Words sentences that are offensive

[webfact]

Trump says he wants two-state solution for Mideast conflict

By Steve Holland

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a bilateral meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 26, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he wanted a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the clearest expression yet of his administration's support for such an outcome.

 

The Trump administration has in the past said it would support a two-state solution if both sides agreed to it.

 

Trump, in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations General Assembly, also said he wanted to unveil a peace plan in the next two to three months.

 

"I like a two-state solution. That's what I think works best ... That’s my feeling," said Trump.

 

Netanyahu has said any future Palestinian state must be demilitarized and must recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people - conditions that Palestinians say show he is not sincere about peacemaking.

 

The United States' Arab allies are strong proponents of a two-state solution.

 

At a news conference in New York later on Wednesday, Trump said he would be open to a one-state solution if that was the preference of the parties themselves, a position he has previously stated.

 

"If the Israelis and the Palestinians want one state, that's OK with me. If they want two states, that's OK with me," he said. "I'm happy if they're happy."

 

Doubts have mounted over whether Trump’s administration can secure what he has called the “ultimate deal” since December, when the U.S. president recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and then moved the U.S. Embassy there.

 

Trump said "it is a dream of mine" to secure an agreement before the end of his term in office, which ends in early 2021.

 

"I don't want to do it in my second term. We'll do other things in my second term," he said. "I think a lot of progress has been made."

 

Netanyahu said after meeting Trump he was "not surprised" at the U.S. president's preference for a two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians, Israeli media reports said.

 

Jerusalem is one of the major issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides claim it as a capital. Trump’s move outraged the Palestinians, who have since boycotted Washington’s peace efforts, led by Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner.

 

The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Israel captured those territories in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed East Jerusalem in a move not recognised internationally. It regards all of the city as its eternal and indivisible capital.

 

Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said: "The two-state solution means to us that we have a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the only way to achieve peace."

 

Rdainah said the Palestinians wanted to resolve all the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - which include borders, settlements, refugees, security and the status of Jerusalem - "according to United Nations resolutions."

 

Rdainah, speaking in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, refused to be drawn further, saying Abbas would make the Palestinian position clear in his speech to the General Assembly on Thursday.

 

Asked what Israel might have to give up in return for the embassy's move to Jerusalem, Trump replied: "I took probably the biggest chip off the table. And so obviously we have to make a fair deal, we have to do something. Deals have to be good for both parties ... Israel got the first chip and it's a big one."

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland and Arshad Mohammed; additional reporting by Ali Sawafta in Ramallah and Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; Writing by Yara Bayoumy; editing by James Dalgleish and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-27

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"I like a two-state solution. That's what I think works best ... That’s my feeling," said Trump.

As long as he goes by his 'feelings ' that's ok, i mean he was heard saying that 'one state, two states, all good, whatever works it's ok by him', and with that man the fate of the middle east rest...

[Boon Mee]

Obviously, that is the only workable solution. 

[Tug]

send Trump in un armed and unescorted he can scare them with his bone spurs

[arithai12]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

"I like a two-state solution. That's what I think works best ... That’s my feeling," said Trump

I think he means USA and Israel.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump says he wants two-state solution for Mideast conflict

That's not very creative as by Trump's policies the two-state solution already exists:

the Jewish State of Israel and the United States of America.

[dexterm]

OP...
'Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said: "The two-state solution means to us that we have a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the only way to achieve peace."

Rdainah said the Palestinians wanted to resolve all the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - which include borders, settlements, refugees, security and the status of Jerusalem - "according to United Nations resolutions."'

 

The Palestinian formula for peace in a two state solution has been clear for decades and supported by the the whole Arab world in the Arab Peace intitiative 2002...3 core issues: East Jerusalem as its capital, recognition of the return of Palestinian refugees (that could include actual return of some or compensation for confiscated property), 67 borders including land swaps.

 

Trump appears to have undermined the first two:
 "I took probably the biggest chip off the table [Jerusalem]." Maybe just talk ...possibly his advisers left room to negotiate final boundaries there. 
Then he recently tried to make Palestinian refugees and their right of return disappear off the table too by withdrawing funding from UNWRA. 

Who knows what he has in mind for the third of the cornerstones: land and resources.

 

At Partition Jews (only 33% of the population) were unfairly alloted by foreign powers 55% of the land. They then went on to seize even more so that by 1967 they had 78% of Palestine. They have since colonized even more of the West Bank transferring 600,000 settlers there.

 

The Palestinians at Oslo in 1993 accepted the loss of their previous land. They have compromised enough, and I do not think they will accept anything less than 22% of historic Palestine in a two state solution.

 

So unless Trump and Israel are willing to seriously negotiate a just peace, his ultimate deal is a waste of time, and like a call from a scammer, the Palestinians should simply just hang up.

 

Then again maybe its just his opening hard offer?

 

There are all sorts of other possible permutations to negotiate besides one/two states such as a (EU? UK? style) confederation, dual citizenship for 600,000 Jewish settlers and the same number of returning Palestinian refugees; Palestinians vote in a Palestinian parliament, Israelis in theirs.

 

We'll see what Trump's plan is. 

But if he fails, thereafter the right wing Israeli government may let the situation drift into a single state with overt apartheid sparking a global anti Israel campaign. Israel could end up losing its entire Zionist dream if that happened.

Edited September 27, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

OP...
'Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said: "The two-state solution means to us that we have a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the only way to achieve peace."

Rdainah said the Palestinians wanted to resolve all the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - which include borders, settlements, refugees, security and the status of Jerusalem - "according to United Nations resolutions."'

 

The Palestinian formula for peace in a two state solution has been clear for decades and supported by the the whole Arab world in the Arab Peace intitiative 2002...3 core issues: East Jerusalem as its capital, recognition of the return of Palestinian refugees (that could include actual return of some or compensation for confiscated property), 67 borders including land swaps.

 

Trump appears to have undermined the first two:
 "I took probably the biggest chip off the table [Jerusalem]." Maybe just talk ...possibly his advisers left room to negotiate final boundaries there. 
Then he recently tried to make Palestinian refugees and their right of return disappear off the table too by withdrawing funding from UNWRA. 

Who knows what he has in mind for the third of the cornerstones: land and resources.

 

At Partition Jews (only 33% of the population) were unfairly alloted by foreign powers 55% of the land. They then went on to seize even more so that by 1967 they had 78% of Palestine. They have since colonized even more of the West Bank transferring 600,000 settlers there.

 

The Palestinians at Oslo in 1993 accepted the loss of their previous land. They have compromised enough, and I do not think they will accept anything less than 22% of historic Palestine in a two state solution.

 

So unless Trump and Israel are willing to seriously negotiate a just peace, his ultimate deal is a waste of time, and like a call from a scammer, the Palestinians should simply just hang up.

 

Then again maybe its just his opening hard offer?

 

There are all sorts of other possible permutations to negotiate besides one/two states such as a (EU? UK? style) confederation, dual citizenship for 600,000 Jewish settlers and the same number of returning Palestinian refugees; Palestinians vote in a Palestinian parliament, Israelis in theirs.

 

We'll see what Trump's plan is. 

But if he fails, thereafter the right wing Israeli government may let the situation drift into a single state with overt apartheid sparking a global anti Israel campaign. Israel could end up losing its entire Zionist dream if that happened.

 

 

What you call the "Palestinian formula" is essentially, on a good day, the Saudi Arabian Initiative. That is, not something which the Palestinians came up with nor accepted without applied pressure. If anything, the Palestinians are rather notorious for not coming up with ideas regarding conflict resolution. Further, there is no "Palestinian formula", in the sense that there is no Palestinian unity - just yesterday, the Hamas openly asserted Abbas wasn't a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. You may try to play this down, deflect or ignore - but it won't change facts. Notably, the so-called "formula" refers to issues in vague terms, thereby allowing it to dodge the actual issues involved, and their problematic nature.

 

As for your usual support of the "whole Arab world" nonsense - it wasn't exactly the case even back then, and it certainly isn't now. It also leaves aside that other, non-Arab, but regional player. And never mind that, Hamas did not and does not embrace the notion. Same goes for the "decades" part - nicely glossing over them decades of Palestinian rejectionism and how they contributed to the current mess. Again, feel free to make up alternative facts, doesn't change reality.

 

Your description of Trump's moves is misleading. Trump didn't recognize Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem, or Jerusalem's final status. This is clearly stated in the relevant announcement. Trump's move vs. UNRWA relates to how the US's position and relations with the organizations. It doesn't follow that the UN, or the rest of the world needs to comply or adopt a similar stance. Your hyperbole on both counts is dully noted. Hardly the first time this was discussed - but that goes for pretty much all your bogus talking points.

 

And the "obligatory" hypocrisy - first citing UN resolutions as a sound basis for agreement, then going on about UN resolutions being "unfair". Of course, the second part is misleadingly presented as "allotted by foreign powers", which better fits the agenda.

 

Nothing in your one-sided pseudo-historical "accounts" ever addresses the role played by the Palestinians, or Arab countries sponsoring them. All you seem to care about are extreme, vehement diatribes, which read like propaganda cut outs from Palestinian sources.

 

I will point out, again, that whenever the Palestinians chose rejectionism and "struggle" over compromise, their circumstances and situation worsened. Had they chose differently, at any given past historical junction, their lot would have been better - even to the point of taking up that "struggle" from a much better position. Your bit about "compromised enough" is just an extension of the same rationale which led the Palestinians thus far. Good luck with that.

 

Other than in your rants, there are no realistic and viable alternatives to the two-state solution. Not if one actually cares about avoiding civil unrest, communal strife and yet another part of the ME descending into chaos. Your social engineering games are about as connected to reality as the rest of the of your post.

 

And the last bit, IMO, is what you actually look forward to. A whole new range of opportunities to go on them vehement rants of yours.

[Scott]

Troll posts reported and removed.  

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

What you call the "Palestinian formula" is essentially, on a good day, the Saudi Arabian Initiative. That is, not something which the Palestinians came up with nor accepted without applied pressure. If anything, the Palestinians are rather notorious for not coming up with ideas regarding conflict resolution. Further, there is no "Palestinian formula", in the sense that there is no Palestinian unity - just yesterday, the Hamas openly asserted Abbas wasn't a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. You may try to play this down, deflect or ignore - but it won't change facts. Notably, the so-called "formula" refers to issues in vague terms, thereby allowing it to dodge the actual issues involved, and their problematic nature.

 

As for your usual support of the "whole Arab world" nonsense - it wasn't exactly the case even back then, and it certainly isn't now. It also leaves aside that other, non-Arab, but regional player. And never mind that, Hamas did not and does not embrace the notion. Same goes for the "decades" part - nicely glossing over them decades of Palestinian rejectionism and how they contributed to the current mess. Again, feel free to make up alternative facts, doesn't change reality.

 

Your description of Trump's moves is misleading. Trump didn't recognize Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem, or Jerusalem's final status. This is clearly stated in the relevant announcement. Trump's move vs. UNRWA relates to how the US's position and relations with the organizations. It doesn't follow that the UN, or the rest of the world needs to comply or adopt a similar stance. Your hyperbole on both counts is dully noted. Hardly the first time this was discussed - but that goes for pretty much all your bogus talking points.

 

And the "obligatory" hypocrisy - first citing UN resolutions as a sound basis for agreement, then going on about UN resolutions being "unfair". Of course, the second part is misleadingly presented as "allotted by foreign powers", which better fits the agenda.

 

Nothing in your one-sided pseudo-historical "accounts" ever addresses the role played by the Palestinians, or Arab countries sponsoring them. All you seem to care about are extreme, vehement diatribes, which read like propaganda cut outs from Palestinian sources.

 

I will point out, again, that whenever the Palestinians chose rejectionism and "struggle" over compromise, their circumstances and situation worsened. Had they chose differently, at any given past historical junction, their lot would have been better - even to the point of taking up that "struggle" from a much better position. Your bit about "compromised enough" is just an extension of the same rationale which led the Palestinians thus far. Good luck with that.

 

Other than in your rants, there are no realistic and viable alternatives to the two-state solution. Not if one actually cares about avoiding civil unrest, communal strife and yet another part of the ME descending into chaos. Your social engineering games are about as connected to reality as the rest of the of your post.

 

And the last bit, IMO, is what you actually look forward to. A whole new range of opportunities to go on them vehement rants of yours.

I suggested a viable path to peace, which the Palestinians clearly endorse in the OP. 

 

You appear to offer no alternatives of your own.

 

If Trump's plan ignores the 3 basic principles outlined in the OP, then it is doomed to failure. The Palestinians will not accept the mere crumbs of a patchwork quilt of non-contiguous bantustans, no Jerusalem and no right of return, with the IDF continuing to control the whole show just as they are now...tantamount to complete subjugation by Israel. The Palestinians have waited 70 years so far ..a mere pinprick in history. Time is on their side. 
 

In the meantime if Trump's plan is the nonsense it is leaked to be, then Israel will continue to dig a deeper hole for itself, moving towards controlling 100% the lives of the majority Palestinian population without granting them equal human and civil rights ..overt apartheid. Something the rest of the world will clearly identitfy. And the struggle for justice will enter a new phase.

 

No colonial enterprise has ever succeeded where a minority rules over the majority.

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by dexterm

[mikebike]

It is clear that some members here have a much better understanding of the issue than 45.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

More of your usual dishonest nonsense and spins, notably ignoring actual points raised.

 

Credit yourself as much as you like, you haven't "suggested" anything, but repeated a position. In the same way the "Palestinians" did not actually endorse it - unless one is bent on ignoring the ongoing schism between the two main Palestinian factions, Abbas's less than firm support and his age/health issues.

 

Other than co-opting a rather mainstream view of a possible solution as your own, or as the Palestinians' - you go on with the usual dishonest style. You could not possibly be ignorant of the many posts in which I expressed support for a two-state solution. The comment made was with regard to your misleading presentation, and glossing over all them details which do not fall in line with the propagandist nature of your posts.

 

Them supposed "3 basic principles" is something which you asserted in your post - the OP mentions a few others. And, of course, you haven't actually demonstrated that Trump's moves even "ignore" said issues.

 

And sure, you can go on about carrying on the "struggle", embracing rejectionism and refusing painful compromises. Advocating tough stances is very easy when carried out from the comfort of an armchair, and without having to suffer the consequences. No actual comment on how this played out for the Palestinians so far, but you seem to have no issues with signing them up for more of the same.

 

Other than engaging in one-sided "alternative" facts, ignoring points raised in response and generally going on vehement rants, you have little to offer when it comes to these topics.

[Bluespunk]

On 9/27/2018 at 2:09 AM, webfact said:

Trump says he wants two-state solution for Mideast conflict

Generally trump says the first thing that pops into his head without any idea on how to carry out such pronouncements. 

 

Can’t allocate any credence to anything he says. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Bluespunk

[DaddyWarbucks]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:36 AM, arithai12 said:

I think he means USA and Israel.

That's it...

Trump and Bibi's two-state solution.

The USA and Israel joined at the hip.