even george bush refused to accept jerusalem as the capital of israel

[GostHacked]

How about pointing out where it says "Jewish State?" Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein. Furthermore, it's not all up to him, is it?

So when the leader of the PLO says that Palestinians will collectively recognize Israel, it's not up to him? IN a way you are right, but as a representative of the Palestinians why is it a problem if they recognize Israel?

[kraychik]

So when the leader of the PLO says that Palestinians will collectively recognize Israel, it's not up to him? IN a way you are right, but as a representative of the Palestinians why is it a problem if they recognize Israel?

What's important about the lack of recognition from the so-called "Palestinians" towards Jewish sovereignty in Israel is that it is indicative of their lack of sincerity towards a real two-state solution (more appropriately known as the two-state delusion) for two different peoples (while ignoring the fact that Muslims already compose majorities in about sixty states). They (the so-called "Palestinians") may as well be recognising another Arab or Muslim state, and the reason they refuse to acknowledge Jewish sovereignty is because they cling to this fantasy that they will actualise the so-called "right of return" in order to destroy Israel as a Jewish state and remake it into another failed state populated with "refugees". More fundamentally, they view the entirety of Israel's land as belonging to them, so they cannot recognise Jewish sovereignty over any of the territory.

[Guest Peeves]

Since Islams maps don't show an Israel, I guess what the world outside of Israel thinks is the capital matters not a pinch of coon shit.

David established Jerusalem as the the Jewish capital when he defeated the Jebusites at Zion. When he repaired the walls and summoned the Arc of the Covenant to Jerusalem. David chose Jerusalem since it belonged neither to the northern tribes nor to his own southern Judah David is said to have conquered a kingdom that stretched from Lebanon to the borders of Eygpt and eastward into (todays) Jordan and Syria, and even placed a garrison in Damascus.

Between 1200 and 800 b.c. the empires of Egypt and Iraq were in eclipse. The 'City Of David' is beyond a doubt the sensible and historical choice as the capital of Israel.

http://image.aish.com/misc/am-yisrael.gif

Quote from Mark Twain: "Concerning the Jews"

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people... His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him.

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished...

All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Standing up to those that would see us destroyed. They usually expose themselves by their selective denigration of our people. Never again!

[Guest Peeves]

So when the leader of the PLO says that Palestinians will collectively recognize Israel, it's not up to him? IN a way you are right, but as a representative of the Palestinians why is it a problem if they recognize Israel?

There are several considerations.

The PLO is not the sole spokesman for the Arabs.

Fatah and Hamas have in their charters the destruction of Israel. See Hezbollah charter as well.

There are factions fermenting hate for Israel, for Jews...Iran a Shia country that funds the terrorists. (Hamas is a terrorist regime by Canada's declaration and other countries.)If ANY sect of Arabs in the region do indeed recognize Israels right to exist on what Muslims consider Muslim land (an unacceptable circumstance EVER!), they would be assassinated as they have been before.

When it comes down to the crunch, Muslims will not, and likely can not at the risk of life limb and family, accept Israel's existence as a a fait accompli.

Arabs may well proclaim a separate country named Palestine, but even so, Israels existence will remain a blight in their territory and be subject to attack.

You see it's not about borders it's about an infidel transgressing on any Holy Muslim land which is comparable in most Muslim's view as blasphemy and inconceivable to Islam as is and as always has been.

The demise of the Islamic conquered world festers and galls the Islamist among them. The many sects of Islam are after centuries still at each others throats. If Shia kill Wahhabi..Sunni and visa versa, what chance is there of ever having an accord among them that will accept Israel.WITH ANY BOUNDRIES>>>>!

[bleeding heart]

Also, they tend disproportionately (way disproportionately) liberal and further Left, which also speaks very well for them.

[Guest Peeves]

How about pointing out where it says "Jewish State?" Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein. Furthermore, it's not all up to him, is it?

It was NOT an agreement, it was an overture, " an opening or initiating move toward negotiations",to an agreement by one negotiating sect of the Arabs.

"Before formally signing the Oslo Declaration of Principles, Yasser Arafat, head of the PLO and Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, agreed to exchange letters concerning specific commitments to the peace process.

Arafat's letter stipulated that the PLO recognized Israel, agreed to solve the conflict by peaceful means, recognized UN Resolution 242, and agreed to amend the PLO Charter to remove those paragraphs that were inconsistent with those undertakings. The PLO Charter calls for "liberation" of all Palestine and destruction of Israel.

Rabin's letter stipulated that Israel would undertake the peace process to normalize relations between the two peoples.

Arafat also sent a separate letter to Jorgen Holst, the Norwegian foreign minister, reiterating the undertaking to stop violent resistance, but omitting any mention of the PLO Charter. Norway was instrumental in mediating the talks between the PLO and Israel that led to the Oslo agreements.

The letters were vague. Arafat's letter did not specify which paragraphs of the charter would be amended, and Rabin's letter did not go into details of withdrawal and normalization.

The commitment to amend the charter was not specified in the Oslo Declaration of Principles. The PNC did hold sessions subsequently to amend the charter, however, it is not clear that the changes are viewed as binding by all Palestinians. The Fatah is the major constituent group of the PLO, and its constitution, which also calls for destruction of Israel, was not amended.

Ami Isseroff

In any case there never was a resolved agreement by Arafat as Bud would like you to think.

[Guest Peeves]

The PLO Charter Amendment That Never Was

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11719#.UGH6f1ZjfqU

Excerpt:

The evidence that there has never been one word changed in the Charter is as follows:

There is not one document that has ever surfaced to support the claim any change in the Charter has ever occurred.

PNC Chairman’s Zanoun’s pre-vote speech specifically stated that no amendment was contemplated and that there was to be a redrafting of the new charter. There is no evidence that a redrafted charter is in existence.

There is no evidence that a legal committee was ever formed pursuant to clause 2 of the April 1996 PNC resolution and no evidence of a new charter (seelink to PNC website at end of article.).

Three Dec. 1998 reaffirmations of Arafat’s January 1998 letter to President Clinton which stated that the consequence of the April 1996 resolution, for which a vast majority of the PNC voted, was an annulment of the specifically enumerated clauses and partial annulments of the other enumerated clauses was an Arafat allegation that never happened.

An affirmation of something that never happened does not convert an event that never occurred into an event that happened.

Thus, all of those reaffirmations of Arafat’s letter to President Clinton were reaffirmations of nothing. (A reaffirmation of a legally defective charter amendment, does not legally convert the legally defective amendment into a legally effective charter amendment.) (A reaffirmation of a fictional false event, doesn’t make the fictional false event any more factual or true.) If there were a real intention on the part of the Palestinian leadership to annul any part of the Charter, all they had to do was to have the Palestinian National Council vote specifically to annul each clause as Arafat alleged in his letter.

[bud]

How about pointing out where it says "Jewish State?" Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein. Furthermore, it's not all up to him, is it?

are you completely obtuse? there is no requirement for the palestinians to recognize israel as the jewish state. this is just more b.s. ad-on condition that israel has created in order to drag its feet.

palestinians were required by international law to accept the state of israel and they did, first in 1988 and again at the oslo accords. what has israel done? confiscate more palestinian land.

[Mr.Canada]

Israel is removing Jewish settlements from Arab lands almost weekly. They're not adding more.

If Israel really wanted to they could take all of Palestine. The Israel military force is far superior to the Palestinian side. It's one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

Israel is trying to promote peace.

[bleeding heart]

Israel is removing Jewish settlements from Arab lands almost weekly. They're not adding more.

Wrong.

[kraychik]

Wrong.

Actually, it's a bit of both. Although of course none of the disputed territory is "Arab land", Israel is dismantling all sorts of small settlements on a regular basis, while increasing settlement around Jerusalem, which the so-called "Palestinians" claim belongs to them. Good for Israel, while there's no partner for peace, keep building.

[bud]

Israel is removing Jewish settlements from Arab lands almost weekly. They're not adding more.

here is some truth:

Population of Jewish settlements in West Bank up 15,000 in a year

Number of settlers has almost doubled in 12 years, increasing obstacles to two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank grew by more than 15,000 in the past year to reach a total that exceeds 350,000 for the first time and has almost doubled in the past 12 years.

Figures from Israel's population registry show a 4.5% increase in the past 12 months. Most of the newcomers moved into settlements that many observers expect to be evacuated in any peace deal leading to a Palestinian state.

There are an additional 300,000 Jews living in settlements across the pre-1967 border in East Jerusalem, the pro-government and mass-circulation newspaper Israel Hayom reported.

If Israel really wanted to they could take all of Palestine. The Israel military force is far superior to the Palestinian side. It's one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

are you some kind of troll? those are funny statements.

Israel is trying to promote peace.

you have to be.

[bud]

oh and more:

All settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law. US state department spokesman, Patrick Ventrell, said recently: "We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalise settlement outposts."

link

[bleeding heart]

Actually, it's a bit of both. Although of course none of the disputed territory is "Arab land", Israel is dismantling all sorts of small settlements on a regular basis, while increasing settlement around Jerusalem, which the so-called "Palestinians" claim belongs to them. Good for Israel, while there's no partner for peace, keep building.

Continuing with the settlements is itself a direct obstacle to any possible peace, so you're contradicting yourself.

[kraychik]

Continuing with the settlements is itself a direct obstacle to any possible peace, so you're contradicting yourself.

Except settlements have nothing to do with the conflict. You realise that the conflict began before 1967, right? Perhaps you don't.

[bleeding heart]

Except settlements have nothing to do with the conflict.

Hoo, boy.....

[bud]

Except settlements have nothing to do with the conflict. You realise that the conflict began before 1967, right? Perhaps you don't.

i couldn't resist.

settlements, which are basically theft of palestinian land have nothing to do with the conflict? do you expect people to buy that or are you slow?

Edited September 26, 2012 by bud

[Guest American Woman]

are you completely obtuse?

Nope. That would be you.

I said, and I quote, "you're critical only of Israel, as you give a pass to those who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." You're response was: "hey look sherlock: [...]," which said nothing about accepting Israel as a Jewish state. So I naturally asked in response, "How about pointing out where it says 'Jewish State?' Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein."

there is no requirement for the palestinians to recognize israel as the jewish state.

To which you now respond, "there is no requirement for the palestinians to recognize israel as the jewish state."

So I guess my original statement was correct, and it's you who's completely obtuse, eh Sherlock?

Edited September 26, 2012 by American Woman

[kraychik]

Hoo, boy.....

Oh, did another one of your sacred cows just die? I would wager that you couldn't even define a settlement without first doing an internet search. Once you figure it out, get back to me and tell me how it's a cause of conflict.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[bleeding heart]

Oh, did another one of your sacred cows just die?

There's nothing sdacred about it, I'm only mildly (but not terribly) surprised at your ignorance on the subject.

I would wager that you couldn't even define a settlement without first doing an internet search. Once you figure it out, get back to me and tell me how it's a cause of conflict.

Are you serious?

[kraychik]

There's nothing sdacred about it, I'm only mildly (but not terribly) surprised at your ignorance on the subject.

Are you serious?

Absolutely serious. Define settlement for me in the context of the the Israel-Arab conflict.

[bud]

Nope. That would be you.

I said, and I quote, "you're critical only of Israel, as you give a pass to those who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." You're response was: "hey look sherlock: [...]," which said nothing about accepting Israel as a Jewish state. So I naturally asked in response, "How about pointing out where it says 'Jewish State?' Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein."

To which you now respond, "there is no requirement for the palestinians to recognize israel as the jewish state."

So I guess my original statement was correct, and it's you who's completely obtuse, eh Sherlock?

they accept israel's right to exist. period.

that's all that was needed to do. accept israel's right to exist. this 'jewish state' crap is new and it's not required of them.

what now sherlock? more excuses for israel's refusal to follow international?

[kraychik]

Anyways, I have to run, so I'll define it for you, since you obviously don't even know what the term actually means. After the War of Independence (which you probably refer to as Al Nakba) concluded in 1949, and armistice agreement was signed to delineate barriers across which hostility would cease between Israel and the Arab invaders: Egypt, (Trans)Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, and other terrorist groups. These lines held until June of 1967, when Israel secured control over what's known as the West Bank, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights. They are often nonsensically referred to as the "1967 borders". Now, very soon after the Six Day War, Israel annexed the remainder of Jerusalem (known nonsensically today as "East Jerusalem") and began construction of settlements across the Green Line (the 1949 armistice lines). These developments are referred to as "settlements".

So, if these settlements are at the core of the conflict, why did hostilities begin long before 1967? Indeed, they began long before May of 1948. Answer that question honestly and you'll grieve less over your sacred cow narrative having just died.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[GostHacked]

Oh, did another one of your sacred cows just die? I would wager that you couldn't even define a settlement without first doing an internet search. Once you figure it out, get back to me and tell me how it's a cause of conflict.

Personal attack followed by something not based in reality.

[kraychik]

Personal attack followed by something not based in reality.

I'll say it again, the settlements have nothing to do with the conflict. They're a deflection, and a dishonest one, which many folks on the left have bought into. Moreover, they don't even know what the term means.