Senior Palestinian leader: 'Trump has sabotaged our search for peace, freedom and justice'

a reply to: antiantonym

Any foreign nation that relies on America (or, at least, claims to) to sustain a foundation of peace really needs to take some time for self reflection.

This one, obviously emotional "senior Palestinian leader" does not appear to be a voice of reason.

I've looked into the issue of the border between Israel and Palestine, and the only things that I have taken away from my research are two-fold:

1. The United Nations have basically caused this issue, and

2. The United States and the rest of the world should stay out of it and let those two nations either figure it out amongst themselves or live in a perpetual state of mini-war without being able to use the U.S. or other nations or international bodies as scapegoats as to why they can't figure it out.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Declaring that a united Jerusalem is Israeli territory ends that plan.

But no one declared anything about United Jerusalem.
The only thing that was said is that the embassy is moving to West Jerusalem. This in no way pervents from East Jerusalem to be future Palestinian capital.

Don't forget, all of Jerusalem was originally Palestinian territory under the UN's partition plan.

And they rejected this plan, so I don't see how they have an automatic claim for east Jerusalem.

And the majority of East Jerusalem's citizens are still Palestinians to this day.

This exactly why a smart Israeli leadership (not the current one) will have no problem to give it to the Palesinians in exchange for peace.

a reply to: antiantonym

Lets be honest. Neither side really want's peace with the other. If the Palestinians are EVER to have a State, they must either:
A: Destroy Israel and it's inhabitants.
B: Make a Deal with Israel, probably not one that is Ideal to the Palestinians.

There are no other options.

Time for the Palestinians to choose.

I'm sure they won't disappoint their citizens again.

a reply to: pavil

just out of curiosity - lets turn it around , should isreal :

A - destroy everyone else

B - make a deal thats not ideal for isereal

a reply to: antiantonym

I find the logic of calling this situation "blackmail" to be fascinating.

It's better defined as coercion rather than blackmail.

But that idiot Trump just can't stop pissing people off.

I think the Palestinians are tragic victims here. They're having their land stolen from them, and if they don't take it with a smile, then they're going to be crushed even further and more quickly.

Yep, they're systematically oppressed and collectively punished, no one does anything, and those responsible are constantly given a pass.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: antiantonym

I find the logic of calling this situation "blackmail" to be fascinating.

It's better defined as coercion rather than blackmail.

But that idiot Trump just can't stop pissing people off.

I think the Palestinians are tragic victims here. They're having their land stolen from them, and if they don't take it with a smile, then they're going to be crushed even further and more quickly.

Yep, they're systematically oppressed and collectively punished, no one does anything, and those responsible are constantly given a pass.

Systemically repressed by their own Arab brothers and sisters as well.

Why not ask yourself why Palestinians are treated as third class citizens in most Arab countries? Why do their so called brothers and sisters refuse to offer them citizenship In other areas countries? Why do they house then in refugee camps rather than take them in with open arms?

The Arab repression is no better, and in fact much more hypocritical than the way the Jews treat them.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Metallicus

Also, the 3rd option is literally a slow form of ethnic cleansing.

But herein lies the problem with the Middle East: There is so much emphasis and priority to clinging to one's religious affiliation, or country affiliation, or tribal affiliation, that it has been a cause of perpetual--and I mean that in the strictest use of the definition--war in that region.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: MaxMech

Don't forget, all of Jerusalem was originally Palestinian territory under the UN's partition plan. And the majority of East Jerusalem's citizens are still Palestinians to this day.

All of Jerusalem was supposed to be neutral territory, controlled by the UN and not any individual nation.

It was the armistice agreements after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that divided up Jerusalem, where Israel kept West Jerusalem for itself, which remained that way until the Six-Day War, where Israel captured East Jerusalem and unified the city. In 1980, even though the international community largely condemned the action (which means nothing), Israel annexed East Jerusalem and it has been under Israeli law and governance since.

So, no, all of Jerusalem was never under Palestinian control, it was originally under UN control as part of its partition plan. It may have been surrounded by Arab-controlled areas, but it was NOT meant to be Palestine's territory nor under its control.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: antiantonym

the notion that " jerusulem = the capital of isreal " has ""singlehandedly destroyed the very foundations of peace " is the absolute confirmation that the " palestinians " dont want peace

Or that the US wants more war...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: antiantonym

the notion that " jerusulem = the capital of isreal " has ""singlehandedly destroyed the very foundations of peace " is the absolute confirmation that the " palestinians " dont want peace

The Israelis are the ones that don't want peace.

The state of conflict is what Israel uses to justify grabbing more and more territory.

With peace, the land grab comes to an end.

Israel is not done expanding, yet.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: pavil

just out of curiosity - lets turn it around , should isreal :

A - destroy everyone else

B - make a deal thats not ideal for isereal

Israel has made Peace with some of it's Neighbors. Who have the Palestinians made peace with or given back land?
Israel as the occupier, gets to dictate the majority of the terms of any Peace deal. Sorry if you don't like that, it's just the way things work, the winners get to decide the terms of agreements.

The Palestinians will have to eventually take a deal that is not everything they wish for. So will Israel, but the terms will favor Israel more than the Palestinians.

Just being honest about how this whole process works.

originally posted by: pavil
The Palestinians will have to eventually take a deal that is not everything they wish for.

If the Palestinians were smart, they'd all convert to Judaism.

Then Israel will have to accept them as citizens according to the law of the right of return.

Then, the "Palestinian Jews" will outnumber the "Israeli Jews", and can use their "voting power"

to establish the government and laws that are favorable to them.

Rather than fight this war with bullets and bombs, which they can only lose,

they should take the fight to the political arena, where they would actually have a good chance

to win, by their shear numbers.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Metallicus

Also, the 3rd option is literally a slow form of ethnic cleansing.

But herein lies the problem with the Middle East: There is so much emphasis and priority to clinging to one's religious affiliation, or country affiliation, or tribal affiliation, that it has been a cause of perpetual--and I mean that in the strictest use of the definition--war in that region.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: MaxMech

Don't forget, all of Jerusalem was originally Palestinian territory under the UN's partition plan. And the majority of East Jerusalem's citizens are still Palestinians to this day.

All of Jerusalem was supposed to be neutral territory, controlled by the UN and not any individual nation.

Yeah, I'd forgotten that part. Some people still want Jerusalem to be an international city (including myself), but I don't see that happening now. Then again, the leaked document from November between the Saudis and Israelis (HERE) proposed just that.

originally posted by: MaxMech
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Declaring that a united Jerusalem is Israeli territory ends that plan.

But no one declared anything about United Jerusalem.
The only thing that was said is that the embassy is moving to West Jerusalem. This in no way pervents from East Jerusalem to be future Palestinian capital.

Israel annexed East Jerusalem years ago and Israel itself considers the united Jerusalem as its territory. The rest of the world simply doesn't formally recognize their claim. And to reinforce that stance, they keep their official embassies in Tel Aviv (while several have consulates in Jerusalem).

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
(called "Maghrebi Jews") are often discriminated against by the European Ashkenazi Jews who came back in the last 100 years.

But did the European Ashkenazi Jews really "come back" to Israel, or is this their first time there?

This conversion of the kingdom of the Khazars has a considerable importance regarding the origin of those Jews who dwell in the countries along the Danube and southern Russia. These regions enclose great masses of Jewish populations which have in all probability nothing or almost nothing that is anthropologically Jewish in them.

Source: Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry

So there are two types of Jews, those that are "Converts to Judaism" , and those that are "Descendants of the original inhabitants of that land that is now Israel."

"Peace, freedom, justice" ... last I checked that's not how genocide is spelled.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Yeah, I'd forgotten that part. Some people still want Jerusalem to be an international city (including myself), but I don't see that happening now. Then again, the leaked document from November between the Saudis and Israelis (HERE) proposed just that.

First, forgetting ANY part of the issue with Jerusalem in the past 100 years is forgivable, since there is just too much that has happened in that area.

But in the interest of accuracy, the document to which you link is not between the Saudis and the Israelis, it's from (Saudi) Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir to (Saudi) Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman--yes, it talks about a proposed way to create peace between Arabs and Israelis, but this is not correspondence between the Saudis and Israelis, as you claim that it is.

In my opinion, and going back to the portions of my comment to which you did not reply, I find this approach to be too little, too late. The Arabs (and more directly, the Palestinian leadership at the time) had a chance to have basically what Al-Jubeir is proposing in regards to Jerusalem, and it was not a kosher (pun intended) plan to them when it was proposed, whereas it was acceptable to the Israelis.

Now that Jerusalem is under Israeli control after numerous wars and attacks (from both sides) in the past ~70 years, it's no surprise that the Saudis want the city to be controlled by an international body now. However, I don't see that happening, because Israel took the opportunities and chances to gain control of that city, and I don't just see them handing it over to be governed by an international body--especially if it would be the UN, who is openly hostile to Israel as a nation.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Israel annexed East Jerusalem years ago and Israel itself considers the united Jerusalem as its territory. The rest of the world simply doesn't formally recognize their claim. And to reinforce that stance, they keep their official embassies in Tel Aviv (while several have consulates in Jerusalem).

This is a relative misrepresentation (or over-simplification), at least in part, as to why the actual embassies are not in Jerusalem.

When Jerusalem was claimed/annexed as Israel's land and, subsequently, a united capital city of the nation, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 478 which called Israel's actions a violation of international law and called on the UN member nations at the time to relocate any diplomatic offices in Jerusalem out of the city. At the time, there were 13 foreign embassies located there, and it was not until as recently as 2006 that all of them were completely gone from the city.

The main reason that embassies do not exist there is not necessarily because individual nations might not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital city, but because membership in the UN bullied them into removing their embassies and 'strongly suggests' that they keep them out, especially after the condemnation (which means nothing) of Trump for planning to move ours back there.

The funny thing about that is, the U.S. Constitution gives Trump the right to recognize whichever capital cities in countries that he deems appropriate and to also direct the locations of our embassies. If the UN doesn't like that--meh.

In reality, though, there are other nations considering moving their embassies back to Jerusalem after the U.S. led the way in recognizing a sovereign nation's claim as to its own capital city. In my opinion, all nations should be willing to be so logical in their approach, as sovereign nations should be able to determine their own capitals without concern as to what the UN thinks about the decision.

(Yes, I hold much disdain for the UN and how it works and the conflicts that it actually causes in the name of diplomacy and peace. Sure, it might aid in keeping national borders stable, but overall, I think that it causes more problems than it claims that it fixes.)

But here's a question that lingers in my head--if the annexation of East Jerusalem is an actual problem and an encroachment upon Palestinian land, why in the ever-loving hell was a West Bank barrier allowed to be constructed and continued for years? Why hasn't it been removed in its entirety by Palestine or a coalition of Palestinian allies to negate what they claim is illegal control over their land? It's not like this just happened yesterday--there was 112 miles of barrier already completed in 2003, and construction was happening as recently as 3 years ago (give or take a few months' time).

The obvious lack of a concerted effort by Palestine to re-assert control over their claimed land speaks volumes to me, and probably to the international community as a whole. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer diplomacy over war and death and destruction, but I'll tell you, as a sovereign nation, if you're not willing to take back that which you claim is yours by force if decades of diplomacy is resulting in increased loss of control of your land, maybe you are passively relinquishing that land in the eyes of many.

And here's something to consider: While Palestine is recognized by 136 of the 194 member nations of the UN, only 17 members specifically recognize its border being that of the pre-Six Day War boundaries. Even in the UN, it's not easily known as to which members see Palestine's borders being an agreed-upon location. There may be an 'official stance' on the borders, but I concern myself more with what individual sovereign nations think, not the UN as a single entity.

a reply to: AMPTAH

But did the European Ashkenazi Jews really "come back" to Israel, or is this their first time there?

Haha, I deliberately avoid the Khazar issue. I've seen "evidence" from both sides of the conspiracy & I have my doubts about parts from each side's argument.

So there are two types of Jews, those that are "Converts to Judaism" , and those that are "Descendants of the original inhabitants of that land that is now Israel."

For the record, anyone who's a member of the Tribe of Judah is Jewish, but not all Jewish people follow the religion of Judaism. In fact, each denomination of Judaism also has different criteria for who counts as being Jewish.

That's one reason I don't find it productive to speculate on which groups are "real" Jews and which ones are not. There are even Jewish atheists.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Just for the record, I like your posts & I'm not intentionally ignoring them either. I just don't have much to add to them. My whole point in responding in this thread was simply to point people in a direction so they can learn about why this is such a sensitive issue. Well, that and to point out who "Palestinians" are in the first place.

Your posts have added a lot more information and have hopefully given readers even more food for thought and more subjects to research if they want to understand this topic better. Everything I've typed so far is overly simplified, but as I said in this post (HERE), I'm not in the mood to write a novel on this subject.


In every thread on the Trump-Jerusalem topic that I've actually responded in, I've tried really hard not to include my personal feelings on the topic (other than mentioning that I'd prefer for Jerusalem to be an international city). I've done that because it cuts me deeply for many reasons & I simply don't see the point in getting pissed off w/complete strangers about a topic that none of us can change anyway. I'm mentioning that because there are a few points that you've made that I'd normally respond to, but with my admitted "butthurtness" over the subject, I've decided that sometimes it's best if I just keep my mouth shut on those points.

The palestinians have been screwed over. There's no doubt. But they've also not made it easy on themselves.

For the sake of their children, they need to find a way to peace and to find normalization in their daily lives. Its been 2-3 generations now...it seems clear that they won't win. The only reason they haven't been routed is due to restraint on behalf of the aggressors in the area.

Im no fan of Israel as a nation (although harbor no ill will towards its people).