Obama: Dim hope for end to Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[Lissos]

I think a lot of Israeli jews would like to see whats beneath Al-Aqsa if they would get free hands and without the risk of facing any repercussions.

Perhaps, and if so, what are the Muslims afraid of?

Perhaps evidence that Islam does not have a monopoly on religious history / sanctity there?

Evidence of that (if found) need not lead to anything except equal rights of access / exploration / understanding, if done correctly.

[BKKBobby]

I think a lot of Israeli jews would like to see whats beneath Al-Aqsa if they would get free hands and without the risk of facing any repercussions.

Perhaps, and if so, what are the Muslims afraid of?

Perhaps evidence that Islam does not have a monopoly on religious history / sanctity there?

Evidence of that (if found) need not lead to anything except equal rights of access / exploration / understanding, if done correctly.

But to do so requires demolishing the third holiest site in Islam.

They would be sad to see The Al-Aqsa mosque demolished.

How would a jew feel about demolishing The Wailing Wall?

If a old synagogue of high religious value was currently on top I would be against demolishing it to dig for muslim/christian history that is beneath.

It would be more disgusting than what ISIS does to Assyrian antique artifacts that isnt even connected to religion.

Edited March 25, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Lissos]

But to do so requires demolishing the third holiest site in Islam.

They would be sad to see The Al-Aqsa mosque demolished.

How would a jew feel about demolishing The Wailing Wall?

If a old synagogue of high religious value was currently on top I would be against demolishing it to dig for muslim/christian history that is beneath.

It would be more disgusting than what ISIS does to Assyrian antique artifacts that isnt even connected to religion.

Excavation, equal rights of access, exploration and understanding would require demolition of al-aqsa mosque?

Quite a leap, that. Archaeology is these days a far gentler fine toothcomb affair, but nobody told the Waqf it seems.

[Steely Dan]

Two state delusion. Here is an article which absolutely nails the liberal left myopia about the peace process. In effect they studiously filter out all the ample evidence that the Palestinian leadership have no interest in any settlement so it is immaterial whether Netanyahu or Herzog were elected.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5721/the_two_state_delusion

[arjunadawn]

I agree with this statement totally. The continued pouring of money into the PA and related bank accounts of their personal terrorist henchmen and Hamas only serve to support a decaying warmongering entity. Stop the combined international community from propping up the PA/Hamas and lets see how they move closer toward reconciliation. Good point. Its nice to see others who liked this agree as well!

You need to do a bit more reading, and not from the Fox News viewers on TVF.

The Billions referred to, as you know, was to Israel. The PA don't get that much.

The PA, and Hamas are indeed open to reconciliation. This is a fact. This is why Netanyahu no longer cites the PA or Hamas as a reason not to to parley.....Netanyahu now cites Iran and ISIS as a reason not to negotiate because he can no longer shift blame from himself to PA/Hamas, so he shifts it elsewhere.

First, your too smart to think my tongue was not in my cheek. I only tried to coopt his point has having relative validity to both points of view Israel and PA; you know this. It is possible one can surmise a poster's education is gleaned as he goes about his day reading this or that, but a wise person knows when this is not the case in another. If you think my education is provided by the posters here on TV, you are, however, partially correct: there are some very smart people here, Seastallion, including the ones I dont agree with.

I have no knowledge of "fact" suggesting Hamas was open to "reconciliation," unless you mean with PA, and PA with Hamas. I have simply no knowledge of this and were this true could alter my point of view. If much of what those of us do here is try to convince other people of either an important topic or to see our point of view, please do guide me to grasp this point you make. I am unaware of it. It is possible if I noted it I would call it taqiyya, this is true; but give me the chance to consider your point with something more than assertion. At least let me see it, or hear it would be better. I have access to Arabic translation in real time. Just link us.

It is possible Nethanyahu exaggerates the threats arrayed against him; all leaders in history have done this particularly to avoid circumspection at home. I concede this may be true. But this fact, if true, does not lessen the validity of the charge he asserts- IS and Iran seek the destruction of Israel and are projecting and consolidating resources to achieve just this in their lifetimes. This point seems more unassailable than the notion that Hamas wants reconciliation with Israel and few have heard about it.

EDIT: I long ago had someone say to me "if that which you are worried about was even 10% true, would that be enough to cause your fear or concern?" And so if Netanyahu takes a threat which is even 5% true and exaggerates it to 80% strength, but the topic involves threats of nuclear destruction, and your people have and are being persecuted throughout the world- still, would not the 5-10% truthfulness render the exaggerations defensible, or meaningless, or at least provide context?

If two people who hung out up the street, thugs, drinkers, clowns, cornered my wife and told her the next time I was out of town they would visit and she would be raped for hours, and my wife told me this story later in tears. Would I mitigate the threat with reasoning of the likelihood of such a thing? Would I surmise my wife exaggerates for attention, increasing reducing the threat matrix from an initial 100% to now maybe 40%. If there was even a 5% possibility that it was entirely true and a 1% likelihood it would happen, I would arrive in the dark and commit in advance an act that cannot be posted here. What man would not? What man, when using his own formula would not devise some response, or action, or aversion? What leader would not? He did not create the threat arrayed against him so to charge him with exaggerating the threat is meaningless as the threat is existential- the utter oblivion of his entire people! 1% is enough!

I know your tongue was in your cheek, that's why I said "as you well know", and I know well why you posted tongue in cheek.

However, many a true word is spoken in jest, and you followed up your tongue in cheek jest with fallacy.

I'll give you some links when I have time, but it is true that Hamas has agreed to an indefinite truce and to recognise the state of Israel. I would have been booed out of the hall by the Israel supporters by now if this was not true.

My point about Netanyahu's rhetoric no longer including Hamas (and no longer including the PA is an old well established fact) should, in fact be evidence enough for you that he no longer can see them as a threat should a deal be struck. Netanyahu is not one to let political points slip nor is he one to avoid rhetoric when he thinks he can get away with it....hence the emphasis on ISIS and Iran now.

Palestinian statehood should have nothing, and in fact does have nothing, to do with ISIS or Iran. As Obama has observed, Netanyahu's concerns are simply a stalling tactic. He may as well have said "I will not consider a 2 state solution while the threat of global warming continues". Just as invalid a concern.

I will grant you this: earlier I commented on lets separate the Palestinian issue from the Iran/IS issue for a moment to consider...xyz. What I did not really consider very much was the point you raise above- why is there necessarily linkage from external threats to the local problem? Why do the three issues need to be linked, unless publicly defined and defended?

In my perspective they are linked because of the underlying islamic fabric that is bent totally on the destruction of jews but this is not a mainstream position nor is it Israel's public position (I believe); so, your point is valid, I think. Why are they linked when first glance suggestions indicate a mitigation to at least some of the additional problems was a peace provision actually obtained. I will think more on this but yes, I see your point. I dont know if I can get to your worldview but I believe I can try to see your point of view on this.

[arjunadawn]

Israel respects sanctity of Al Aqsa.

Once the Palestinians do, that will help too. On the whole, Israel already does. Practical issues such as protestors essentially using the actual mosque as a fort in situ and centre of operations when they decide to kick off about something, complicates matters and makes the demand about respect for sanctity less than convincing at times.

Israel has always been keenly aware of the sensitivity of the compound, explaining the decision in 67. It will howevet not sit by as it used as an elevated launch pad for rioting.

Question is, do the Palestinians even recognise the Jewish reverence of the mount? On videos I've seen, they appear to scoff at the suggestion that it is holy for Jews. Glick seeking equal rights of access in a down to earth and friendly way from what I saw, even got him shot. Closing access to the compound for a few hours led to the running down with a car of civilians at a light rail station.

I think a lot of Israeli jews would like to see whats beneath Al-Aqsa if they would get free hands and without the risk of facing any repercussions.

Arabs work tirelessly to revise history in many ways. The most patently obvious way is the incredulous claim of the temple mount as the third holiest site in Islam. Of course this is based on the prophet's dream/vision journey on a flying horse to "the furthest mosque." Indeed, having just left Medina where not only did the Jews reject the prophets solicitation to join Islam, and the Jews rejected the prophet's offer to change the qibla (direction of prayer) to Jerusalem, the prophet had most all of them put to death, enslaved, then moved the same offensive jihad to Mecca. Indeed, by this point in history and for some long time after the "furthest mosque" was most surely not Jerusalem. After the solicitation and rejection of the Jews in both Medina and Mecca the prophet would have been aghast to note some saying his stead ascended from the remains of Herod's Temple. Poppycock. It was only some hundreds of years later when a caliph claimant from Damascus sought to undermine Meccan authority for government and administration that he claimed the temple mount, built the dome of the mosque, and re-intrepted the Night Journey of the Prophet. Previous to this no one would have stood for this outrage but in fairly illiterate 8th century Arabia this was easy, although fairly useless. The mosque never really had any value to anyone and was only ever of interest when it was valued to another.

Case in point is Saladin. Though a movie clip it is illustrative. Yet years later Saladin's own grandson sold Jerusalem for virtually nothing at all. It is horse-rubbish that this was the third most holiest site in Islam. Like every other waqf it only take a value when conquered, then consecrated to Islam, and then is perceived to then belong to Islam until the end of the world. (Thus Orobia-Europe take note).

The fact may well be that they are in the wrong place in any event; there is significant modern circumstantial evidence that the wailing wall, the temple mount, the dome of the rock, etc., are actually upon the Antonia Fort, a Roman Garrison. Both prophecy and contemporary sources indicate not a stone was left standing after the destruction of 70CE. Nevertheless, from Andalusia to Bombay, from Calcutta to Bumiyan and Timbuktu, Toledo, and even New York in the 21st century, that which is important to the "people of the book" or kufur are claimed, conquered, and waqf'd in perpetuity to Islam for all time. It is factual and unassailable. There may be some moderate muslims who wish to permit, as Sharia allows, Jews to worship as they wish, when paying taxes and are made to feel subjugated, but the majority assert Jews, as the descendents of "apes and pigs" would soil the temple mount. In much the same way Jews refuse to walk here or there, willy nilly upon the temple mount lest they inadvertently step upon holy ground not yet defined, muslims too do not want jews upon this promenade. Over time facts have become subordinate to vox populi and reason has long ago been mortally wounded.

With as much respect as I can must these are some seriously incapacitated human minds on both sides of this equation. The fairy tale like mandates and injunctions of vengeful gods and requirements to exact punishment on earth should have expired with the iron age. It is a terrible gravity that threatens to undo many advanced in enlightenment and moral perfection that the heart of man generally seeks. Insofar as facts and claims go, I find the islamic claim dubious at best and the precedent for its motivation evidenced throughout the islamic world in all the other conquered and re dedicated mosques, from the Haiga Sophia to al asqa mosque itself. There is and never will be anything worthy of god nor holy when actions in the material world are predicated on injury of subjugation of any people who simply disagree with you!

How will supranational arm twisting achieve a peaceful solution; that is, after all, what is next? At what point in Israel's continued attacks, continued troops massing on borders and massing inside now sovereign state, will the west concede they were mistaken and this concession was only one concession in the building of railroad cars for the jews of Israel? At no point! Israel will be left alone in its final days but before that takes place its unlikely allies will be sunni states.

[BKKBobby]

Israel respects sanctity of Al Aqsa.

Once the Palestinians do, that will help too. On the whole, Israel already does. Practical issues such as protestors essentially using the actual mosque as a fort in situ and centre of operations when they decide to kick off about something, complicates matters and makes the demand about respect for sanctity less than convincing at times.

Israel has always been keenly aware of the sensitivity of the compound, explaining the decision in 67. It will howevet not sit by as it used as an elevated launch pad for rioting.

Question is, do the Palestinians even recognise the Jewish reverence of the mount? On videos I've seen, they appear to scoff at the suggestion that it is holy for Jews. Glick seeking equal rights of access in a down to earth and friendly way from what I saw, even got him shot. Closing access to the compound for a few hours led to the running down with a car of civilians at a light rail station.

I think a lot of Israeli jews would like to see whats beneath Al-Aqsa if they would get free hands and without the risk of facing any repercussions.

Arabs work tirelessly to revise history in many ways. The most patently obvious way is the incredulous claim of the temple mount as the third holiest site in Islam. Of course this is based on the prophet's dream/vision journey on a flying horse to "the furthest mosque." Indeed, having just left Medina where not only did the Jews reject the prophets solicitation to join Islam, and the Jews rejected the prophet's offer to change the qibla (direction of prayer) to Jerusalem, the prophet had most all of them put to death, enslaved, then moved the same offensive jihad to Mecca. Indeed, by this point in history and for some long time after the "furthest mosque" was most surely not Jerusalem. After the solicitation and rejection of the Jews in both Medina and Mecca the prophet would have been aghast to note some saying his stead ascended from the remains of Herod's Temple. Poppycock. It was only some hundreds of years later when a caliph claimant from Damascus sought to undermine Meccan authority for government and administration that he claimed the temple mount, built the dome of the mosque, and re-intrepted the Night Journey of the Prophet. Previous to this no one would have stood for this outrage but in fairly illiterate 8th century Arabia this was easy, although fairly useless. The mosque never really had any value to anyone and was only ever of interest when it was valued to another.

Case in point is Saladin. Though a movie clip it is illustrative. Yet years later Saladin's own grandson sold Jerusalem for virtually nothing at all. It is horse-rubbish that this was the third most holiest site in Islam. Like every other waqf it only take a value when conquered, then consecrated to Islam, and then is perceived to then belong to Islam until the end of the world. (Thus Orobia-Europe take note).

The fact may well be that they are in the wrong place in any event; there is significant modern circumstantial evidence that the wailing wall, the temple mount, the dome of the rock, etc., are actually upon the Antonia Fort, a Roman Garrison. Both prophecy and contemporary sources indicate not a stone was left standing after the destruction of 70CE. Nevertheless, from Andalusia to Bombay, from Calcutta to Bumiyan and Timbuktu, Toledo, and even New York in the 21st century, that which is important to the "people of the book" or kufur are claimed, conquered, and waqf'd in perpetuity to Islam for all time. It is factual and unassailable. There may be some moderate muslims who wish to permit, as Sharia allows, Jews to worship as they wish, when paying taxes and are made to feel subjugated, but the majority assert Jews, as the descendents of "apes and pigs" would soil the temple mount. In much the same way Jews refuse to walk here or there, willy nilly upon the temple mount lest they inadvertently step upon holy ground not yet defined, muslims too do not want jews upon this promenade. Over time facts have become subordinate to vox populi and reason has long ago been mortally wounded.

With as much respect as I can must these are some seriously incapacitated human minds on both sides of this equation. The fairy tale like mandates and injunctions of vengeful gods and requirements to exact punishment on earth should have expired with the iron age. It is a terrible gravity that threatens to undo many advanced in enlightenment and moral perfection that the heart of man generally seeks. Insofar as facts and claims go, I find the islamic claim dubious at best and the precedent for its motivation evidenced throughout the islamic world in all the other conquered and re dedicated mosques, from the Haiga Sophia to al asqa mosque itself. There is and never will be anything worthy of god nor holy when actions in the material world are predicated on injury of subjugation of any people who simply disagree with you!

How will supranational arm twisting achieve a peaceful solution; that is, after all, what is next? At what point in Israel's continued attacks, continued troops massing on borders and massing inside now sovereign state, will the west concede they were mistaken and this concession was only one concession in the building of railroad cars for the jews of Israel? At no point! Israel will be left alone in its final days but before that takes place its unlikely allies will be sunni states.

An answer to your very well written piece: You intellctualize the topic of Al-Aqsa being or not being the thirld holiest site in Islam. In the eyes of the ordinary average muslim Al-Aqsa it simply is the thirld holiest site in Islam. They would be clueless if presented with your infomation and dont know how to process it. Many muslims only recite arabic when praying or reciting the Koran without actually being able to speak/write arabic. Many muslims live in areas that never was included in any caliphate. My point is, if Al-Aqsa is the thirld holiest site in the imagination of most muslims, so be it. I dont believe in religion or god but Im an agnostic since I cant prove/refute the existence of god. In my eyes Christianity and Islam are just new versions with add-ons to Judaism. Its all fairytales. But I still respect people no matter what faith they have unless they try to force their religion on others or interfer with human rights. Edited March 25, 2015 by BKKBobby

[ScarpoFongness4U]

all of these posts are irrelevant

The iran deal is dead

the deal with the PLO is dead

Iran cannot even take back to Tikrit

they are being introduced to their own Vietnam

The PLO has no patrons

The IDF keeps Hama's quiet

Abbas continues to steal from his people

PLO stays contained by their own greed

Nothing changes

[up-country_sinclair]

Simply put, the Palestinians can't be trusted not to allow countries like Iran to come in and

pitch a tent on the Israeli borders

Simply put, you've just completely exposed your ignorance. Or perhaps you'd care to explain how the Sunnis in Palestine are going to permit the Iranian Shia to do anything within its borders?

Any relationship between the two is surface level and only for show.

[spidermike007]

One of the few things I admire about Obama is the way he has stood up to Netanyahu, who is a warmongering fool, in my book. I do not believe there will ever be a solution in the region while guys like him remain in power.

[chuckd]

Simply put, the Palestinians can't be trusted not to allow countries like Iran to come in and

pitch a tent on the Israeli borders

Simply put, you've just completely exposed your ignorance. Or perhaps you'd care to explain how the Sunnis in Palestine are going to permit the Iranian Shia to do anything within its borders?

Any relationship between the two is surface level and only for show.

Why would Iranian Shiites need Palestinian Sunni?

They have Shiite Hezbollah right next door in Lebanon.

[BKKBobby]

Simply put, the Palestinians can't be trusted not to allow countries like Iran to come in and

pitch a tent on the Israeli borders

Simply put, you've just completely exposed your ignorance. Or perhaps you'd care to explain how the Sunnis in Palestine are going to permit the Iranian Shia to do anything within its borders?

Any relationship between the two is surface level and only for show.

Why would Iranian Shiites need Palestinian Sunni?

They have Shiite Hezbollah right next door in Lebanon.

He may or may not refer to any sort of eventual monetary support that Iran might at some point have handed out.

Iran dont need Palestinian Sunnis.

Edited March 26, 2015 by BKKBobby

[chuckd]

Simply put, the Palestinians can't be trusted not to allow countries like Iran to come in and

pitch a tent on the Israeli borders

Simply put, you've just completely exposed your ignorance. Or perhaps you'd care to explain how the Sunnis in Palestine are going to permit the Iranian Shia to do anything within its borders?

Any relationship between the two is surface level and only for show.

Why would Iranian Shiites need Palestinian Sunni?

They have Shiite Hezbollah right next door in Lebanon.

He may or may not refer to any sort of eventual monetary support that Iran might at some point have handed out.

Iran dont need Palestinian Sunnis.

Iran has been providing weapons and funds to Hamas for years.

It slowed down some when Hamas supported the rebels in Syria but seems to be picking up yet again.

Iran has their hands in nearly all the turmoil in the Middle East.

[BKKBobby]

Simply put, the Palestinians can't be trusted not to allow countries like Iran to come in and

pitch a tent on the Israeli borders

Simply put, you've just completely exposed your ignorance. Or perhaps you'd care to explain how the Sunnis in Palestine are going to permit the Iranian Shia to do anything within its borders?

Any relationship between the two is surface level and only for show.

Why would Iranian Shiites need Palestinian Sunni?

They have Shiite Hezbollah right next door in Lebanon.

He may or may not refer to any sort of eventual monetary support that Iran might at some point have handed out.

Iran dont need Palestinian Sunnis.

Iran has been providing weapons and funds to Hamas for years.

It slowed down some when Hamas supported the rebels in Syria but seems to be picking up yet again.

Iran has their hands in nearly all the turmoil in the Middle East.

USA has both hands and feets in nearly all the turmoil in the Middle East.

Always assisting, funding and arming the good guys of course.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Simply put, the Palestinians can't be trusted not to allow countries like Iran to come in and

pitch a tent on the Israeli borders

Simply put, you've just completely exposed your ignorance. Or perhaps you'd care to explain how the Sunnis in Palestine are going to permit the Iranian Shia to do anything within its borders?

Any relationship between the two is surface level and only for show.

Why would Iranian Shiites need Palestinian Sunni?

They have Shiite Hezbollah right next door in Lebanon.

Hezbollah's fighting strength has been reduced to teenagers

As a militia they have been destroyed by Isis

Iran was forced to import Chechnya and Pakistan fighters to replace them

Effectively, there is no longer a Hezbollah

[arjunadawn]

I think a lot of Israeli jews would like to see whats beneath Al-Aqsa if they would get free hands and without the risk of facing any repercussions.

Arabs work tirelessly to revise history in many ways. The most patently obvious way is the incredulous claim of the temple mount as the third holiest site in Islam. Of course this is based on the prophet's dream/vision journey on a flying horse to "the furthest mosque." Indeed, having just left Medina where not only did the Jews reject the prophets solicitation to join Islam, and the Jews rejected the prophet's offer to change the qibla (direction of prayer) to Jerusalem, the prophet had most all of them put to death, enslaved, then moved the same offensive jihad to Mecca. Indeed, by this point in history and for some long time after the "furthest mosque" was most surely not Jerusalem. After the solicitation and rejection of the Jews in both Medina and Mecca the prophet would have been aghast to note some saying his stead ascended from the remains of Herod's Temple. Poppycock. It was only some hundreds of years later when a caliph claimant from Damascus sought to undermine Meccan authority for government and administration that he claimed the temple mount, built the dome of the mosque, and re-intrepted the Night Journey of the Prophet. Previous to this no one would have stood for this outrage but in fairly illiterate 8th century Arabia this was easy, although fairly useless. The mosque never really had any value to anyone and was only ever of interest when it was valued to another.

Case in point is Saladin. Though a movie clip it is illustrative. Yet years later Saladin's own grandson sold Jerusalem for virtually nothing at all. It is horse-rubbish that this was the third most holiest site in Islam. Like every other waqf it only take a value when conquered, then consecrated to Islam, and then is perceived to then belong to Islam until the end of the world. (Thus Orobia-Europe take note).

The fact may well be that they are in the wrong place in any event; there is significant modern circumstantial evidence that the wailing wall, the temple mount, the dome of the rock, etc., are actually upon the Antonia Fort, a Roman Garrison. Both prophecy and contemporary sources indicate not a stone was left standing after the destruction of 70CE. Nevertheless, from Andalusia to Bombay, from Calcutta to Bumiyan and Timbuktu, Toledo, and even New York in the 21st century, that which is important to the "people of the book" or kufur are claimed, conquered, and waqf'd in perpetuity to Islam for all time. It is factual and unassailable. There may be some moderate muslims who wish to permit, as Sharia allows, Jews to worship as they wish, when paying taxes and are made to feel subjugated, but the majority assert Jews, as the descendents of "apes and pigs" would soil the temple mount. In much the same way Jews refuse to walk here or there, willy nilly upon the temple mount lest they inadvertently step upon holy ground not yet defined, muslims too do not want jews upon this promenade. Over time facts have become subordinate to vox populi and reason has long ago been mortally wounded.

With as much respect as I can must these are some seriously incapacitated human minds on both sides of this equation. The fairy tale like mandates and injunctions of vengeful gods and requirements to exact punishment on earth should have expired with the iron age. It is a terrible gravity that threatens to undo many advanced in enlightenment and moral perfection that the heart of man generally seeks. Insofar as facts and claims go, I find the islamic claim dubious at best and the precedent for its motivation evidenced throughout the islamic world in all the other conquered and re dedicated mosques, from the Haiga Sophia to al asqa mosque itself. There is and never will be anything worthy of god nor holy when actions in the material world are predicated on injury of subjugation of any people who simply disagree with you!

How will supranational arm twisting achieve a peaceful solution; that is, after all, what is next? At what point in Israel's continued attacks, continued troops massing on borders and massing inside now sovereign state, will the west concede they were mistaken and this concession was only one concession in the building of railroad cars for the jews of Israel? At no point! Israel will be left alone in its final days but before that takes place its unlikely allies will be sunni states.

An answer to your very well written piece: You intellctualize the topic of Al-Aqsa being or not being the thirld holiest site in Islam. In the eyes of the ordinary average muslim Al-Aqsa it simply is the thirld holiest site in Islam. They would be clueless if presented with your infomation and dont know how to process it. Many muslims only recite arabic when praying or reciting the Koran without actually being able to speak/write arabic. Many muslims live in areas that never was included in any caliphate. My point is, if Al-Aqsa is the thirld holiest site in the imagination of most muslims, so be it. I dont believe in religion or god but Im an agnostic since I cant prove/refute the existence of god. In my eyes Christianity and Islam are just new versions with add-ons to Judaism. Its all fairytales. But I still respect people no matter what faith they have unless they try to force their religion on others or interfer with human rights.

Irrespective of facts or suggestions of truth, or even [their] own fairly well documented history, [people] believe what they choose to and worse, what they are told to. So, yes, you have over a billion people today thinking the prophet ascended from the (was it...) rock of Ibrahim to heaven (on a horse) from this very place, this very Jewish place, their very Hebrew and Roman Pagan place. There is no way any amount of facts or debate would change this and thus the nature of reality being shaped by the collective mind. You are correct.

I choose to not join that fray and try to dispassionately observe my thoughts (mostly). It is no surprise that the body of humans who would eschew knowledge and facts also believe god commands them to slaughter others- there is linkage- Islam! The mosque and the prophet are separated by hundreds of years! Moreover, I believe that the current place for the mosque does not even represent the best location for where the temple mount actually is; so good luck with that. Find me a spring, and I will show you the Temple Mount. Current and recent research on this topic, though marginalized by forces invested with the status quo, are nevertheless correct- the mosque is atop a roman garrison.

It is the equivlient to a hundred of years from now thinking [you've] built a mosque atop the scattered St. Patrick's Cathedral yet the persistent evidence suggests its actually atop the neighboring Wal-Mart ruins.

[Publicus]

The OP notes that PM Netanyahu was against a Palestinian state before he was for it, but not really for it, after which he said he was against it, although he wasn't really against it, and now he says that, not only has he always been for it, he this time is really really for it....conditionally.

What the further ongoing publication here of the Dark Side Diaries have to do with the question posed in the OP is remote if if at all connected to whether the US will side with the international community to recognize, guide, support a sovereign Palestinian state.

Given the disastrous turn of evens in Israel since the turn of the millennum, namely the rise and dominance of Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right in government, the steady but increasing drift away from the Israeli extreme right, even in the United States, has ironically benefited the Palestinians and their promoting of sovereign statehood.

The drift away from an Israel dominated by the political extreme right, and toward the Palestinians despite their regularly militant carelessness, appears to be more than a short term trend. This is because establishing a sovereign Palestinian state is a permanent state of affairs, such as establishing the sovereign state of Israel is a permanent state of affairs.

[dexterm]

Two state delusion. Here is an article which absolutely nails the liberal left myopia about the peace process. In effect they studiously filter out all the ample evidence that the Palestinian leadership have no interest in any settlement so it is immaterial whether Netanyahu or Herzog were elected.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5721/the_two_state_delusion

I disagree with several claims in your linked article

Their efforts were rebuffed because of Palestinian intransigence

:

an insistence on the right of return = false..they would accept compensation plus maybe a token return of a handfull of the very elderly who want to.

a refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state = true..why should they?

a denial of Jewish rights to Jerusalem = false..Israel gets the Wailing Wall and excavations below.

a refusal to give Israel secure borders= false...All Arab states plus Iran since 2002 have offered Israel secure, recognized borders in return for a just peace deal.

OK, so the 2 state solution is dead. Let's go for the one state solution then, with Israel formally annexing the West Bank.

How do you propose to absorb 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians?

One item from your article I do agree with.

Peace should be built at the grassroots level with the aim of fostering co-existence, and the West should support such efforts.

If you want to build peace from grassroots, make all state schools in a one state Israel completely secular. If parents wish to send their children to Jewish, Christian or Muslim schools, they must pay every last shekel themselves.

When children grow up from kindergarten sitting next to their friends, they don't give a hoot about the religion that has poisoned their parents' thinking.

Edited March 28, 2015 by dexterm

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[ggold]

Two state delusion. Here is an article which absolutely nails the liberal left myopia about the peace process. In effect they studiously filter out all the ample evidence that the Palestinian leadership have no interest in any settlement so it is immaterial whether Netanyahu or Herzog were elected.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5721/the_two_state_delusion

I disagree with several claims in your linked article

Their efforts were rebuffed because of Palestinian intransigence

:

an insistence on the right of return = false..they would accept compensation plus maybe a token return of a handfull of the very elderly who want to.

a refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state = true..why should they?

a denial of Jewish rights to Jerusalem = false..Israel gets the Wailing Wall and excavations below.

a refusal to give Israel secure borders= false...All Arab states plus Iran since 2002 have offered Israel secure, recognized borders in return for a just peace deal.

OK, so the 2 state solution is dead. Let's go for the one state solution then, with Israel formally annexing the West Bank.

How do you propose to absorb 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians?

One item from your article I do agree with.

Peace should be built at the grassroots level with the aim of fostering co-existence, and the West should support such efforts.

If you want to build peace from grassroots, make all state schools in a one state Israel completely secular. If parents wish to send their children to Jewish, Christian or Muslim schools, they must pay every last shekel themselves.

When children grow up from kindergarten sitting next to their friends, they don't give a hoot about the religion that has poisoned their parents' thinking.

As much as you have a right not to practice a religion, What right do you have to decide what religion if any others may follow?

Again with your one state solution. Just admit your solution doesn't allow for the long term existence of Israel. That your agenda is a one state Palestinian domain without Jews.

As Abbas has stated many times there will be no Jews in a Palestinian country.

[ggold]

The OP notes that PM Netanyahu was against a Palestinian state before he was for it, but not really for it, after which he said he was against it, although he wasn't really against it, and now he says that, not only has he always been for it, he this time is really really for it....conditionally.

What the further ongoing publication here of the Dark Side Diaries have to do with the question posed in the OP is remote if if at all connected to whether the US will side with the international community to recognize, guide, support a sovereign Palestinian state.

Given the disastrous turn of evens in Israel since the turn of the millennum, namely the rise and dominance of Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right in government, the steady but increasing drift away from the Israeli extreme right, even in the United States, has ironically benefited the Palestinians and their promoting of sovereign statehood.

The drift away from an Israel dominated by the political extreme right, and toward the Palestinians despite their regularly militant carelessness, appears to be more than a short term trend. This is because establishing a sovereign Palestinian state is a permanent state of affairs, such as establishing the sovereign state of Israel is a permanent state of affairs.

The only drift is that of Obama. and Just to give you an idea the USA have cast doubt over Frances plan to submit a proposal for a palestinian state at the UN!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193292#.VRadqeH27Dc

The United States provided a cool reception on Friday to a new French initiative on a new Security Council resolution to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

"We're not going to get ahead of any decisions about what the United States would do with regard to potential action at the UN Security Council," a U.S. official told AFP, hours after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced the plans.

Maybe you would like to re-access your views?

[dexterm]

ggold wrote (thread full),

As much as you have a right not to practice a religion, What right do you have to decide what religion if any others may follow?

Again with your one state solution. Just admit your solution doesn't allow for the long term existence of Israel. That your agenda is a one state Palestinian domain without Jews.

Far from it. Every parent has the right to bring up their children within any faith they wish.

But when it comes to state education from kindergarten onwards...parents of any religion should not have their indoctrination subsidized by tax payers. Let them pay for it themselves in private schools if it means so much to them. State funded schools should be secular without any religious instruction or observances.That's the way to build a prejudice free and tolerant society.

This is exactly what happens in many other countries of the world where there is a separation of state and religion.

I believe that over the decades Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state, simply from natural transmigrations of neighboring peoples. I may not live to see it though. But it will inevitably happen.

I personally believe that Israel should always be a refuge for any Jew that is persecuted elsewhere in the world....same should go for any Palestinian.

If you or Netanyahu believe that a one state solution will undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish State, then go for a two state as Herzog was proposing in the last election..hence his choice of Zionist Union..the only solution that will save Israeli democracy and its Jewish character.

Edited March 28, 2015 by dexterm

[ggold]

ggold wrote (thread full),

As much as you have a right not to practice a religion, What right do you have to decide what religion if any others may follow?

Again with your one state solution. Just admit your solution doesn't allow for the long term existence of Israel. That your agenda is a one state Palestinian domain without Jews.

Far from it. Every parent has the right to bring up their children within any faith they wish.

But when it comes to state education from kindergarten onwards...parents of any religion should not have their indoctrination subsidized by tax payers. Let them pay for it themselves if it means so much to them.

This is exactly what happens in many other countries of the world where there is a separation of state and religion.

I believe that over the decades Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state, simply from natural transmigrations of neighboring peoples. I may not live to see it though. But it will inevitably happen.

I personally believe that Israel should always be a refuge for any Jew that is persecuted elsewhere in the world....same should go for any Palestinian.

If you or Netanyahu believe that a one state solution will undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish State, then go for a two state as Herzog was proposing in the last election..hence his choice of Zionist Union..the only solution that will save Israeli democracy and its Jewish character.

Herzog lost because he is not strong enough to negotiate with Abbas, It is a myth that they would be more amicable to a peace deal. Besides Obamas meddling insured Netanyahu's win. One thing that units Israelis is Israel and its security. Obama was hoping to divide the country.

There will be no transmigration, even if there were a two state solution, certainly not the sort that would give the vote to none citizens. So I don't see how that will cause Israel to cease.

It is a contradiction to say that you personally believe Israel should always be a refuge for Jews, while at the same time putting forward theories or ideas that would guarantee it's non existence.

Some might say hypocrisy?

How Israel funds it's religious studies is for Israel to decide. They don't need your help in deciding how to fund religious studies. If you think it should be changed then please go live in Israel, where you can change what you feel is wrong, or at least try to! I am sure others would agree with you but some would not! But you would experience the democracy at work.

Edited March 28, 2015 by ggold

[dexterm]

ggold wrote (thread full),

As much as you have a right not to practice a religion, What right do you have to decide what religion if any others may follow?

Again with your one state solution. Just admit your solution doesn't allow for the long term existence of Israel. That your agenda is a one state Palestinian domain without Jews.

Far from it. Every parent has the right to bring up their children within any faith they wish.

But when it comes to state education from kindergarten onwards...parents of any religion should not have their indoctrination subsidized by tax payers. Let them pay for it themselves if it means so much to them.

This is exactly what happens in many other countries of the world where there is a separation of state and religion.

I believe that over the decades Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state, simply from natural transmigrations of neighboring peoples. I may not live to see it though. But it will inevitably happen.

I personally believe that Israel should always be a refuge for any Jew that is persecuted elsewhere in the world....same should go for any Palestinian.

If you or Netanyahu believe that a one state solution will undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish State, then go for a two state as Herzog was proposing in the last election..hence his choice of Zionist Union..the only solution that will save Israeli democracy and its Jewish character.

Herzog lost because he is not strong enough to negotiate with Abbas, It is a myth that they would be more amicable to a peace deal. Besides Obamas meddling insured Netanyahu's win. One thing that units Israelis is Israel and its security. Obama was hoping to divide the country.

There will be no transmigration, even if there were a two state solution, certainly not the sort that would give the vote to none citizens. So I don't see how that will cause Israel to cease.

It is a contradiction to say that you personally believe Israel should always be a refuge for Jews, while at the same time putting forward theories or ideas that would guarantee it's non existence.

Some might say hypocrisy?

How Israel funds it's religious studies is for Israel to decide. They don't need your help in deciding how to fund religious studies. If you think it should be changed then please go live in Israel, where you can change what you feel is wrong, or at least try to! I am sure others would agree with you but some would not! But you would experience the democracy at work.

You have misunderstood almost everything I wrote re 2 state solution and offering refuge to any Jew who is persecuted, not just anyone in the world who has a Jewish grandmother.

No time to repeat now. Got a drink with my name on it down at the local watering hole.

Shalom.

[Publicus]

The OP notes that PM Netanyahu was against a Palestinian state before he was for it, but not really for it, after which he said he was against it, although he wasn't really against it, and now he says that, not only has he always been for it, he this time is really really for it....conditionally.

What the further ongoing publication here of the Dark Side Diaries have to do with the question posed in the OP is remote if if at all connected to whether the US will side with the international community to recognize, guide, support a sovereign Palestinian state.

Given the disastrous turn of evens in Israel since the turn of the millennum, namely the rise and dominance of Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right in government, the steady but increasing drift away from the Israeli extreme right, even in the United States, has ironically benefited the Palestinians and their promoting of sovereign statehood.

The drift away from an Israel dominated by the political extreme right, and toward the Palestinians despite their regularly militant carelessness, appears to be more than a short term trend. This is because establishing a sovereign Palestinian state is a permanent state of affairs, such as establishing the sovereign state of Israel is a permanent state of affairs.

The only drift is that of Obama. and Just to give you an idea the USA have cast doubt over Frances plan to submit a proposal for a palestinian state at the UN!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193292#.VRadqeH27Dc

The United States provided a cool reception on Friday to a new French initiative on a new Security Council resolution to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

"We're not going to get ahead of any decisions about what the United States would do with regard to potential action at the UN Security Council," a U.S. official told AFP, hours after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced the plans.

Maybe you would like to re-access your views?

Kindly re-read the post because you should then recognize I haven't any need to either "re-access" my views or to "reassess" my views.....whichever The bottom line of my post is that there is a "drift." Where does it say anything about a UNSC vote by the United States. The post was rather carefully written in this respect.

Coming sooner or later the US might vote this way or it might vote that way, or it might abstain, although I should think that while the latter would be possible, it would be unlikely. We do however have before us times that are a-changing and alliances that are shifting. Some in and outside of Israel are talking about getting out of the UN and of what to do about the pending case at the ICC. The times are indeed changing, which is the drift of my post. Neither have I found a back to the future wiki listing all the Triple Crown winners to the year 2030 or some such.

This statement from the White House is in the nature of my post, and it is what one should expect concerning a tentative or a yet unseen proposal, as the French have said they remain unsure whether they will introduce their own resolution or offer adjustments to the Palestinian resolution that last December failed in the UNSC by one vote among the 15 permanent and rotating members:

Mr. Obama said he didn’t accept an attempt by Mr. Netanyahu to reverse his position back to his original stance in favor of two states after his election victory.

“Steps that the United States has taken at the United Nations had been predicated on this idea that the two-state solution is the best outcome”, said Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, two days after the Israeli election on March 17. “Now our ally in these talks has said that they are no longer committed to that solution. That means we need to re-evaluate our position in this matter, and that is what we will do moving forward.”

The White House on Friday appeared to leave open the possibility of U.S. support for the resolution, without commenting specifically. Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the Obama administration was aware of Mr. Fabius’ comments. “But we have not yet actually seen a text of a resolution so I’d reserve comment on a hypothetical resolution,” he said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/france-to-launch-push-for-u-n-resolution-on-israeli-palestinian-conflict-1427469530

Last week the NYT and the WaPo among other prominent opinion leaders editorialized in favor of a yes vote by the US on the question itself, which is yet more drift.

The PA needed one more vote in December to realize the nine votes needed and to present the US with the issue of vetoing the resolution.

Voting in favor were: Russia, China, France, Argentina, Chad, Chile, Jordan and Luxembourg

Voting against: US; Australia

Abstentions: UK, Lithuania, Nigeria, the Republic of Korea and Rwanda

My post was indeed about a general drift and not about anyone's specific vote on a specific issue, nor was my post about coming vote headcounts or the coming votes of record at the UNSC. Perhaps however I might not be out of bounds to actually go ahead to make a sooner or later kind of prediction, but not at this point in time.

Get my drift?

Edited by Publicus for spacing

Edited March 28, 2015 by Publicus

[ggold]

ggold wrote (thread full),

As much as you have a right not to practice a religion, What right do you have to decide what religion if any others may follow?

Again with your one state solution. Just admit your solution doesn't allow for the long term existence of Israel. That your agenda is a one state Palestinian domain without Jews.

Far from it. Every parent has the right to bring up their children within any faith they wish.

But when it comes to state education from kindergarten onwards...parents of any religion should not have their indoctrination subsidized by tax payers. Let them pay for it themselves if it means so much to them.

This is exactly what happens in many other countries of the world where there is a separation of state and religion.

I believe that over the decades Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state, simply from natural transmigrations of neighboring peoples. I may not live to see it though. But it will inevitably happen.

I personally believe that Israel should always be a refuge for any Jew that is persecuted elsewhere in the world....same should go for any Palestinian.

If you or Netanyahu believe that a one state solution will undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish State, then go for a two state as Herzog was proposing in the last election..hence his choice of Zionist Union..the only solution that will save Israeli democracy and its Jewish character.

Herzog lost because he is not strong enough to negotiate with Abbas, It is a myth that they would be more amicable to a peace deal. Besides Obamas meddling insured Netanyahu's win. One thing that units Israelis is Israel and its security. Obama was hoping to divide the country.

There will be no transmigration, even if there were a two state solution, certainly not the sort that would give the vote to none citizens. So I don't see how that will cause Israel to cease.

It is a contradiction to say that you personally believe Israel should always be a refuge for Jews, while at the same time putting forward theories or ideas that would guarantee it's non existence.

Some might say hypocrisy?

How Israel funds it's religious studies is for Israel to decide. They don't need your help in deciding how to fund religious studies. If you think it should be changed then please go live in Israel, where you can change what you feel is wrong, or at least try to! I am sure others would agree with you but some would not! But you would experience the democracy at work.

You have misunderstood almost everything I wrote re 2 state solution and offering refuge to any Jew who is persecuted, not just anyone in the world who has a Jewish grandmother.

No time to repeat now. Got a drink with my name on it down at the local watering hole.

Shalom.

Well Israel already has the right of return for Jews. A two state solution isn't going to change that for the better. It also sounds like you want to choose who's a Jew?

[Jingthing]

Well Israel already has the right of return for Jews. A two state solution isn't going to change that for the better. It also sounds like you want to choose who's a Jew?

The right of return for all Jewish people, regardless of motivation, regardless of level of religious observance is a core value of the reason that Israel even exists. It doesn't surprise that those who demonize Israel and argue it should have never existed and often openly advocate it's end in the form of weakening the Jewish character of Israel or worse, would be interested in breaking down that core value. This isn't rocket science. Jews are a very tiny minority in the world, a people who have been subject to persecution and genocide for thousands of years. Jewish people collectively decided, for better or worse, that embracing political self determination which reached fruition in the modern nation state of Israel was the logical answer to that ... Zionism. So many continue to be hostile to the survival of the Jewish people, as always, whether there was ever an Israel or not.

While nobody knows what the future will bring, Israel does now exist and will continue to fight to exist and indeed thrive. Now the Jewish people do have a nation state with a strong military and yes still some powerful friends as they did not before 1948.

As far as future immigration trends for this TINY world minority, outside Israel there is only one other country with a really significant Jewish population, the USA. Jews in the USA are for the most part not feeling persecuted, so the small percentage of them that do move to Israel do so mostly out of positive motivations. There is no need for an acid test of motivation (are you persecuted enough?) for Jewish immigration to Israel.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Jingthing

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Palestine is not a country

Israel is a country

Hamas and the PLO are mafia organizations with no intention on governing,

Only stealing

[Jingthing]

Yes, it is true Palestine is not a country but the people living in Gaza and West Bank aren't going anywhere either. The status quo is not good.

[bendejo]

Israel is not striving for a solution, they already have a strategy: genocide. Every few years there will be an all-out incursion, like last year, that will destroy the infrastructure to a point further back in time than the previous incursion, while causing a lot of civilian casualties. Eventually the Palestinians will either be somewhere else or nowhere.

Of course they play right into the Israeli's hands with those little rockets, allowing Israel to declare to the world "see, we're under attack!"

What the Palestinians need, actually needed a few decades ago, was a Mohandas Ghandi, to shame the nation of holocaust survivors in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately, what they got was Arafat, who countered with his own plans for a genocide, such as the 'economy of scale' of blowing up schoolbuses full of kids.

There will be not be a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem any time soon. Fugetabou. It's been a rope-a-dope for every US president since. Even W Bush in his last days thought he was going to be the one to solve the problem, though it didn't get much press. I guess he was hoping to create a positive legacy in the 11th hour.