The US just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[GMDino]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/1322

Quote:Summary: S.1322 — 104th Congress (1995-1996)All Information (Except Text)

Listen to this page
There are 2 summaries for S.1322.
                     Passed Senate amended (10/24/1995)Introduced in Senate (10/13/1995)                    


Bill summaries are authored by CRS.



Shown Here:

Passed Senate amended (10/24/1995)

Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 - Declares it to be U.S. policy that: (1) Jerusalem remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected; (2) Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the U.S. Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

States that, subject to the President's waiver authority granted below, not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated for FY 1999 to the Department of State for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" may be obligated in the fiscal year until the Secretary of State determines, and reports to the Congress, that the Embassy has opened.

Makes specified amounts of such funds available until expended in FY 1996 and 1997 only for construction and other costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.

Requires the Secretary of State to report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on: (1) the Department of State's plan to implement this Act; and (2) progress made toward opening the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

Authorizes the President to suspend for six months (with possible subsequent six-month extensions) the 50 percent limitation on the obligation of funds with respect to the opening of the Embassy if he determines and reports to the Congress that a suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

The last line probably explains why this was never done.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2017, 03:21 AM)Dill Wrote:  
Who initiated the war which seized Palestine and set about ethnically cleansing regions for Jewish settlement?  I don't blame the victims for 1967.

I don't either, anymore than I blame the German civilians who were brutalized by the Soviet armed forces.

Quote:And yes, I do mean that we lost the minimal credibility we had before with Palestinians and other players in the region.  That credibility was minimal because it exerted so little control over the Israeli side--though it had the power to do so.  That is why "nothing since forever" has been achieved. And backing occupation and theft will only break the status quo in the direction of widening and bloodier conflict. 

No, our credibility was minimal because we are seen by many in the Middle East as infidels, kafars.  There hasn't been peace in that section of the world in forever, because the conflict is pushed by religious extremists on both sides.  You ignore that, for many in the Middle East, Israel's very existence is an abomination that must be removed.  There is no peace for them, ever.  You're also ignoring that the Palestinians have been offered statehood in the past and have refused.  You're also ignoring that the Palestinian's are closely aligned with terrorist organization such as Hamas.  Hard to negotiate in good faith when one side has terrorists sitting on their right hand side.

Quote:I don't see anything particularly "reliable" about Israel or advantageous in our support for them. There was an argument for this during the Cold War, when the USSR was supplying Syria and Egypt with weapons. That rationale is long gone.  Now they are our prime recipient of foreign aid and in return work to turn US foreign policy to their national interest, not ours. As I said above, Trump's move is consolidating world opinion against the US. In the Middle East, it will create precedent for common action and cooperation between Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, not what Trump wished for.

Quite honestly, I don't either.  I also don't think letting them be annihilated by their neighbors is an option.  Also, you last sentence is pure crap, none of the Sunni nations you mentioned will have anything to do with Iran.

Quote:Claiming that I secretly grant validity to a stereotype of Palestinians but "won't admit it," and then linking that stereotype to a larger one of Islam does not advance any point.

What "stereotype" are you referring to?

Quote:It simply repeats a technique and point of Israeli propaganda. Palestinians aren't upset because they have been driven from their land and forced to live under brutal occupation--their hatred of their oppressor is simply a natural consequence of who they are. The "we are infidels to them" is simply a reversal and projection of the charge you place on them.

Except you completely fail to acknowledge that it's not one or the other, it's a nice mixture of both.  

[Bengalzona]

(12-07-2017, 01:31 AM)Dill Wrote: Did Palestinians "walk away"? If we are talking about the most recent (2013-14) attempts to jump start the peace process, seems like the Israelis are to blame. Again.

E.g., Netanyahu insisted on a united (i.e., Israeli controlled) Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and categorically denied any Palestinian right of return to a state so defined.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Netanyahu-rejects-Palestinian-right-of-return-to-Israel-329895

So far as I can tell, "coming back to discuss" would only mean reiteration of the aforementioned demands with no concessions beyond release of a few prisoners (already scheduled for release years ago) and continued Israeli control of the West Bank with increasing settlement.

Until now, the US has had some, if minimal, credibility as an impartial negotiator between Israel and Palestinians. It was upon that minimal credibility  that negotiations depended for international recognition and respect. The US stood for a two state solution (with Palestinian power of bilateral negotiations) and condemned the settlements and wanted the occupation to end.

I don't see how the US can expect continued credibility after we have just thrown our weight behind one of Israel's most contested bargaining points.  Israel has continually called for peace while continuing to settle the West bank, creating a huge block of Israeli voters who don't want to leave the West Bank. Netanyatu announced more settlements DURING THE LAST ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS to the great frustration of Obama and Kerry.

To most of the world the message is pretty clear--Jews, Muslims and Christians are called to "work for peace" while acknowledging complete Israeli hegemony over Palestine.



For this to be a GAMBIT there would have to be a possibility that Israel would retract its claim for a unified Jerusalem capital. That became less, not more likely, because of Trump's move.

Tillerson was trying to get Israel and the Palestinians to the table earlier this year and the Palestinians walked. The view within administrations is fairly limited to the direction that admin is taking things.

(12-07-2017, 01:44 AM)Dill Wrote: The part I cut out of your post was an excellent overview, B-Zona. 

I disagree with your reading of Netanyahu, though. I don't think he wants Palestinians to come to the table. When he has them there, he does all he can to send them away again. That is the point of "playing hard."

At the moment, what could Palestinians hope to gain by "coming to the table"? Their leaders keep giving up major concessions, but nothing changes on the ground--except in the favor of Israel.  The things they want, like autonomy, the ability to farm their own lands, an end to occupation, are not what Netanyahu and the Likud want.

I think their response will have to be another Intifada. The Israeli response will be hard to spin away in international media.

Thank you.

Netanyahu's position in the negotiations at this point has to be as "the hard guy". This reflects the Palestinians' entrenched position on what they want. If he came in soft and conciliatory, they wouldn't trust him anyway. The two sides having hardline positions is why they need negotiations to begin with. During the process of negotiations, concessions are made by each side and compromises are reached. But two opposing sides never become 'friends' due to that process. That is another process which takes years (or decades) of each side honoring and abiding to the terms with which they agreed. But the initial agreement has to be made before they can start that process.

As for what the Palestinians have to gain by coming to the table, IMO they have everything to gain. This is the process for nationhood for them, the only way. Their problems, however, are that they are unable to organize behind a single entity and they have some groups that refuse to give up violence as an option. The violence has to stop on their end. No one can negotiate when there is only the promise of continued violence. Negotiations are held to bring an end to violence.

I realize that Israeli homes are being built in lands that the Palestinians claim and that some people believe that that is permanent. But the Israelis have demonstrated previously under Begin (who many initially thought was just as hardline as Netanyahu) that they are willing to remove the homes and evict their people if an agreement is in place. In the 1980's, they evicted their own people from Gaza and the West Bank even at the point of a gun.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Maybe Dill will honor us by explaining to the class what Al-Quds day is and what typically occurs on that day.

[NATI BENGALS]

Looks like this is going over pretty smooth.

Good call by prez getting us all back up in the religious war biz.

[*bfine32*]

(12-07-2017, 11:33 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Looks like this is going over pretty smooth.

Good call by prez getting us all back up in the religious war biz.

Perhaps you are placing blame on the wrong side if this action leads to "religious war biz". 

Of all the reasons I look for us to not make policy in the US, the fact that it will make radical Islam mad rates very far down the list. 

[Dill]

(12-07-2017, 12:33 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I realize that Israeli homes are being built in lands that the Palestinians claim and that some people believe that that is permanent. But the Israelis have demonstrated previously under Begin (who many initially thought was just as hardline as Netanyahu) that they are willing to remove the homes and evict their people if an agreement is in place. In the 1980's, they evicted their own people from Gaza and the West Bank even at the point of a gun.

Thanks for the response, B-zona. Don't have much time to respond to people today, but I can offer a brief comment on the above.

Clearing Gaza meant that Israel could not effectively protect Israelis in Gaza, but it could effectively contain Gaza from without. The place is now the largest outdoor prison in the world.  Though many Palestinians were initially for disengagement, it was wholly unilateral, on Israeli terms and undertaken in what Sharon determined to be Israeli interests.

Also, there were barely 8,000 Israelis there. Imagine the blowback if Netanyahu tried the same thing on the West bank, where he would be dealing with almost 10 times that number, if you throw in East Jerusalem.  That would be civil war. But it would never come to that as no government could ever get Knesset support for the action unless the existence of Israel itself were at stake. So, I don't think the Israeli government will adopt any policy leading to Gaza-style "eviction" on the West Bank.

I should add that the Israeli settlements in Gaza were architecturally miniscule compared to the walled fortress complexes dominating the hills in the Greater Jerusalem area. Givat Yael alone has 13,500 housing units.

The central problem when speaking of "negotiations" is that such talk often assumes a power equivalence which simply isn't there.  Palestinians are effectively under the gun at all times. The West Bank is crisscrossed with check points and barriers turning what was formerly a 10 minute commute into a half day trip for workers and farmers. They cannot move in, around or out of the West Bank without Israeli permission. Their goods can be impounded and their houses bulldozed on the slightest pretext.

In theory Palestinians have much to gain, but in practice little to bargain with.  The map included in my post above illustrates this point eloquently enough. That's why I don't describe Palestinian negotiators as "entrenched" unless refusing to give up their last bit of land, security and dignity makes them somehow "hard line" unreasonable.    The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist; then Israel moved the goal posts, Netanyahu demanding they recognize the "Jewish character" of the state. They agreed to dividing the West Bank into areas in return for ceding control of Bethlehem, Nablus, Ramalla and Jericho to the Palestinian Authority control, then found themselves fenced away from their own properties and watched as new settlements fill the cleared areas.  Every concession seems to increase Israeli control. Luring Palestinians to the negotiating table and then making it plain they'll get less than they already have produces "walkaways" and claims Palestinians are intransigent and don't really want peace. Under these conditions, I don't have trouble understanding political fragmentation, as some want to fight back the only way they can. I also understand why asking them, not the Israelis, to "end the violence" produces such anger.

Israelis have to do nothing but what they are already doing and in a decade or two they will have the whole West Bank, blaming the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate.  Clinton, Bush Obama--all pressured Israel one way another to stop the illegal settlements. Now Trump has in effect opened the floodgates to further settlement. Some Americans, who will soon be watching demonstrations and perhaps violence on the ground there, will wonder if it is religion which makes them crazy or what. The rest of the world, as noted in my post above, will condemn both Israel and Trump.

Your point about Palestinian fragmentation deserves a more detailed response, but I have to run! Hopefully I'll get a few more words in tomorrow before the weekend curfew!

[Bengalzona]

(12-08-2017, 12:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for the response, B-zona. Don't have much time to respond to people today, but I can offer a brief comment on the above.

Clearing Gaza meant that Israel could not effectively protect Israelis in Gaza, but it could effectively contain Gaza from without. The place is now the largest outdoor prison in the world.  Though many Palestinians were initially for disengagement, it was wholly unilateral, on Israeli terms and undertaken in what Sharon determined to be Israeli interests.

Also, there were barely 8,000 Israelis there. Imagine the blowback if Netanyahu tried the same thing on the West bank, where he would be dealing with almost 10 times that number, if you throw in East Jerusalem.  That would be civil war. But it would never come to that as no government could ever get Knesset support for the action unless the existence of Israel itself were at stake. So, I don't think the Israeli government will adopt any policy leading to Gaza-style "eviction" on the West Bank.

I should add that the Israeli settlements in Gaza were architecturally miniscule compared to the walled fortress complexes dominating the hills in the Greater Jerusalem area. Givat Yael alone has 13,500 housing units.

Consider, though, containing Gaza was not solely an Israeli venture. Egypt also deemed this necessary and assisted from the south. This was due to the level of violence and militarism coming from Hamas in the strip. The noose that has been tightening around Gaza didn't just develop overnight. It was something that started in response to attacks and has become progressively stricter due to continued attacks. I sympathize greatly for the civilians in the strip who have to bear the burdens of counterattacks and a siege-like state, and yet are not able to eject Hamas and choose different leaders. That said, if radicals took over the Navajo Nation and started hurling missiles at the Albuquerque, you know what our response would be. If the Vatican started encouraging bus bombings in Rome, you know what Italy's response would be. People don't like being attacked.

You know the history of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They were originally areas set aside by the U.N. Charter for the establishment of a Palestinian state in 1948. The Palestinians rejected the charter and opted for warfare, as we know. What is less commonly known is what happened to the territories after the 1948 war. The Palestinians 'buddies', Jordan and Egypt, claimed the territories after the war. Some 'friends', eh. The territories were captured from Jordan and Egypt by Israel during the 1967 war. True, a small number of Israeli settlers (several thousand) attempted to settle into the territories afterwards. But the territories overwhelming remained vacant and unoccupied. In the 1990's, when Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians were ready to sit down and talk peace, those territories were offered to the Palestinian Authority as the basis land for a Palestinian nation. So the Arab "kill-the-Jews" buddies took the Palestinians land while the "Evil" Israelis offered tto give it back after sacrificing lives to take it.

Quote:The central problem when speaking of "negotiations" is that such talk often assumes a power equivalence which simply isn't there.  Palestinians are effectively under the gun at all times. The West Bank is crisscrossed with check points and barriers turning what was formerly a 10 minute commute into a half day trip for workers and farmers. They cannot move in, around or out of the West Bank without Israeli permission. Their goods can be impounded and their houses bulldozed on the slightest pretext.

Once again, this is not a situation that started over-night. And it was in response to continued attacks. People don't like being attacked. They tend to over-react when attacked. We were attacked on 9/11. We've had two wars (one of which is our longest ever) and now we have Trump as an end result. The roots of fear, paranoia and mistrust lead back to the attacks. I can hardly imagine what our country would be like if we had the type of suicide bombings Israel endured, but I would imagine it would be some kind of cross between the worst facets of Nazi Germany and Stalinist U.S.S.R.

It is interesting that you mention power. The Palestinians only legitimate empowerment comes from two sources: the 1948 U.N. charter and (believe it or not) the Israelis. By offering the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians as a homeland, the Israelis have empowered the Palestinians. All that they have asked for in return is peace. The Palestinians have, at points, rejected both sources. Unfortunately, some factions within the Palestinians feel that they gain legitimacy through violence. Who int the world supports violence as a legitimate means of empowerment?

Quote:In theory Palestinians have much to gain, but in practice little to bargain with.  The map included in my post above illustrates this point eloquently enough. That's why I don't describe Palestinian negotiators as "entrenched" unless refusing to give up their last bit of land, security and dignity makes them somehow "hard line" unreasonable.    The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist; then Israel moved the goal posts, Netanyahu demanding they recognize the "Jewish character" of the state. They agreed to dividing the West Bank into areas in return for ceding control of Bethlehem, Nablus, Ramalla and Jericho to the Palestinian Authority control, then found themselves fenced away from their own properties and watched as new settlements fill the cleared areas.  Every concession seems to increase Israeli control. Luring Palestinians to the negotiating table and then making it plain they'll get less than they already have produces "walkaways" and claims Palestinians are intransigent and don't really want peace. Under these conditions, I don't have trouble understanding political fragmentation, as some want to fight back the only way they can. I also understand why asking them, not the Israelis, to "end the violence" produces such anger.

Israelis have to do nothing but what they are already doing and in a decade or two they will have the whole West Bank, blaming the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate.  Clinton, Bush Obama--all pressured Israel one way another to stop the illegal settlements. Now Trump has in effect opened the floodgates to further settlement. Some Americans, who will soon be watching demonstrations and perhaps violence on the ground there, will wonder if it is religion which makes them crazy or what. The rest of the world, as noted in my post above, will condemn both Israel and Trump.

The Israelis have asked for one basic thing repeatedly: peace. Factions within the Palestinians have been unwilling to comply. Therefore, in the Israeli view, they cannot discuss anything else until that is agreed upon. Why is that so hard for the Palestinians to accept and work with?

You mention the map you posted earlier and how the areas are being shaded in with Israeli settlements. I ask you to consider this: Why have the Israelis not just occupied all of the West Bank and Gaza and declared it as their own, if that is what they intend to do anyway? What are they waiting for? Why is this going in such a slow, deliberate, painstaking way? If they face world criticism for doing it, why not just get that over with in one fell swoop? Why even pretend to go through any process? That makes no sense.

Unless... maybe just grabbing all of that land isn't their goal. Maybe they are waiting for the Palestinians to decide that they have had enough of Hamas and violence and are ready to build their own nation.

Quote:Your point about Palestinian fragmentation deserves a more detailed response, but I have to run!  Hopefully I'll get a few more words in tomorrow before the weekend curfew!

It is always good to talk with you, my knowledgeable friend!

[Belsnickel]

The issue here is that the only viable option in the long-term will be a two-state solution. It has always been assumed that the capital for both of those states will be each state's respective parts of the city. By naming Jerusalem as Israel's capital now, it takes away any resemblance of neutrality that we hold as a mediating party in the conflicts regarding this issue. It harms our position, it makes our people in the middle east less safe, and it damages the entire peace process. The nitty gritty details of it all are vast and complicated, but that is what the situation is.

[Dill]

(12-08-2017, 01:05 PM)Vlad Wrote: Dill knowledgeable on this subject perhaps, but not forthright. 
The points Dill makes are inconsequential and a waste of board space when Palestinians and the various sects cannot come to a consensus regarding Israel's right to exist.
Dill refuses to come to terms with that.

 
The Israelis, who have deprived Palestinians of their homeland, cannot come to a consensus on whether any Palestinian state has a right to exist. (Many want to simply seize the West Bank and cede Gaza to Egypt.) But your double standard gives them a pass. 

Above I state:

The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist; then Israel moved the goal posts, Netanyahu demanding they recognize the "Jewish character" of the state.

How is that not "forthright"?  What, exactly, have I refused to come to terms with?

(12-08-2017, 01:05 PM)Vlad Wrote: The last time I looked Israel has no right to exist.
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2017/april/p-a-factions-agree-israel-has-no-right-to-exist

In 1988, the PLO recognized the Partition Resolution of 1947 (UNGA Res. 181) in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, which is to say they implicitly recognized Israel's legal status as a nation under international law.
http://www.mideastweb.org/plc1988.htm

The link below is to the 1993 letters exchanged between Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat concerning the PLO's recognition of Israel's right to exist as a state and Israel's recognition of the PLO as the official representative of the Palestinian people.
https://israelipalestinian.procon.org/sourcefiles/1993-Exchange-Letters-Rabin-Arafat.pdf

It was this mutual recognition which allowed the Oslo Accords to move forward. The PLO had to recognize the existence of Israel in order to negotiate and sign treaties with it.

(12-08-2017, 01:05 PM)Vlad Wrote: I'm no expert on this subject but what I do know is that Israel remains as a state that has no right to exist, and that many attempts have been made to grant Palestine a state...and rejected by the Palestinians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U

No state or people is required by any international law to recognize any other state's "right to exist." The U.S. has never formally recognized the right of France or Mexico or Japan to "exist."  States may demand this recognition from themselves, from their own citizens.  The worldwide exception to this state of affairs is Israel, which demands this recognition from the non-citizens it holds under occupation, along with the recognition of Israel's right to the land it has taken from them.

One of the principle creators of division among Palestinians at present is the fact that recognition of Israel has not brought the expected progress. The settlements go forward on the West Bank. The walls continue to be built.

[Bengalzona]

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/12/palestinians-recognize-texas-part-mexico/

[*jason*]

(12-08-2017, 02:18 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/12/palestinians-recognize-texas-part-mexico/

I wish this were true.

[Dill]

(12-08-2017, 11:56 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Consider, though, containing Gaza was not solely an Israeli venture. Egypt also deemed this necessary and assisted from the south. This was due to the level of violence and militarism coming from Hamas in the strip. The noose that has been tightening around Gaza didn't just develop overnight. It was something that started in response to attacks and has become progressively stricter due to continued attacks.

You know the history of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They were originally areas set aside by the U.N. Charter for the establishment of a Palestinian state in 1948. The Palestinians rejected the charter and opted for warfare, as we know. What is less commonly known is what happened to the territories after the 1948 war. The Palestinians 'buddies', Jordan and Egypt, claimed the territories after the war.

Once again, this is not a situation that started over-night. And it was in response to continued attacks.

It is interesting that you mention power. The Palestinians only legitimate empowerment comes from two sources: the 1948 U.N. charter and (believe it or not) the Israelis. By offering the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians as a homeland, the Israelis have empowered the Palestinians. All that they have asked for in return is peace. The Palestinians have, at points, rejected both sources. Unfortunately, some factions within the Palestinians feel that they gain legitimacy through violence. Who int the world supports violence as a legitimate means of empowerment?

YOW B-Zona!  Leave it to you to make me work.  You present excellent and probing questions here. I doubt I can produce adequate answers before the weekend curtain falls on PnR. But I am going to outline a few general points so you can see where I am going.

1.  We are framing the problem very differently. In your posts, the people who have taken--and continue to take--Palestinian land are always "responding" to attacks.  But if the Israelis bulldoze homes and olive groves (a Palestinian livelihood) to make room for new settlements, which then catch a couple of rockets, I do not think much will change by focusing on "Palestinian violence" and demanding THEIR attacks stop before political issues can be addressed.  While we generally agree on the facts on the ground, we do view them from different standpoints, which creates our contrasting evaluations of behavior and assignments of responsibility.

2.  I don't think Jordan's annexation is the simple land grab you represent here. I understand it as a semi-coordinated attempt between Jordan and Syria (and the Arab League)--as well as correlative Palestinian factions supporting them--to protect Palestinians and Palestinian land from the cleansing occurring in the areas of Jewish Partition. E.g., Deir Yassin had a tremendous effect on Arab populations in the region, fragmenting Palestinians in flight and uniting surrounding states into the Arab League. Some Palestinians, especially those in the Arab Partition, welcomed Abdullah as protector. Not all did, though. . . .

3. . . . which leads to the next problem--namely Palestinian representation and leadership during '47-48.  Since the area of Palestine had simply been a collection of variously organized provinces (Sanjaks) under the Ottomans, without its own central administration, and then under control of the British, who did not allow anything like an effective civil administration/government to form (for fear of Palestinian Nationalism),  there was no means of voting in a unified leadership. On the one hand you had a reconstituted Arab Higher Committee, which had some claim to be broadly representative before 1946, but was replaced by designates of the Arab league in that year. This new Arab Committee  then "represented" Palestine in the UN, and no Palestinians on the ground in the Mandate ever got to vote on the Partition. It was imposed upon them from without.  That is why we hear that Palestinians "rejected" a plan to give their homes and land away to a new government formed mainly of people just arrived from Europe. When the civil war began, the Arab League recognized an All Palestine government in Gaza (kind of directly under Egypt's thumb, and dissolved by them in the 50s). On the other hand, the closest we get in '48 to something like a unified, representative voice of Palestinians is at the Jericho Conference, when thousands of actual Palestinians and mayors of Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho and other cities met to call for King Abdullah's annexation of the West Bank.  But no leader or organization came out of the expression of popular will, since the point was to recognize Abdullah.

4. Israeli "empowerment" has come basically from force--especially on the West Bank. If we appeal to international law and UN Resolution 181 to establish Israel's legitimacy we cannot then ignore Resolution 242 which denies the right of any nation to acquire land by force and affirms the right of Palestinians to self-determination and nationhood. So yes, what "power" the Palestinians have comes from an apparently symbolic UN resolution and whatever Israel permits them to do.

5. I think your most important question is this -- Why have the Israelis not just occupied all of the West Bank and Gaza and declared it as their own, if that is what they intend to do anyway? What are they waiting for? Why is this going in such a slow, deliberate, painstaking way? If they face world criticism for doing it, why not just get that over with in one fell swoop? Why even pretend to go through any process? That makes no sense -- I will tackle that one over the weekend. I believe I can answer that, but let me get my ducks in a row first. 

So well done, ol' buddy.  Quite a challenge you put up here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I wonder why our resident "expert" on islam won't explain what El Quds day is? I'm sure many here would like to know.

[GMDino]

http://bfy.tw/FTPd

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-08-2017, 09:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://bfy.tw/FTPd

As easy as answering whether you believe the Bill Clinton accusers?

[*jason*]

(12-08-2017, 09:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wonder why our resident "expert" on islam won't explain what El Quds day is? I'm sure many here would like to know.

I googled it out if curiosity. I'd be happy to give the Cliff's notes version of it.... If anyone is interested that is.

[Dill]

(12-08-2017, 10:29 PM)jason Wrote: I googled it out if curiosity. I'd be happy to give the Cliff's notes version of it.... If anyone is interested that is.

I'm dodging this question, so go for it.

If you do, I am curious to know if learning how the rest of the world responds to the Israel-Plalestine conflict moves the needle for you either way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2017, 03:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm dodging this question, so go for it.

File this under, duh.  Anytime you're asked to discuss something that disputes your point of view you duck it.

Quote:If you do, I am curious to know if learning how the rest of the world responds to the Israel-Plalestine conflict moves the needle for you either way.

A bit cowardly, to post this picture without context, par for the course.

You can post a lot of pictures of Jews taking part in the antisemitic El Kuds day, a day when millions gather and chant "death to Israel" and hold up picture of a mushroom cloud.  In each instance of pictures of Jews taking part they will be Hasidim.  The reason for this is the Hasidic interpretation of the faith, that God will return the Holy Land to the Jews, and that men created the state of Israel is a blasphemy.  So, essentially, they're saying return the land to Palestine so God can take it away from them later because it's God's choice to make.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ultra-orthodox-anti-zionist/

"In the words of the Midrash (as expounded by Rashi), the people were adjured not to return collectively to the Land of Israel by the exertion of physical force, nor to “rebel against the nations of the world,” nor to “hasten the End.” In short, they were required to wait for the heavenly, complete, miraculous, supernatural, and meta-historical redemption that is totally distinct from the realm of human endeavor. This waiting over two millennia manifests the very essence and singularity of the Jewish people, expressing their faith in divine providence, in the assurance of the prophets, and in messianic destiny."


"In other words, these groups’ fierce opposition to the state of Israel is not directed against its secular nature or its laws and mores but, rather, against its very existence, regardless of its nature. In the words of the late Satmar rebbe, Yoel Teitelbaum, “even if the members of the Knesset [Israeli parliament] were righteous and holy, it is a terrible and awful criminal iniquity to seize redemption and rule before the time has come."



"In this orthodox anti-Zionist view, then, the only hope for the Jewish state is its total destruction"


Which explains why they take part in a day devoted to the utter destruction of the state of Israel.  I appreciate you helping me make my point, cheers!

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2017, 04:01 PM)Dill Wrote:
I don't think it is a good idea to call either Lucy or Dino "trolls." 

According to Merriam-Webtser, an internet troll "is a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content."

I don't think the definition is meant to include people whose comments are "offensive" simply because they are on the other side of the political spectrum.  Were that the reading, then a troll could be anyone who disagrees with me/you, no matter how reasonably. The operative word here is "intentionally."

Both Dino and Lucy hold their political viewpoints sincerely. They post OPs that reflect their political viewpoints because they think those views worth discussing, adding to the forum conversation.  Sometimes, if attacked, they fight back. Their posts may certainly "antagonize" people who don't share their beliefs, but I've seen no evidence that either posts to intentionally antagonize others or would take pleasure in doing so.  I have disagreed often with Lucy, but I don't believe he has ever called me a name or stalked me from thread to thread with disruptive intent.  He once promised to lay off the Islamophobic posts if someone would just link him to SOME Muslim groups critical of Islamism. I obliged, and so far as I can tell, he appears to have kept his word.  Trolls don't have that kind of integrity.

I'll take your opinion into consideration when I assign the moniker next time; however, the whole back and forth between Dino and SSF is because Dino will not answer a direct question that SSF has asked numerous times. He will instead respond with meme's and/or factious rebuttals instead of providing a "sincere" answer. Perhaps he really doesn't understand the question posed or perhaps he is lacking some of that integrity you mention.

You're really not telling me nothing when you state a troll is not simply someone that disagrees with you. There are a great many on this forum that disagree with me and I do not assign them to the troll category. Hell Lucie agrees with me more than most and I love him as a poster; however, he often trolls. Inserting words/phrases here and there with no other intention that to get a rise. 

But as I say: one continually gets suspended and the other leads the forum in posts. Could it possibly have anything to do with that "disagreeing with points of view" you were talking about or is it more likely that I am missing something?