EU to recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital

[M.Dancer]

It is possible it will happen...

But not probable.

Helps if you read the article first instead of just pasting the link you saw at another site and thought, wow, this is really cool...in order not to look like a clueless twit.

[Guest American Woman]

It is possible it will happen .....

A lot of things are possible, but stating that they happened, as fact rather than a possibility, is incorrect, false, untrue. And as I already stated, very dishonest.

Speaking of dishonesty, you still haven't shown the courage to admit that you were wrong. All you've done is try to cover the mistake you made. Very dishonest of you and I'm not impressed.

More dishonesty. I already responded to your claim that I was wrong. It's right there in the thread, plain as can be. Bring this up one more time, in one more thread, and I'll report it.

Edited December 7, 2009 by American Woman

[naomiglover]

More dishonesty. I already responded to your claim that I was wrong. It's right there in the thread, plain as can be. Bring this up one more time, in one more thread, and I'll report it.

Are you threatening me for calling you on your dishonest behaviour? I'm not impressed.

You never admitted that you were wrong and you continue to falsely claim that you were not wrong, so I am calling you on it. Just because you pressed reply, it does not mean that you admitted to being wrong.

[naomiglover]

Regarding the title, it is not much different than all these titles that are being used. Everyone is expecting it to pass:

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestinian state

EU to recognize East JERUSALEM as capital of Palestinian state

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestinian state

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital

EU to Recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian Capital

EU to recognize 'east' Jerusalem as 'Palestinian' capital

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital

EU will recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine

Edited December 7, 2009 by naomiglover

[Guest American Woman]

Regarding the title, it is not much different than all these titles that are circulation. Everyone is expecting it to pass:

You're right, it's not much different. In fact, it's the same; but I think all of those titles are examples of shoddy journalism.

And for the record, "everyone" isn't expecting it to pass, as I clearly pointed out in my first response.

Edited December 7, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Regarding the title, it is not much different than all these titles that are being used. Everyone is expecting it to pass:

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestinian state

EU to recognize East JERUSALEM as capital of Palestinian state

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestinian state

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital

EU to Recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian Capital

EU to recognize 'east' Jerusalem as 'Palestinian' capital

EU to recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital

EU will recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine

Too bad you couldn't find a legitimate news source....mainly because editors tend to READ the story before assigning a head.

[myata]

You're right, it's not much different. In fact, it's the same; but I think all of those titles are examples of shoddy journalism.

Not really; I took pain to check some of the references, and at least this article:

http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/israel-news/83-israeli-news/2168-eu-to-recognize-east-jerusalem-as-capital-of-palestinian-state.html

which is #3 in the list of the posted links states very close to the OP's claims (i.e. that EU is indeed expected to recognise unilateral declaration of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital). The problem with the OP is that a wrong link has been referenced. Now that it's been corrected, there should be no issues with the subject of the OP.

[Guest American Woman]

Saying the EU is expected to recognize it is different from saying "the EU to recognize..." and the latter is shoddy journalism; stating an expectation as a fact is simply not good reporting. Furthermore, I've read opinions from others who don't expect it will happen, so time will tell.

Edited December 7, 2009 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

No, but I'm simply trying see the whole picture, while all you want to say is that abuses and atrocities by one side (faction) somehow excuse or justify those by the other. Creating an endless chain of violence in which these episodes are bound to happen over and again. While selective vision would go a long way helping us to see and condemn some, and conveniently ignore and discard the others. Confirming the foregone conclusion that we we absolutely rightful and justified in whatever we were doing from the start.

P.S. obviously, authenticity of this or any other Web material cannot be assumed without verfication as is not implied in any way.

Do what you have to do in order justify your support of murderers.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop the personal attacks and just focus on discussing the topic. Those of you who continue to make personal attacks run the risk of having your posting privileges suspended.

Ch. A.

[myata]

Saying the EU is expected to recognize it is different from saying "the EU to recognize..." and the latter is shoddy journalism;

I'm not sure how far should we go into lexical analysis, and it could hardly be reasonable to hold a poster on a general board to a standard more rigorous than that applied to professional journalists.

In any case, if this happens, I'll applaud it as the first real positive development in the history of this conflict for a long while. The kind of reality check act that I long expected (but now doubt would ever come forth) from US administration, the chief and massive supporter of Israel's government. It's obvious as can be that just words won't cut it any longer, and double faces diplomacy, without actual result will lead nowhere.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure how far should we go into lexical analysis, and it could hardly be reasonable to hold a poster on a general board to a standard more rigorous than that applied to professional journalists.

And I acknowledged, once given the links, that it was the same, but that I consider it shoddy journalism; in other words, I don't think shoddy journalism makes something suddenly acceptable. So I'm not sure where your "more rigorous standard than applied to professional journalists" comment is coming from.

In any case, if this happens, I'll applaud it as the first real positive development in the history of this conflict for a long while. The kind of reality check act that I long expected (but now doubt would ever come forth) from US administration, the chief and massive supporter of Israel's government. It's obvious as can be that just words won't cut it any longer, and double faces diplomacy, without actual result will lead nowhere.

Do you really think the EU recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital would change anything, other than in theory/on paper? Do you think Israel is suddenly going to cave in just because of the EU's "recognition?"

Edited to add:

It doesn't look as if the EU will be recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital:

Israelis and Palestinians should share East Jerusalem, European Union

foreign ministers said Tuesday.

The statement released Tuesday was reportedly toned down from earlier drafts submitted by the Swedish EU presidency that called for East Jerusalem to become part of a new Palestinian state, the EUobserver said. link

Edited December 9, 2009 by American Woman

[myata]

Do you really think the EU recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital would change anything, other than in theory/on paper?

But of course I do. For once it'll show Israels' government that their little expropriation tricks, that are no less than an ongoing policy of aggression will no longer be ignored by international community. This is like lightyears ahead of the current policy "heed what I do" (give you billions in aid no matter what you do in the occupied territories) and forget what I say (the warnings and calls that somehow never transform into act).

Do you think Israel is suddenly going to cave in just because of the EU's "recognition?"

I doubt it'll happen suddenly, especially given massive unconditional US aid that certainly sends a confusing signal, but it'd definitely be a start in the right direction. Recall South Africa. When international community comes united on board of the right solution, things just may move, eventually.

[Guest American Woman]

But of course I do. For once it'll show Israels' government that their little expropriation tricks, that are no less than an ongoing policy of aggression will no longer be ignored by international community. This is like lightyears ahead of the current policy "heed what I do" (give you billions in aid no matter what you do in the occupied territories) and forget what I say (the warnings and calls that somehow never transform into act).

As I pointed out in my edit to my previous post, it doesn't look as if the EU is going to be recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

I really don't think it would have made much difference anyway, other than to anger Israel. In practice, I don't think it would have meant anything as I don't think it would have affected the U.S. view, either.

I doubt it'll happen suddenly, especially given massive unconditional US aid that certainly sends a confusing signal, but it'd definitely be a start in the right direction. Recall South Africa. When international community comes united on board of the right solution, things just may move, eventually.

When it happens, I think it will be because both sides are ready. That's the only solution I see as working. I don't think anyone else can force them into it, and I don't think an EU declaration would do anything to make it happen.

[myata]

When it happens, I think it will be because both sides are ready. That's the only solution I see as working. I don't think anyone else can force them into it, and I don't think an EU declaration would do anything to make it happen.

Ha, that's funny. And when would an occupier and annexer, enjoying full and unconditional support of a major political and military power on the planet "be ready" to let go of some of their most prised acquisitions?

I mean, what would make them do so? Natural goodness? The moral power of peaceful democracy?

Well, we've seen very well where the policy of "not angering Israel" (BTW - what about "angering" Palestinians in the process, that consideration shouldn't count in our policies? No?) has been going (in case we forgot: from less than hundred thousand to over half million of illegal settlers and counting, daily).

No, given that stellar track record of "success" it's definitely the time to try new approaches and strategies (if we really want to see resolution of the conflict - which is a no small qualification). There's no harm, after all, it can't be any worse than what we have now with that "friendly mediation" game, that assures eternal frindship to a perpetrator of aggression, but also somehow supposed to work for peace (or is it "peace", really, i.e. give our bud what they want and shut up?).

[Guest American Woman]

Ha, that's funny. And when would an occupier and annexer, enjoying full and unconditional support of a major political and military power on the planet "be ready" to let go of some of their most prised acquisitions?

Are you referring to the U.S.'s support of Israel? Because it's not "full and unconditional."

As to when, I don't see it happening in this generation, on either side -- because there are two sides to this conflict -- so perhaps in the next generation. I think there are young people on both sides who are tired of living with the conflict, fighting, death, so perhaps it will be their generation that says 'enough!' and makes concessions to peace.

I mean, what would make them do so? Natural goodness? The moral power of peaceful democracy?

I think I got ahead of myself and answered those questions above.

Well, we've seen very well where the policy of "not angering Israel" (BTW - what about "angering" Palestinians in the process, that consideration shouldn't count in our policies? No?) has been going (in case we forgot: from less than hundred thousand to over half million of illegal settlers and counting, daily).

Israel isn't getting support for those settlements.

No, given that stellar track record of "success" it's definitely the time to try new approaches and strategies (if we really want to see resolution of the conflict - which is a no small qualification).

Ultimately, I think whether or not "we" want to see a resolution has little bearing on whether or not there will be a resolution. That was my point. I don't think "we" can fix it. I think the desire has to come from within. Seriously. How do you propose we "make" Israel give up East Jerusalem?

There's no harm, after all, it can't be any worse than what we have now with that "friendly mediation" game, that assures eternal frindship to a perpetrator of aggression, but also somehow supposed to work for peace (or is it "peace", really, i.e. give our bud what they want and shut up?).

I think causing a new sense of anger could result in harm. But I feel compelled to point out that Palestine certainly "perpetrates aggression," so I don't understand why you see appeasing one aggressor as any better than what you perceive as appeasing another aggressor. At any rate, I truly believe that both sides have to want peace more than they want anything else, in order for there to be peace.

[myata]

Are you referring to the U.S.'s support of Israel? Because it's not "full and unconditional."

Well, moneys for economic assistance and military cooperation flow to Israels regardless of what and how it does in the occupied territories, I really fail to see any conditions in that sense. If you know something that I don't I'll certainly be thankful for update. Of course we all know that talk is cheap.

I think I got ahead of myself and answered those questions above.

OK, just to make sure I got it right. Israel maintains massive military presence in the territories, annexes East Jerusalem, keeps building illegal settlements like there's no tomorrow, we happily pump moneys and arms into it, and then all of a sudden, in the next generation or one after it, it gives it all up and withdraws. Sounds believable, just like this whole friendly mediation business

Israel isn't getting support for those settlements.

No, God forbit. It's getting them for something else, so it could invest other money in the construction of settlements. Makes all the difference!

Ultimately, I think whether or not "we" want to see a resolution has little bearing on whether or not there will be a resolution.

It may be so, but we could start by making sure that our own role does not contribute to prolongation and escalalation of conflict, by giving massive practical support to any one side that is involved in acts of aggression (of which construction of settlements in occupied territories is as fine example as can be).

I think causing a new sense of anger could result in harm.

Oh really? What about sense of anger created by any one illegal housing unit that's being constructed on occupied land? Is it not "new", or it does not create "anger" as you know it, or that kind of anger doesn't matter?

But I feel compelled to point out that Palestine certainly "perpetrates aggression,"

I'd feel compelled to qualify that that as "some Palestinian militant factions", unless you can point to evidence of government of Palestine being involved in acts of aggression against Israel. As the government of Israel clearly is, by authorising construction of illegal settlements.

so I don't understand why you see appeasing one aggressor as any better than what you perceive as appeasing another aggressor.

No, you got me wrong, I'm not calling for appeasement of any aggressor, only that no aggressor should be aided by foreign powers, while just and fair principles of settlement of the conflict should be stated clearly, just as it's expected to be done by EU ministers.

At any rate, I truly believe that both sides have to want peace more than they want anything else, in order for there to be peace.

I happen to truly believe that too. As I truly understand that helping one side in the conflict in maintaining its massive superiority and dominance is hardly a way to promote desire for peace, very likely, quite the opposite.

[Guest American Woman]

What about sense of anger created by any one illegal housing unit that's being constructed on occupied land? Is it not "new", or it does not create "anger" as you know it, or that kind of anger doesn't matter?

I've already quite clearly said that those settlements aren't being supported. I've already said in threads about the settlements that Israel is wrong in continuing with the settlements.

I'd feel compelled to qualify that that as "some Palestinian militant factions", unless you can point to evidence of government of Palestine being involved in acts of aggression against Israel. As the government of Israel clearly is, by authorising construction of illegal settlements.

Since the government of Palestine has done nothing to stop the "militant factions," the government is involved in acts of aggression against Israel; more to the point, Hamas has been involved in Palestine's politics.

No, you got me wrong, I'm not calling for appeasement of any aggressor, only that no aggressor should be aided by foreign powers, while just and fair principles of settlement of the conflict should be stated clearly, just as it's expected to be done by EU ministers.

Both Israel and Palestine are aided by foreign powers, yet I see you only applauding an action that would clearly appease Palestine. Perhaps you've spoken out against Palestine in the past and I've missed it, just as you apparently missed my saying I don't support the settlements.

[myata]

I've already quite clearly said that those settlements aren't being supported. I've already said in threads about the settlements that Israel is wrong in continuing with the settlements.

Saying may not be enough though, if the aggressor doesn't change their behavior and we're still providing massive amounts of support to them. Wouldn't it be like, mixed signal? Which one is our true self, when we say "don't build" or when we turn around and shell out money for military contracts?

Since the government of Palestine has done nothing to stop the "militant factions," the government is involved in acts of aggression against Israel;

Being very specific here, we'd need to qualify that statement also. First, it appears to be doing at least something, as there hasn't been many reports of attacs from West bank on Isreal proper of late; secondly, is the alleged inaction deliberate or willing, or perhaps, unavoidable? The government of Israel has been running the program of illegal construction deliberately and willingly, there can't be any doubts about that.

more to the point, Hamas has been involved in Palestine's politics.

Yet it's not the official government, according to our own decision to not recognise it as such, so we can't now credibly claim that its acts represent the official position of Palestine, can we?

Both Israel and Palestine are aided by foreign powers,

Aided in slightly different ways. I'll be OK if all aid to Israel is limited to humanitarian and development assistence, just like that to Palestine, do we agree on that? No financial loans and military contracts, while either one of the sides is involved in acts of aggression. Makes sense?

yet I see you only applauding an action that would clearly appease Palestine. Perhaps you've spoken out against Palestine in the past and I've missed it, just as you apparently missed my saying I don't support the settlements.

I do not speak "for" or "against" any one side, because I've no personal involvement and it makes no sense as in the approach of seeking peace. I do believe that to advance toward it, in reality more than in words, one has to do two things, 1) call, and act for all parties to stop all acts of aggression, in any form; and 2) state clearly and unambiguously, the fair principles of settlement of the conflict.

I applaud the EU's initiative because it is advancing the possibility of peace, nothing to do this "appeasement". However if fair approach to resolution causes dramatic innacceptance by one side, it may give us good indication as to where the main obstacle to peace may be found.

[Guest American Woman]

Saying may not be enough though, if the aggressor doesn't change their behavior and we're still providing massive amounts of support to them. Wouldn't it be like, mixed signal? Which one is our true self, when we say "don't build" or when we turn around and shell out money for military contracts?

My point is, Palestine receives international aid, too, in spite of the terrorist acts committed against Israel. In fact, per capita, Palestine is one of the largest recipients of aid.

Being very specific here, we'd need to qualify that statement also. First, it appears to be doing at least something, as there hasn't been many reports of attacs from West bank on Isreal proper of late; secondly, is the alleged inaction deliberate or willing, or perhaps, unavoidable? The government of Israel has been running the program of illegal construction deliberately and willingly, there can't be any doubts about that.

First I have to ask you to define "of late," and then you'll have to convince me that it means something. Secondly, if you believe that the Palestinian government can't do anything to reign in Hamas, to arrest those involved in violence against Israel, if you believe it's unavoidable that the government isn't doing anything regarding Hamas, sounds as if you are giving Palestine a pass. Isn't that why our nations went after the Taliban, after all? Because terrorist organizations were being harbored by them in Afghanistan?

Yet it's not the official government, according to our own decision to not recognise it as such, so we can't now credibly claim that its acts represent the official position of Palestine, can we?

It really makes no difference if the acts are "official" or "unofficial" since they are occurring, and the Israelis are just as dead whether the acts were/are officially or unofficially acts of the government; furthermore, to my knowledge, Palestine hasn't arrested any of the members or banned the organization. As noted above, the U.S. didn't recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's official government either, yet we held them accountable for what was happening at their hand in Afghanistan. If Palestine, by its inaction, is going to leave the fighting to groups like Hamas rather than an official military, then it has to be held accountable.

Aided in slightly different ways. I'll be OK if all aid to Israel is limited to humanitarian and development assistence, just like that to Palestine, do we agree on that? No financial loans and military contracts, while either one of the sides is involved in acts of aggression. Makes sense?

You yourself pointed out that aid in one area frees up money to be spent in others, so I'm not sure what your suggestion would accomplish. And as I already pointed out, per capita, Palestine is one of the largest recipients of international aid, so it's not as if only one side is receiving aid.

I do not speak "for" or "against" any one side, because I've no personal involvement and it makes no sense as in the approach of seeking peace. I do believe that to advance toward it, in reality more than in words, one has to do two things, 1) call, and act for all parties to stop all acts of aggression, in any form; and 2) state clearly and unambiguously, the fair principles of settlement of the conflict.

What one who's uninvolved sees as "fair principles of settlement" isn't necessarily going to be seen that way by those involved; and what one side sees as fair, the other side likely doesn't. That's why I say it has to ultimately be up to them to come to their own terms of peace. They have to want peace more than they want anything else, once they tire of the fighting and the death.

I applaud the EU's initiative because it is advancing the possibility of peace, nothing to do this "appeasement". However if fair approach to resolution causes dramatic innacceptance by one side, it may give us good indication as to where the main obstacle to peace may be found.

As I pointed out previously, the EU isn't recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital; they changed the wording in the proposal to soften their stance. Furthermore, I see it as appeasing Palestine to recognize what one side wants over what the other side wants. How can it be perceived as anything else? I sure don't see it as "advancing the possibility of peace" when it will clearly anger one side. You honestly think the EU's recognition of East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital would bring Israel closer to peace with Palestine?

[myata]

My point is, Palestine receives international aid, too, in spite of the terrorist acts committed against Israel. In fact, per capita, Palestine is one of the largest recipients of aid.

Yet with no comparison with the amounts of aid Israel gets from US:

"Since the 1970s, Israel has been one of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid.[23] While it is mostly military aid, in the past a portion was dedicated to economic assistance. In 2004, the second-largest recipient of economic foreign aid from the United States was Israel, second to post-war Iraq. In terms of per capita value Israel ranks first..."

"President Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposes $53.8 billion for appropriated international affairs' programs. From that budget proposes $5.7 billion for foreign military financing, military education, and peacekeeping operations. From $5.7 billion, $2.8 billion, almost 50% is appropriated for Israel."

(from Wikipedia: US military and economic aid", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations)

US has been and remains the one major sponsor of Israel, regardless the latter's acts in the occupied territories.

First I have to ask you to define "of late," and then you'll have to convince me that it means something.

Let's say, since the latest round of persuasion to restart peace process has started.

Secondly, if you believe that the Palestinian government can't do anything to reign in Hamas, to arrest those involved in violence against Israel, if you believe it's unavoidable that the government isn't doing anything regarding Hamas, sounds as if you are giving Palestine a pass.

Indeed by all objective indications, the official government in West Bank has very limited means to "reign in" Hamas in Gasa. That's quite a distance away from Israel's government conscious and deliberate approval of expansion of settlements. No, I'm not giving anybody a pass. Only wondering why a deliberate, blatant and persisting acts of aggression from Isreal never cause the same kind of strong and unmistakable (and could it be at all, practical) response, as militant attacks from terrorist factions?

It really makes no difference if the acts are "official" or "unofficial" since they are occurring, and the Israelis are just as dead whether the acts were/are officially or unofficially acts of the government; furthermore, to my knowledge, Palestine hasn't arrested any of the members or banned the organization.

I'm glad we understand that. And if do (really?), we'd have no problem assessing Israel's persistent and ongoing policy of settlement of occupied territories, as well as its hugely disproportionate military operations, like the one in Lebanon.

But do we (understand and accept it), really?

As noted above, the U.S. didn't recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's official government either, yet we held them accountable for what was happening at their hand in Afghanistan. If Palestine, by its inaction, is going to leave the fighting to groups like Hamas rather than an official military, then it has to be held accountable.

You live in the same house with a violent relative, are you to be "held accountable" for their actions? Looks like your standards of justice stretch (and shrink) on demand, here, they are so precise and incompromising, and there - barely see.

You yourself pointed out that aid in one area frees up money to be spent in others, so I'm not sure what your suggestion would accomplish.

Would accomplish clear and unmistakable position that acts of hostility and aggression by any one side are unwelcome and won't be tolerated. We already addressed the question of who gets the most assistence.

What one who's uninvolved sees as "fair principles of settlement" isn't necessarily going to be seen that way by those involved; and what one side sees as fair, the other side likely doesn't.

Agreed, agressor and occuier wouldn't necessarily see abandoning occupied possessions as fair. As e.g. Saddam in Kuwait. Why you want to treat the two cases so differently is a question only could answer. Guess there're good aggressions and bad ones, I can't get another logical explanation for that position.

I sure don't see it as "advancing the possibility of peace" when it will clearly anger one side. You honestly think the EU's recognition of East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital would bring Israel closer to peace with Palestine?

Oh no, we shouldn't have ever "angered" Saddam when he came into possession of Kuwait, should we have? Or it does depend on who's doing what? Peaceful democracies - full democratic rights to grab bits and pieces of their neighbours. Bad and ugly dictators - no-no!