Terrorist Murder In Jerusalem Synagogue

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

What is "their land."

We would be well to reassess what we mean when we say "collective punishment" when ALL Israeli's have --- in some measure --- aggravated and promoted an environment for such events to occur.

I agree.

We made sure it would be easier for them to attack us, but allowing them access to us.

So, leave their land

(COMMENT)

There are a number of different Palestinian Leaders saying different things. What is their land? For instance, HAMAS says:

Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

You could start at Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

All it takes if for the Palestinians to sit down and comply:

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. (A/RES/25/2625)

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
​

You could start at Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

All the Palestinians have to do is reach an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I do not agree with "collective punishment" in the arbitrary sense wherein the penalty is imposed on every member of a population, without regard to their individual involvement in the group's actions and conduct.

The second-largest of the groups within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)(albeit an estranged relationship), is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (the largest being Fatah). Some say the PFLP is in the initial stage of becoming embryonic splinter group, as it considers both Fatah and HAMAS as illegitimate governments; absent a popular mandate via elections. I tend to section-off the general Palestinian population into five segments:

• The segment of the Population that supports HAMAS as the legitimate government.
• The segment of the Population that supports Fatah as the legitimate government.
• The segment of the Population that supports a quasi-coalition Fatah-HAMAS as the legitimate government.
• The segment of the Population that supports PFLP and sees neither Fatah or HAMAS as the legitimate government.
• The segment of the Population accepts the government de jure.

I do not see the general Palestinian population to being mature enough to establish and sustain a viable government under a common set of institutional laws (domestic or international).

Coyote, et al,

In this context I have to agree.

When "freedom fighters" target innocents they are no different than terrorists. Most groups we call freedom fighters are little more than white-washed terrorists who were victorious. If we approve of their cause, we celebrate them. We don't approve of their cause, we denigrate them. Most of the time, it's a dishonest charade that conveniently overlooks spilled blood.

It doesn't take a "will of steel" to murder people in their place of worship. It just takes hate.

(COMMENT)

But this is why (practical examine) the need for containment and quarantine. No reasonable people in a position of responsibility and trust would want to be responsible for exposing the general public to these savages. Hence, the need for separation; not because they are Arabs or Muslim, but because they pose a danger.

Most Respectfully,
R

I disagree that they as an entire people post a danger and should be collectively punished.

Hamas? Yes.

(COMMENT)

What I see as representative of the general Palestinian population is a people that cannot look in the mirror and define themselves. They are a people that have not been able in quarter-century to establish a working framework of government. They are a people with one set of common characteristic: ---

• They have all adopted the use of force in settling dispute issues.
• They have all adopted the use of force as a means intended to coerce or to intimidate Israel and regional societies.
• They have all adopted the use of mass-media language which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression and violence.
• They have subsisted totally on the parasitic relationship established to help and render assistance in their non-nation building processes.
• They have all adopted the use of force to the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological --- but ineffectual for more than a quarter-century.
• They consider the overthrow of the Israel Occupation more important than the establishment of a nation for the people; instead --- following government with social order.

The one thing that the general population has in common, is instead of focusing on building a respectable government, they all generally provide some material support towards organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist, revolutionary, insurgent or guerrilla activities intended to be committed against Israel, other States, or their citizens. And they openly (no mixed words - no ambiguities) hold this as policy in their goals and objectives. In this regard, they have been --- for more than three decades, posed a common threat. And it is this common thread that make them collectively responsible, and subject to the consequences of their actions as a people. They cannot beg off on this --- if they consider themselves to be "Palestinians." It is they (collectively) that sanction their leadership and the various groups (Jihadist, Fedayeen, terrorists, militias and brigades) that operate and carry-out such cowardly attacks against unarmed and peaceful members of the population at large.

This latest attack in the Jerusalem Synagogue is NOT unique; but, one in a long list of hostile events targeting unarmed citizenry dating well back and before the Munich Massacre perpetrated by Palestinians four decades ago. We would be well to reassess what we mean when we say "collective punishment" when ALL Palestinians have --- in some measure --- aggravated and promoted an environment for such events to occur.

Most Respectfully,
R

fanger, et al,

All it takes if for the Palestinians to sit down and comply:

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. (A/RES/25/2625)

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
​

You could start at Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

All the Palestinians have to do is reach an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Both sides are required for that. Israel has been just as recalcitrant in refusing to deal while continuing to erode any possibility of a two-state solution with it's continued settlement activities. It takes two.

 

[fanger]

All it takes is for the Israel's to sit down and comply:

 

[Coyote]

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. (A/RES/25/2625)​

What if refraining from force gains nothing and the other, far more powerful state continues take territory? I agree, the Palestinians have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot, but it's not an entirely one sided affair. If they go to the UN for help, they are continually blocked by the US and Israel. Israel sets it's own preconditions to any peace and demands no preconditions from the Palestinians.

 

[Coyote]

I can't help but wonder how much Sharon's policy of total seperation has brought about these recent events. Many Palestinians have never met a Jew. Many Jews have never met a Palestinian. Prior to this, there was a lot more intermingling. When you never meet each other, it's easier to believe the propoganda (and there is plenty from BOTH sides) and easier to sustain hatred of the other. When your schools teach you children that the other side is not to be trusted - what do you have to show you different?

Ariel Sharon s Legacy of Separation - The Atlantic

...Still, the Israeli leader doubted that he could come to a lasting agreement with the Palestinians. Sharon’s plan ultimately involved circumventing the Palestinian Authority, not working with it; he became convinced that only a policy of “separation” from the Palestinians could secure Israel. Separation consisted of two stages. The first step was to build a massive barrier in the West Bank between the largest Jewish settlements and the bulk of the Palestinian population. Though this angered many on the Israeli right who opposed “abandoning” Jews in the West Bank, the idea enjoyed popular support. In an October 2003 poll, more than 80 percent of Israelis said they believed constructing fences and walls would significantly reduce or prevent suicide bombers from attacking Israeli cafes and buses.

Sharon had effectively sold Israelis on his policy of separation—the idea that Israel could insulate itself from the Palestinian problem on its own terms and according to its own security needs, without conceding to all Palestinian demands.

...In 2004, Sharon announced that he was going to take separation—now termed “disengagement”—one step further. Israel needed to leave Gaza but, as he saw it, the Palestinian leader at the time, Yasser Arafat, was no partner for peace. Instead, Israel would unilaterally withdraw its forces from the territory and evict the 8,000 Jewish settlers who lived there among 1.3 million Palestinians. The plan elicited major protests on the right and forced Sharon to break away from Likud and form his own party, Kadima.

In August 2005, the Gaza disengagement plan was enacted along with the withdrawal from four settlements in the West Bank, but that was only supposed to be the beginning. According to a minister in Sharon’s government, during a December 2005 phone call the prime minister suggested, “Let’s divide [the West Bank] and take roughly one-third for ourselves, leaving two-thirds for the Arabs.” Sharon began to prepare for elections scheduled in March 2006, undeterred by a mild stroke. But on January 4, 2006, Sharon suffered a second stroke, a massive cerebral hemorrhage. He never regained consciousness.

Eight years later, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains at a stalemate. Whether as a result of Sharon’s policies or not, the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians declined as his separation policies went into effect, decreasing from a high of 264 in 2002 to a low of seven in 2007, according to the Israeli NGO B’Tselem. When Israeli casualties have occurred, they have mostly stemmed from rocket fire from Gaza, not from suicide bombings. Yet during this same period, no tangible diplomatic progress has been made in the peace process. Sharon’s handpicked successor, Ehud Olmert, reportedly came close to an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, but negotiations collapsed as war broke out between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The situation on the ground has been frozen ever since. The separation barrier that Sharon proposed remains standing, complicating the lives of Palestinians and sometimes separating them from their land. Sharon, someone who was always aware of how “facts on the ground” determined final outcomes, never said the barrier route would be permanent. But it doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.

Sharon’s most enduring legacy, however, can be found in the mindset of Israelis. Just as Sharon argued years ago, many Israelis now think that there is “no partner for peace“ on the Palestinian side—a conviction that only hardened when Hamas took power in Gaza in the wake of the withdrawal and fired rockets on Israel. Rather than pushing the government leftward toward a peace settlement or rightward toward annexation of the West Bank, some Israelis believe that security is possible with “separation” from the Palestinians but without a formal peace agreement. Instead of supporting parties on the left and far-right that have advocated decisive action on the Palestinian issue, the two most popular blocs in the country’s 2013 election—Likud-Beiteinu and Yesh Atid—downplayed the conflict and instead focused on Iran and domestic affairs.

Disengagement from certain Palestinian territories has spawned disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian uprisings that led both Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon to reevaluate Israeli policy do not threaten Israel today. Israel’s current leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once critiqued Sharon’s separation agenda but now seems to have embraced the status quo that Sharon’s policies created. There have been no major diplomatic breakthroughs or significant Israeli concessions since Sharon lapsed into a coma, and the prospects for the current round of peace talks led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appear dim.

 

[Lipush]

We would be well to reassess what we mean when we say "collective punishment" when ALL Israeli's have --- in some measure --- aggravated and promoted an environment for such events to occur.

I agree.

We made sure it would be easier for them to attack us, but allowing them access to us.

So, leave their land

I don't recall us sitting in the half land of Arabia.

We sit in Judea. The Land of the Jews. It was after all, named after them.

And I would not leave the land. Not only Arabs stole my inheritence, you're now telling me to leave what they didn't take over?

Pfft. Fairly unlikely.

 

[Lipush]

I can't help but wonder how much Sharon's policy of total seperation has brought about these recent events. Many Palestinians have never met a Jew. Many Jews have never met a Palestinian. Prior to this, there was a lot more intermingling. When you never meet each other, it's easier to believe the propoganda (and there is plenty from BOTH sides) and easier to sustain hatred of the other. When your schools teach you children that the other side is not to be trusted - what do you have to show you different?

Ariel Sharon s Legacy of Separation - The Atlantic

...Still, the Israeli leader doubted that he could come to a lasting agreement with the Palestinians. Sharon’s plan ultimately involved circumventing the Palestinian Authority, not working with it; he became convinced that only a policy of “separation” from the Palestinians could secure Israel. Separation consisted of two stages. The first step was to build a massive barrier in the West Bank between the largest Jewish settlements and the bulk of the Palestinian population. Though this angered many on the Israeli right who opposed “abandoning” Jews in the West Bank, the idea enjoyed popular support. In an October 2003 poll, more than 80 percent of Israelis said they believed constructing fences and walls would significantly reduce or prevent suicide bombers from attacking Israeli cafes and buses.

Sharon had effectively sold Israelis on his policy of separation—the idea that Israel could insulate itself from the Palestinian problem on its own terms and according to its own security needs, without conceding to all Palestinian demands.

...In 2004, Sharon announced that he was going to take separation—now termed “disengagement”—one step further. Israel needed to leave Gaza but, as he saw it, the Palestinian leader at the time, Yasser Arafat, was no partner for peace. Instead, Israel would unilaterally withdraw its forces from the territory and evict the 8,000 Jewish settlers who lived there among 1.3 million Palestinians. The plan elicited major protests on the right and forced Sharon to break away from Likud and form his own party, Kadima.

In August 2005, the Gaza disengagement plan was enacted along with the withdrawal from four settlements in the West Bank, but that was only supposed to be the beginning. According to a minister in Sharon’s government, during a December 2005 phone call the prime minister suggested, “Let’s divide [the West Bank] and take roughly one-third for ourselves, leaving two-thirds for the Arabs.” Sharon began to prepare for elections scheduled in March 2006, undeterred by a mild stroke. But on January 4, 2006, Sharon suffered a second stroke, a massive cerebral hemorrhage. He never regained consciousness.

Eight years later, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains at a stalemate. Whether as a result of Sharon’s policies or not, the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians declined as his separation policies went into effect, decreasing from a high of 264 in 2002 to a low of seven in 2007, according to the Israeli NGO B’Tselem. When Israeli casualties have occurred, they have mostly stemmed from rocket fire from Gaza, not from suicide bombings. Yet during this same period, no tangible diplomatic progress has been made in the peace process. Sharon’s handpicked successor, Ehud Olmert, reportedly came close to an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, but negotiations collapsed as war broke out between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The situation on the ground has been frozen ever since. The separation barrier that Sharon proposed remains standing, complicating the lives of Palestinians and sometimes separating them from their land. Sharon, someone who was always aware of how “facts on the ground” determined final outcomes, never said the barrier route would be permanent. But it doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.

Sharon’s most enduring legacy, however, can be found in the mindset of Israelis. Just as Sharon argued years ago, many Israelis now think that there is “no partner for peace“ on the Palestinian side—a conviction that only hardened when Hamas took power in Gaza in the wake of the withdrawal and fired rockets on Israel. Rather than pushing the government leftward toward a peace settlement or rightward toward annexation of the West Bank, some Israelis believe that security is possible with “separation” from the Palestinians but without a formal peace agreement. Instead of supporting parties on the left and far-right that have advocated decisive action on the Palestinian issue, the two most popular blocs in the country’s 2013 election—Likud-Beiteinu and Yesh Atid—downplayed the conflict and instead focused on Iran and domestic affairs.

Disengagement from certain Palestinian territories has spawned disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian uprisings that led both Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon to reevaluate Israeli policy do not threaten Israel today. Israel’s current leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once critiqued Sharon’s separation agenda but now seems to have embraced the status quo that Sharon’s policies created. There have been no major diplomatic breakthroughs or significant Israeli concessions since Sharon lapsed into a coma, and the prospects for the current round of peace talks led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appear dim.

Many Jews don't want to ever come across a Palestinian, since they love their bodies intact.

 

[MJB12741]

Regretfully the time is long overdo for Israel to contact the leaders of Hamas & make it quite clear that from now on, for each time the Palestinians kill an Israeli, Israel will retalitate by killing 10,000 Palestinians, & do it. Hopefully that would be enough to change Palestinian thinking to kill Israeli's. But then, let us not forget it took Jordan 20,000 dead Palestinians to effectively communicate peace from them.

 

[MJB12741]

Once again Israel got what Israel deserved for their treatment of Palestinians with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel. When will Israel ever learn to treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers do in surrounding Arab countries?

Prayer massacre Three Americans among four rabbis killed as Palestinian militants storm Jerusalem synagogue - AOL.com

That's a horrible thing to happen...there's no excuse for killing people like that. I was glad to see Abbas denounce it.

Why do you feel the need to politicize it like that?

Lets deal with documented facts for a change. Tell us how many dead Palestinians it took for Jordan to communicate a lasting peace from them?

 

[MJB12741]

Remember when that Israeli nutcase Baruch Goldstein massacred Palestinians at the Cave of thePatriarchs & how Israel officially condemned it. Surely the Palestinians feel the same way about Hamas killing Jews in a Synagogue in Jersusalem, right Pali supporters?

 

[Coyote]

Remember when that Israeli nutcase Baruch Goldstein massacred Palestinians at the Cave of thePatriarchs & how Israel officially condemned it. Surely the Palestinians feel the same way about Hamas killing Jews in a Synagogue in Jersusalem, right Pali supporters?

Israel officially condemned it, but a substantial minority of settlers continue to honor and enshrine him.

Public Opinion Israeli Palestinian Support for Peace Accord Was Dropping Before Massacre 1994 April-May

Regarding the massacre itself, a poll conducted by Israel's Teleseker polling firm for the International Center for Peace in the Middle East found that immediately after the massacre 79 percent of the Israelis polled condemned it, 11 percent said "it had to be understood against the background of Arab terror against Jews," and 3.6 percent praised Goldstein.
​

Abbas strongly condemned the synagogue attack. Who cares what Hamas thinks? They are a terrorist organization.

Israel is apparently renewing it's home demolations as well: independentmail.com AP News

Punitive demolition was a tactic frequently employed by Israeli security forces before defense chiefs decided to suspend it in 2005 after concluding it was not an effective deterrent.


Since then it has been used occasionally - three times in east Jerusalem in 2009, and three times over the summer in response to the killing of an Israeli policeman and the murder of three Israeli teenagers.​

Interestingly, home demolition ONLY occurs when the attackers are Palestinian. The homes of the men who burned Mohammed Abu Khdair alive were left intact.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Remember when that Israeli nutcase Baruch Goldstein massacred Palestinians at the Cave of thePatriarchs & how Israel officially condemned it. Surely the Palestinians feel the same way about Hamas killing Jews in a Synagogue in Jersusalem, right Pali supporters?

Israel officially condemned it, but a substantial minority of settlers continue to honor and enshrine him.

Public Opinion Israeli Palestinian Support for Peace Accord Was Dropping Before Massacre 1994 April-May

Regarding the massacre itself, a poll conducted by Israel's Teleseker polling firm for the International Center for Peace in the Middle East found that immediately after the massacre 79 percent of the Israelis polled condemned it, 11 percent said "it had to be understood against the background of Arab terror against Jews," and 3.6 percent praised Goldstein.
​

Abbas strongly condemned the synagogue attack. Who cares what Hamas thinks? They are a terrorist organization.

Israel is apparently renewing it's home demolations as well: independentmail.com AP News

Punitive demolition was a tactic frequently employed by Israeli security forces before defense chiefs decided to suspend it in 2005 after concluding it was not an effective deterrent.


Since then it has been used occasionally - three times in east Jerusalem in 2009, and three times over the summer in response to the killing of an Israeli policeman and the murder of three Israeli teenagers.​

Interestingly, home demolition ONLY occurs when the attackers are Palestinian. The homes of the men who burned Mohammed Abu Khdair alive were left intact.

Indeed, that process is called apartheid.

 

[montelatici]

fanger, et al,

All it takes if for the Palestinians to sit down and comply:

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. (A/RES/25/2625)

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
​

You could start at Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

All the Palestinians have to do is reach an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the land that Israel now controls was occupied by European migrants turned invaders. This is not a case of two states negotiating anything.

For now Israel should stick to adhering to the Geneva Conventions that relate to occupations.

 

[MJB12741]

fanger, et al,

All it takes if for the Palestinians to sit down and comply:

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. (A/RES/25/2625)

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
​

You could start at Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

All the Palestinians have to do is reach an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the land that Israel now controls was occupied by European migrants turned invaders. This is not a case of two states negotiating anything.

For now Israel should stick to adhering to the Geneva Conventions that relate to occupations.

No. For now Israel should start treating the Palestinians like Jordan did to establish a lasting peace from them.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Think the world's stuck in a kind of infinite loop like in computer programming. We get revenge, then they get revenge on us, then we have to get it again, and on n on. Politicians being the ones in charge are stuck. They can't do the right thing and forgo revenge without losing their office so they feed into the loop to remain in power. So here we are. It never stops because we have shitty leaders who'd rather remain in office than do the right things and help break the cycle of endless revenge.

Heard the officer didn't make it. RIP bro'.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

It is a belligerent occupation.

fanger, et al,

All it takes if for the Palestinians to sit down and comply:

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. (A/RES/25/2625)

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the Situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
​

You could start at Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

All the Palestinians have to do is reach an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the land that Israel now controls was occupied by European migrants turned invaders. This is not a case of two states negotiating anything.

For now Israel should stick to adhering to the Geneva Conventions that relate to occupations.

(QUESTION)

What is the beef? The occupation is being, as close as possible, conducted pursuant to the Geneva Convention, given the hostile nature of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

...All the land that Israel now controls was occupied by European migrants turned invaders. This is not a case of two states negotiating anything...

You're right.

Screw the negotiations.

Get your raggedy Arab asses out.

 

[Hossfly]

The people who worship at the Jerusalem synagogue are not running away nor will the be intimidated by the senseless attack.



HAR NOF, JERUSALEM — Dov Sorotzkin was awakened Tuesday by gunfire between Palestinian assailants and Israeli police at his synagogue.

On Wednesday, he and his wife returned to their place of worship to celebrate their newborn son’s brit mila, or circumcision.

He describes the ceremony as a symbol of the willingness to give oneself to God – just as the four rabbis were doing when they were killed Tuesday morning here in Har Nof, an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of West Jerusalem.


Jerusalem synagogue attack Day later site is symbol of faith determination video - CSMonitor.com