcal of food per person delivered daily to gaza ( WHO says 1200kcal is all that is needed to maintain health and body weight )


Spend even more time on the hate sites that spread the LIES above without producing any evidence to support the claims ?


----------



## Shusha (Oct 1, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Massacres of children and civilians, dropping white phosphorous on civilian neighborhoods, destroying hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, precision rocketing children at play, sniping at schoolchildren, blockading, and restricting the importation of food and materials to undo the damage of onslaughts, may be your idea of abandoning Gaza. It is not mine.



Most of these are false statements.  Do you not think Gazans have any responsibility for their own behaviour?  IF the Gazans want peace and economic trade with neighboring Israel why don't they just stop attacking?


----------



## Eloy (Oct 1, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The evidence of Israeli cruelty is there for all of us to see for ourselves on television and in our newspapers.


----------



## Eloy (Oct 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Massacres of children and civilians, dropping white phosphorous on civilian neighborhoods, destroying hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, precision rocketing children at play, sniping at schoolchildren, blockading, and restricting the importation of food and materials to undo the damage of onslaughts, may be your idea of abandoning Gaza. It is not mine.
> ...


To justify Israeli brutality by blaming the Palestinian victims is obscene.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 1, 2016)

Eloy said:


> To justify Israeli brutality by blaming the Palestinian victims is obscene.



So I'm confused. Are you denying that Gaza attacks Israel. Or are you saying that Gaza does attack Israel but should be permitted to do without consequences.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...








 Where is this then as all I see is Israel's responce to acts of war, war crimes, terrorism and violence. And at the same time hamas forcing civilians to be human shields and propaganda figures.

 Have yiu heard about the new seperation barrier going up in Syria because it is a legal way to stop terrorists from attacking civilians ?


----------



## Eloy (Oct 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > To justify Israeli brutality by blaming the Palestinian victims is obscene.
> ...


The people of Gaza have a right to resist the Israeli blockade and military crimes, of course.


----------



## Eloy (Oct 1, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are free to see what you want.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> The people of Gaza have a right to resist the Israeli blockade and military crimes, of course.



No one is denying the "right" of Gazans to "armed resistance". The question was whether or not they have the right to attack Israel without consequence.  Without Israel defending itself and its citizens. Do you think that nations, generally, should be prepared to accept attacks against its citizens and not respond?  At all. Ever. 

The question was whether or not Israel has the right, and indeed, the obligation, to defend its innocent civilians from attack. 

The follow up question is this:  IF the intention of Gazans is to remove the blockade and to develop peaceful relations and economic trade with a neighbouring nations -- how does armed resistance help to achieve that goal?  Especially the low level and ultimately ineffectual armed resistance currently enacted.

It seems to me that armed resistance is directly opposed to this goal of peace. It seems to me that the best way to remove the blockade is to demonstrate peaceful intentions. And cooperation. 

So why don't Gazans just stop attacking?


----------



## Eloy (Oct 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > The people of Gaza have a right to resist the Israeli blockade and military crimes, of course.
> ...


Palestinian babies, toddlers and schoolchildren, their mothers and civilian fathers did nothing to any Israeli and do not deserve to be slaughtered. Show a measure of human empathy.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...







 This does not include firing illegal weapons at Israeli civilians and targetting children. And we have yet to see any mention officially of any crimes done by Israel. What you deem to be a crime is actually covered by International laws and the Geneva conventions and are well within the parameters laid down. You confuse the war crimes of hamas with the legal responses of Israel to those war crimes, violence and terrorism


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...








In other words you cant find the evidence to support your claims and are now wondering what other untruths you have been told. How about divulging the evidence of these alleged acts of cruelty if they are so obvious, while you are doing it make 100% certain that the same things are not also being done by America or any of the islamic nations surrounding Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...









 Then tell hamas to stop planting munitions in their homes, firing illagal weapons from their property, using the buildings for military purposes and forcing the civilians to act as human shields. Look at the Geneva conventions to see just what hamas as the elected government should be doing to safeguard the safety of its civilians, and you will see that hamas is doing the exact opposite making them the criminals who should be facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Time for you to show a measure of human intelligence and understanding and stop letting your hate rule your brain.


----------



## Eloy (Oct 2, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The reason you have not seen Israelis being convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is because Palestine was not a member state of the ICC until April of last year.






During a ceremony in April 2015, the ICC's Second Vice-President, Judge Kuniko Ozaki, presented the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Palestine, Dr. Riad Al-Malki, with a special edition of the Rome Statute, as a symbol of their joint commitment to the rule of law. 

By virtue of Palestine's membership, the ICC now has jurisdiction over serious crimes in violation of international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on or from Palestinian territory. Various countries have criticized Israel over the years, For example, the European Union has recently condemned Israel’s continued settlement activity as illegal under international law. Findings of the ICC will be added to these in due course.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...




"During a ceremony in April 2015, the ICC's Second Vice-President, Judge Kuniko Ozaki, presented the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Palestine, Dr. Riad Al-Malki, with a special edition of the Rome Statute, as a symbol of their joint commitment to the rule of law."


Well that's interesting. During the ceremony, was there a special award given to Hamas noting the millions of dollars in welfare fraud money spent to further tunnel building and arms purchases?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Of course, none of this happened and the IDF has the best record on any modern military, including the US and NATO of avoiding civilian casualties in asymmetric warfare.  The civilian casualties the Palestinians suffered were entirely due to their policy of using civilians as human shields.


----------



## Eloy (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


You do not believe such poppycock and nor does anyone else.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Everyone who is familiar with the facts knows this is true.  In the last conflict in Gaza, the Pentagon was so impressed with Israel's efforts to avoid civilian casualties that it sent two teams over there to learn how these tactics could be used by the US, which has a slightly higher civilian to combatant ratio than Israel.  

Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and adamant supporter of the IDF, spoke in 2011 about Israeli operations in the Gaza War. He said that a study published by the United Nations showed "that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare." He stated that this ratio was less than 1:1, and compared it favorably to the estimated ratios in NATO operations in Afghanistan (3:1), western campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo (believed to be 4:1), and the conflicts in Chechnya and Serbia (much higher than 4:1, according to anecdotal evidence).[49] Kemp argued that the low ratio was achieved through unprecedented measures by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties, which included providing warnings to the population via telephone calls, radio broadcasts and leaflets, as well as granting pilots the discretion to abort a strike if they perceived too great a risk of civilian casualties. He also stated that the civilian casualties that did occur could be seen in light of what he said was Hamas' tactical use of Gazan civilians "as human shields, to hide behind, to stand between Israeli forces and their own fighters" and strategic use of them for exploitation of their deaths in the media.[50]

Civilian casualty ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



It was never the capital of Israel, one a few periods in history it was the capital of Judea.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> 
> The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.
> 
> ...


He's kissing up for votes, so what?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


It is the capital of Israel today and that is not going to change, so by refusing to recognize this unchangeable fact, the US is putting a roadblock in the path to progress.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> ...


Regardless of why you think he is doing it, he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy there in compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act.  Refusing to recognize unchangeable facts makes progress impossible.  This is an essential step if there is ever to be a negotiated end to the conflict.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



No Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is to be neutral.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Palestinian babies, toddlers and schoolchildren, their mothers and civilian fathers did nothing to any Israeli and do not deserve to be slaughtered. Show a measure of human empathy.



I have a great deal of empathy for the people of Gaza. But we what we are discussing is who is responsible for their suffering. 

You say that Gazans have the "right" to armed resistance. If the Gazans have that right then the Israelis have the right to defend their citizens. In fact, I would say they are obligated to. 

If the Gazan people stopped trying to attack Israel not one single more person would die in Gaza. 

So why don't they stop attacking and have peace and prosperity?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Surely you are smart enough to recognize that making decisions unilaterally does not encourage an end to conflict? It's actually the antithesis to negotiations and only serves to foment further conflict. Which is precisely why neither the U.S. nor 99% of the rest of the entire planet has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Any real negotiations intended to earnestly  end the conflict requires that discussion be included.

The sad reality is Trump is merely fishing for votes because he's trailing Hillary; but this unbelievably politically naive move of his confirms his opponents' concerns that he is not fit to be president. He's a businessman and a brand name and damn good at that -- but he's not a politician and doesn't know Jack shit about diplomacy.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



He does not have that authority.  He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Palestinian babies, toddlers and schoolchildren, their mothers and civilian fathers did nothing to any Israeli and do not deserve to be slaughtered. Show a measure of human empathy.
> ...



Lets see because the Zionist are stealing their land and keep them caged up, might be a reason.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Jerusalem is, in  fact, the capital of Israel regardless of how you may feel about it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not true. As president, he would have that authority. Bear in mind, it still wouldn't establish Jerusalem as Israel's capital and my guess is few other countries, if any, would follow suit; but the president's State Department can decide where it places U.S. embassies.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


First off, it's silly to talk  about and final status negotiations until the Palestinians form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and that is not going to happen in the near future, but even if it were, Jerusalem is simply not negotiable, so refusing to recognize that fact leaves nothing but the status quo.  Even worse, when Obama and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that are not possible, it produces more violence and that prevents changes that would make day to day life for the Palestinians better.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Suuurre, kind of like the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He does have the authority to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and he does have the  authority to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.  Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, he will merely bring US policy in alignment with reality.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



He can move the embassy but it does not mean the capital of Israel is Jerusalem.  No one will recognize it and fully expect it to be attacked.


----------



## Eloy (Oct 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Palestinian babies, toddlers and schoolchildren, their mothers and civilian fathers did nothing to any Israeli and do not deserve to be slaughtered. Show a measure of human empathy.
> ...


Because they are being slaughtered every now and then and in the meantime on subsistence rations under a brutal blockade that is destroying a people.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



That is not reality.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


It's not for you to decide what is or is not negotiable. That's for the parties directly involved to decide. If either side makes unilateral decisions which obliterate the possibility of earnest negotiations, there will be no negotiations and the status quo you speak of will persist indefinitely. If the two sides don't resolve their disagreements in a fair, equitable, and peaceful manner, it will ultimately end with the destruction of both.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why does Israel allow foreign governments to establish their respective embassies in Tel Aviv?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Jerusalem clearly is the capital of Israel and Obama and many other world leaders implicitly recognized that fact when they traveled to Jerusalem for Peres' funeral and burial there.  While official US policy has been not to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, clearly everyone in the the US government knows it is.

The White House was forced to correct itself Friday after sending out a transcript that listed Jerusalem as part of Israel, contradicting official U.S. policy.

The mix-up came in a transcript of President Barack Obama's eulogy at the funeral for former Israeli President Shimon Peres. The funeral took place at Mount Herzl, Israel's national cemetery, in Jerusalem.

The White House press office transcript of the remarks initially listed the location as “Jerusalem, Israel.” But Friday evening the White House corrected itself listing simply “Jerusalem” and crossing out “Israel” on the location.

White House Corrects Itself After Transcript Puts Jerusalem In Israel


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Ummm... just a guess here ... but ... Obama and other world leaders went to Jerusalem, not because it's the capital of Israel, but because that is where Peres' funeral was held.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


In every negotiation some things are non negotiable.  Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Clearly it is the capital of Israel; that's where the Israeli government is located and that's where foreign diplomats go when they have business with the Israeli government.  That's where world leaders went without protest for Shimon Peres' funeral.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...







Then how was it that the islamonazi nations in the UN have failed to get the ICC to press any charges even after forcing through 200 or more resolutions regarding alleged crimes. How is it that the P.A joined the ICC in 2014 and immediately pressed charges against Israel for allegeded war crimes and were told after a long and costly investigation that they were not able to bring any charges against Israel, but had found irrefutable evidence of war crimes by palestine that they were now investigating for possible trials of the leaders. This led to abu mazen in withdrawing the complaint very quickly.

 The facts seem to elude you as you seem to think that because filastin is or was not a member of the ICC it could not charge Israel with war crimes. As for the settlements International law actually deems them to be legal and the EU will be withdrawing its claims in due course.

 The findings of the ICC were published last year if you bother to look for them, because they went for Israel they have been buried by islamonazi cyber propagandists to hide the truth.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It was held there because Peres was buried on Mount Herzl, an Israeli national cemetery.  In fact, the WH designated the location of the funeral as Jerusalem, Israel when it published the transcript of Obama's speech, indicating that everyone in the government understands Jerusalem is the capital of Israel regardless official policy.  Every six months the president implicitly recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when he states, in compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, that the embassy cannot be moved there yet for national security reasons.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me.  Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...








 So says the muslimah who is re-writting history so that Jews never existed


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...









 It does if he is elected and makes it his first official task


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...








 Have you heard that the muslims have decided that International laws no longer stand and America is now west Syria 


IT WAS NEVER THEIR LAND AT ANY TIME IN RECORDED HISTORY


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...








 Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

 Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


More nonsense. World leaders went to Peres' funeral to pay respects to Peres, not because anyone considers Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Had Peres been buried in Alaska, that's where world leaders would have traveled.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



I guess when one steals another's property , it becomes theirs.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He was buried in Jerusalem precisely because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and everyone who went there know that.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...







 Slaughtered by hamas of course who use them as human shields and cannon fodder.

 They are on 50% more calorific intake than many other people are, explaining the rise in obesity, diabetes and other medical complaints due to over eating. The WHO says that on average a working man needs 1500 to 1800 kcals a day to maintain his body mass and health, the gazan's are allocated 2,500 kcals on top of what they grow themselves to supplement their diet. The blockade is not brutal it is placed along the minimum lines as laid down by International law and the Geneva conventions. It only imposes 30% of the banned goods on gaza and more are released each day as good will gestures. The majority of the problems stem from hamas stealing the goods and selling them on the black market to raise funds to buy weapons


 At least get your facts right before posting the LIES you have been told to post


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Stolen from whom?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


There are no negotiations taking place at the moment. And yes, both sides agree to what is and what is not negotiable.If one side firmly disagrees with the other's side over something they deem is non-negotiable, all negotiations are at risk of failing.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...








 That is a very islamonazi view, and they use it all the time. That is why they are stealing the Jews property and claiming it is theirs


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...







 Because it is not up to them to dictate were an embassy will be built


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Nothing was stolen. That's where you went off the rails.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Again, they went to where his funeral was held. Nothing more, nothing less. They would have gone regardless of where it was. Their respects were to the man, not the city.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That simply isn't true.  There is little agreement about what will be on the table and what will not.  A major reason for this is that the US and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that simply are unobtainable.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Jerusalem was to be neutral for all, and the Palestinians have more right to it than the Israelis,  who have no right to it.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Link would be nice.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


They implicitly recognized Israel's right to the city by going there.  If it had been a Palestinian city, they would have asked the Palestinians for permission before going and if it had been a neutral city Israel would have had to gain permission to hold the funeral there, but they went without objection because they understand that despite official policy, Jerusalem in an Israeli city.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


That's not exactly true. While host countries can't dictate to others where to place their embassies, they can refuse to have them placed in any city of their choosing.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



yes she wants to get the Jewish backing so I can see her saying that, but Iran does not have a nuke , never had a nuke and would never strike first.  We need an enemy and Iran is it. Or is it Afghanistan, or is it Russia. We took out Iraq, Libya, and now working on Syria, what's next, Lebanon , have to take out Lebanon before Iran (threat to Israel), then Iran. Gee soon we will have a US Empire where the sun never sets. Or will it be a Jewish Empire?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Of course it's true. For argument's sake ... Israel unilaterally decides the status of Jerusalem is non-negotiable ... if Palestinians won't agree, they could walk away from the negotiating table and nothing gets accomplished.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


In 2008, Clinton did see Iran as an enemy that would likely have nukes soon and would strike strike Israel first and she threatened a genocidal attack on Iran as appropriate if it did.  What kind of sick, evil mind threatens to destroy a whole civilization and kill 80,000,000 people because of the actions of its leaders regardless of what they did?  What makes Clinton's statement sicker and more bizarre is that Israel  is perfectly capable of preventing Iran from ever having nuclear weapons without any help from the US, so this was just an insane statement by Clinton.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


If they walk away from the table, they get nothing, but if they accept that Jerusalem will remain part of Israel, then they have the possibility of gaining other things.  All of this presupposes the Palestinians will have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen any time in the near future.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


And what happened to Jerusalem, which you say was to be neutral, between the years 1948 and 1967?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


To wrap this in context ... Hillary said she would be willing to do that if Iran used nukes on Israel, a NATO ally and friend of the U.S.. 

Trump said he was risk starting a war with Iran because he doesn't like the way Iran sailors look at U.S. sailors.

Now that that's out of the way, why not answer the question I asked ... ? What do you suppose his response might be. If you don't want to speculate, that's fine.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It was illegally occupied by Jordan.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Looks like you too have gone off the rails. Now you're conflating Israel's access to the city with their ability to unilaterally declare it their capital.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Bullshit they would not strike first. Fortunately, we have leaders in place who are not as gullible and trusting as you.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Israel is not a NATO ally and the US and Israel do not have a mutual defense agreement, so there was no legal obligation to do anything.  The point is not that she would come to the defense of Israel, but what she threatened to do, not to bring its leaders to justice or to destroy its military but to "obliterate"  Iran, destroying an entire civilization and killing 80,000,000, the worst mass murder in human history.  What kind of sick, evil mind even contemplates doing such a thing?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


You're right, I stand corrected.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Where have you been?  Israel declared it their capital many years ago, and the fact none of these world leaders voiced any caveats about visiting it for a state funeral indicates they acknowledge it to be Israel's capital despite official policy.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


It matters not that they declared it. Almost no countries respect that declaration. If I'm not mistaken, there are three in total worldwide and one of them is Israel.  Countries do not acknowledge a city to be a capital because they attend a state funeral in one. Even when ours inadvertently did; it was corrected.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Penelope (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Israel does not belong to NATO and Israel would never help another country. They have never. We should pick our friends more carefully. We have become birds of a feather with them, and its our Americans who die for them.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

My, my, my.  How times have changed.

_The Soviet Union was the first country to recognise Israel de jure on 17 May 1948, followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ireland, and South Africa. The United States extended de jure recognition after the first Israeli election, on 31 January 1949_.

I support Israel and find the antisemitic ribbon running through the Democratic party to be appalling.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


They clearly respected the fact that Jerusalem is part of Israel, by attending a state funeral there and going to an Israeli national cemetery.  Regardless of anyone's official policy most of the world implicity recognizes Jerusalem is part of Israel.  Every time a foreign diplomat travels to government offices in Jerusalem he implicitly acknowledges Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  

Since all Israeli government offices are in the western part of the city, west of the "green line", why do you suppose it is that none of these countries have moved their embassies there since they all acknowledge it is part of Israel?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Unlike most other US allies, no American soldier has even died defending Israel.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Unlike most other US allies, no American soldier has even died defending Israel.


As it should be.  OTOH, many US military personnel have died because antisemitic assholes hate the US for supporting Israel.  So who is at fault here?:  The US for supporting Israel's right to exist or those murdering US citizens?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike most other US allies, no American soldier has even died defending Israel.
> ...


In fact, no US military personnel have died because of US support for Israel.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> In fact, no US military personnel have died because of US support for Israel.


So Islamic terrorists murdered 17 US Sailors because.....?

The Ft. Hood shootings were because....?

The Marine barracks bombing was because...?

The Air Force housing complex bombing was because....?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, no US military personnel have died because of US support for Israel.
> ...


Because of US intervention in the ME, not because of US support for Israel.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Again... we're not talking about if countries respect Jerusalem, at least half of it, is an Israeli city; we're talking about if countries respect Israel's declaration it's their capital. In the entire world, only 2 besides Israel do.

As far as claiming that countries send their diplomats to Jerusalem is tantamount to acknowledging it's their capital ... ridiculous. That's where Israeli government officials have set up their offices. Foreign nations have no choice but to send their diplomats to Jerusalem if they wish to meet with Israeli government officials. Meanwhile, they still maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, the city they recognize as Israel's capital.

As far as why countries won't move their embassies to Jerusalem, my guess is they don't want to get in the middle of it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Because of US intervention in the ME, not because of US support for Israel.


So why pictures like this?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


Because of both.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


In every possible way, Jerusalem functions as Israel's capital no one is going to change it, so refusing to recognize this fact, makes the countries who refuse incapable of any productive discourse on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  So while the world behaves as if Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it refuses to say the words.  



Get in the middle of what?  The same countries refused to move their embassies to the western part of the city before the 1967 war when the eastern part of the city was under Jordan.  There simply is no rational basis for refusing to accept the fact that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Because of US intervention in the ME, not because of US support for Israel.
> ...


Because they hate America and Israel but for different reasons.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Because they hate America and Israel but for different reasons.


Interesting.  Please expand on your theory.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


There have only been attacks on US personnel after the US began intervening in the ME.  Before that, there were never attacks on US personnel in the ME.  The Arabs object to US support for Israel, but they never attacked US personnel because of it.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Because they hate America and Israel but for different reasons.
> ...


All of the attacks on US personnel were response to US actions in the ME, first in Lebanon and later in Iraq, and none of these US actions were taken on behalf of Israel.


----------



## Eloy (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


It would be rather odd to turn-up in Tel Aviv for a funeral that is taking place in West Jerusalem.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> There have only been attacks on US personnel after the US began intervening in the ME.  Before that, there were never attacks on US personnel in the ME.  The Arabs object to US support for Israel, but they never attacked US personnel because of it.


Meaning only after the US supported Israel.  Thanks, got it.

Are you pro-Palestinian?  Do you think the attack on Israeli athletes in the 1972 Olympics was deserved?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...









 The only one he could give, a double tap on abu mazens door with an invitation to the party. A declaration in the UN that the US will not tolerate such behaviour and will exact payment for the affront. It is about time we stood up to the muslims and gave them some bloody noses


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 3, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...








 The arab muslims have no right to it as not one part has any tie's to their 7C religion. If the UN had acted in 1948 and sent in a task force to oppose the arab muslims then we would not have this situation and Israel would be complete on the land granted to it in 1923. 

Once again the islamonazi propagandist stooge denies the Jews their legal, moral and universal rights


----------



## Shusha (Oct 3, 2016)

Penelope said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...





Why would Israel have no right to Jerusalem?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 3, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps because it was never the historic (if you believe the BibleTorah as a historic source, that is) capital of Israel?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 3, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...









 Only ifyou read the neo marxist version that was written by the same people who wrote the Protocols


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Fair enough. And I agree.

What do you suppose the odds are that moving our embassy to Jerusalem would result in it being attacked?


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 3, 2016)

Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

Which half of Jerusalem?


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


What difference does it make if it was their capital or not in biblical times? It was still their city. There is absolutely no question about that.


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital
> 
> Which half of Jerusalem?


The yuge half.


----------



## Esmeralda (Oct 3, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> 
> The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.
> 
> ...


Finally?  Oh, dear. You are ignorant of the world.  What such a move would do is cause more violence, more war and more terrorism.....terrorism against America. In any case, neither Congress nor the House of Representatives would vote for such a measure.  Trump makes these statements unaware he would not have the power to just make sweeping changes in foreign policy on his own initiative. He's so dumb.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...








 I would say even's as an attack would mean lack of US support in the future for the arab muslims. This would lead to them being vetoed every step of the way in the future. I think that the arab leaders are aware of the ramifications and will do everything in their power to stop any possible attacks.   And if the arab muslims ever did take the last steps to becoming a nation the US would refuse them an Embassy in America and decline their offer of one in Ramallah


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital
> ...







 I would say the half that was granted to them under the LoN mandate of Palestine in 1923


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 3, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital
> 
> Which half of Jerusalem?







 When was Jerusalem split in two then ?


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 3, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital
> ...


pre-1967...Refereed also as the Green Line..


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 3, 2016)

Esmeralda said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.
> ...


You're so dumb.  The Constitution makes clear that foreign relations are entirely the domain of the executive branch.  If you weren't also so ignorant, you would know the Jerusalem Embassy Act requires the president to certify every six months that he cannot move the US embassy to Jerusalem for national security reasons or he has to move it or suffer a severe cut in funding for the State Department.  

Let me explain  it so that even some one as dull witted as yourself can understand: Congress has already voted to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the Jerusalem Embassy Act and the president is free to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel any time he likes and to move the US embassy there any time he likes.  Why would you post on issues in which you have too little interest to learn anything about.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 3, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > There have only been attacks on US personnel after the US began intervening in the ME.  Before that, there were never attacks on US personnel in the ME.  The Arabs object to US support for Israel, but they never attacked US personnel because of it.
> ...


Meaning to any rational person the attacks on US personnel had nothing to do with US support for Israel.  

The rest of your post raises the further question: are you insane?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 3, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Is that a Quranic bible you are reading?  Both the old and new testaments state clearly that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.  It was the seat of government of both David and Solomon and where the Temple was built and  it was where Jesus went to visit the Temple.  

In fact, there is no historic basis for the Muslim claim Jerusalem is a holy cite to them.  The claim is based on a verse in the Quran that says Muhammad dreamed he rose to heaver from the farthest mosque, but there was no mosque in Jerusalem when he died.  It wasn't until the Crusaders claimed Jerusalem as a holy Christian city, based of the new and old testaments, that the Muslims countered with the false claim it was the spot from which Muhammad rose to heaven.  

Of course, none of this has anything to do with who has political or legal "rights" to Jerusalem today.  The issue is settled in fact if not in the minds of everyone: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that will not change.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 3, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...







 Pre 1948 all of the west bank and Jerusalem was Jewish under International law of 1923. The UN usurped their authority and handed these Jewish lands to the arab muslims in return for a ceasefire. The green line is not a border or boundary and when Israel negotiated peace terms with Jordan they were handed back full control of the west bank and Jerusalem


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 3, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Perhaps because it was never the historic (if you believe the BibleTorah as a historic source, that is) capital of Israel?


A half-truth at best.  It's one of the oldest cities in the world and both borders and rulers changed over 4000 years.

History of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_According to the Bible, the Israelite history of the city began in c. 1000 BCE, with King David's sack of Jerusalem, following which Jerusalem became the City of David and capital of the United Kingdom of Israel._


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 3, 2016)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Meaning to any rational person the attacks on US personnel had nothing to do with US support for Israel.
> 
> The rest of your post raises the further question: are you insane?


Disagreed.   It's a common and well known point of contention. 

Could be!  Since I think several people on this forum have different forms of mental illness to varying degrees, it would be a fair question to wonder if I, too, am a can or two short of a six-pack.

You?  Do you ever wonder if you have any mental issues or do you firmly believe you are completely sane?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 3, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning to any rational person the attacks on US personnel had nothing to do with US support for Israel.
> ...


I am sane enough to recognize that you aren't.


----------

