Thai Girl is almost perfect but are these serious problems?

[webfact]

Meeting Israel's Netanyahu, Trump backs away from commitment to Palestinian state

By Luke Baker and Matt Spetalnick

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint news conference at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 15, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday dropped a U.S. commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a longstanding bedrock of Middle East policy, even as he urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to curb settlement construction.

 

In the first face-to-face meeting between the two leaders since Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, the Republican president backed away from a U.S. embrace of the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, upending a position taken by successive administrations and the international community.

 

"I'm looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like," Trump told a joint news conference with Netanyahu. "I can live with either one."

 

Trump vowed to work towards a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians but said it would require compromise on both sides, leaving it up to the parties themselves ultimately to reach the terms of any agreement.

 

But he offered no new prescription for achieving an accord that has eluded so many of his predecessors, and Palestinian anger over his abandonment of their goal of statehood could scrap any chance of coaxing them back to the negotiating table.

 

Dropping a bombshell on Netanyahu as they faced reporters just before sitting down for talks, Trump told him: “I'd like to see you pull back on settlements for a little bit.”

 

The right-wing Israeli leader, who may have expected more decidedly pro-Israel rhetoric as the two sought to get past years of feuding with Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, appeared startled.

 

Netanyahu insisted that Jewish settlements were “not the core of the conflict” and made no commitment to reduce settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

 

Trump echoed Netanyahu’s calls for Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state – something they have refused to do – and to halt incitement against Israelis.

 

But even as Trump promised to pursue peace between the two sides – who have had no substantive peace talks since 2014 – he offered no new ideas for unblocking the peace process.

 

Setting an initially chummy tone, Trump greeted Netanyahu on a red carpet rolled out to the White House driveway. The two leaders smiled, shook hands and chatted amiably before heading inside the executive mansion, accompanied by first lady Melania Trump and Netanyahu’s wife Sara.

 

Among the questions that figured prominently on the agenda was the future of the two-state solution – the idea of creating a Palestine living peacefully alongside Israel.

 

Foreshadowing Trump’s policy shift, a senior White House official said on Tuesday that peace did not necessarily have to entail Palestinian statehood. Palestinians responded by warning Trump that such a move would seriously damage U.S. credibility.

 

Giving a vague, meandering response to a question on the issue, Trump suggested that he could abide by whatever path the two parties decided. "I'm happy with the one they like the best," Trump said.

 

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Wednesday against abandoning the idea of a two-state solution, saying there was "no alternative".

 

Netanyahu committed, with conditions, to the two-state goal in a speech in 2009 and has broadly reiterated the aim since. But he has also spoken of a "state minus" option, suggesting he could offer the Palestinians deep-seated autonomy and the trappings of statehood without full sovereignty.

 

At the news conference, he never ruled out a two-state solution, but also made it sound as if it was an almost impossible ideal. He said there were preconditions for it to happen, including the Palestinians’ recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and Israel retaining security control "in the area west of the Jordan River" - which would encompass all of the West Bank.

 

Netanyahu and Trump shared several warm handshakes during the news conference, especially after Trump’s opening remarks, when he said the United States was Israel’s greatest friend.

 

But Trump also managed to catch Netanyahu off-guard, at one point saying that if a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict was going to be reached “both sides will have to make compromises”. The president then turned to Netanyahu and said: “You know that, right?” Netanyahu looked momentarily startled and replied with a chuckle, “Both sides.”

 

The two leaders agreed that there was an opening for enlisting Israel's Arab neighbours - who share its concerns about Iran - into any future peace process, though they offered no specifics on how that could be done. But a retreat from the principle of a two-state solution would cast doubt on the chances for cooperation from the broader Arab world.

 

PALESTINIANS ALARMED

 

Palestinians reacted with alarm to the possibility that Washington might ditch its support for an independent Palestinian nation.

 

"If the Trump administration rejects this policy it would be destroying the chances for peace and undermining American interests, standing and credibility abroad," Hanan Ashrawi, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said in response to the U.S. official's remarks.

 

"Accommodating the most extreme and irresponsible elements in Israel and in the White House is no way to make responsible foreign policy," she said in a statement.

 

Husam Zomlot, strategic adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Palestinians had not received any official indication of a change in the U.S. stance.

 

"It’s another nail in the coffin of the peace process, which already had a lot of nails in it," said Martin Indyk, a former Middle East negotiator under Obama and now at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

 

The one-state idea that Trump referred to would be deeply problematic for both sides. One concept would be two systems for two peoples, which many Palestinians would see as apartheid. Another version would mean equal rights for all, including for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank, but that would compromise Israel’s Jewish character.

 

For Netanyahu, the talks with Trump are an opportunity to reset ties after a frequently combative relationship with Obama.

 

The prime minister, under investigation at home over allegations of abuse of office, spent much of Tuesday huddled with advisers in Washington preparing for the talks. Officials said they wanted no gaps to emerge between U.S. and Israeli thinking during the scheduled two-hour Oval Office meeting.

 

Trump, who has been in office less than four weeks and whose foreign policy apparatus is in disarray following the forced resignation of his national security adviser Michael Flynn, brings with him an unpredictability that Netanyahu's staff hoped would not impinge on the discussions.

 

The two leaders, who seemed to strike up an emerging “bromance” in social media exchanges since the election, sought to demonstrate good personal chemistry face-to-face as well, both sporting smiles and exchanging asides.

 

Meetings with Obama were at best cordial and businesslike, at worst tense and awkward. In one Oval Office encounter in 2011, Obama grimaced as Netanyahu lectured him in front of the cameras on the suffering of the Jewish people through the ages.

 

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland, Arshad Mohammed, Ayesha Rascoe and Doina Chiacu in Washington and Maayan Lubell and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem; Editing by Mark Trevelyan and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-16

[ezzra]

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

Netanyahu insisted that Jewish settlements were “not the core of the conflict” and made no commitment to reduce settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

 

And he's right, as Israel has left and withdrew from the Gaza area leaving behind

farms houses and villages in full bloom, now, all that in in ruins and being used

as Hamas training camps, has the withdrawal and the retreat changed anything

on the political map or the resolve of the Palestinians to see Israel wiped out?....

 

[Ulysses G.]

43 minutes ago, ezzra said:

 

And he's right, as Israel has left and withdrew from the Gaza area leaving behind

farms houses and villages in full bloom, now, all that in in ruins and being used

as Hamas training camps, has the withdrawal and the retreat changed anything

on the political map or the resolve of the Palestinians to see Israel wiped out?....

 

Indeed. Look no further than the settlements freeze called by Israel in 2010 when the Palestinians would still not come back to the table.  Settlements are not the reason the Palestinians are without a state. The Palestinians would serve themselves better were they to examine their own leadership who keep refusing to make peace.

[DriveByTrucker]

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

 

And he's right, as Israel has left and withdrew from the Gaza area leaving behind

farms houses and villages in full bloom, now, all that in in ruins and being used

as Hamas training camps, has the withdrawal and the retreat changed anything

on the political map or the resolve of the Palestinians to see Israel wiped out?....

 

 

What load of Israeli propaganda BS! "Israeli withdrew from Gaza leaving behind houses and villages" What are you talking about? The Israelis drove Palestinians from their land and into Gaza, build a wall around it and now its the biggest illegal prison camp! 

The Israelis are the occupying power which drops cluster and phosphorus bombs on this prison camp called Gaza! Has the aggression of the Israeli government on Gaza changed anything? Yes, it has killed thousands and thousands of innocent women and children! The fascist Likud party has only one goal, and that is to wipe out all Muslims from Palestine.

Edited February 16, 2017 by DriveByTrucker

[Ulysses G.]

30 minutes ago, DriveByTrucker said:

 

What load of Israeli propaganda BS!

 

Speaking of BS. The Palestinians started the violent conflict, refused the UN fix - including their own country (for the first time in history) , declared war of Israel and lost time after time. Then they turned to terrorism against innocent civilians for the last 7 decades. Israel turned over Gaza to them and instead of gratitude, they immediately launched more terrorist attacks. They are lucky that Israel continues to look for a peaceful solution at all. No wonder there are reservations about granting them an independent state.

 

And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever given them — an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses. Then they elected Hamas. Then, instead of building a state with its attendant political and economic institutions, they spent the better part of a decade turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to make ceaseless war on Israel.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383024/truth-about-gaza-charles-krauthammer

Edited February 16, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[ddavidovsky]

Welcome to centuries more conflict, more global tension, more hostility between religions, more anti-west terrorism, more security everywhere, more paranoia... Make no mistake, this issue is at the root of it.

[notmyself]

I agree. Bibi said during the last election that he would never give the land back so there would never be a two state solution anyway.

[boomerangutang]

"I'm looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like," Trump told a joint

news conference with Netanyahu. "I can live with either one."

 

...spoken like a true waffler.  Similar to Trump's radio interview with Stern, just before the 2nd Iraqi War.  When Stern asked whether the US should invade Iraq, Trump sagely opined;  "Ummm, I guess so."     Of course, when Trump realized, months later, that the Iraq war was going badly, he claimed he never said what was recorded on the tape.  Trump is on all sides of many important issues.  Trump is to decisiveness what a bunny is to geometry. 

[DriveByTrucker]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Speaking of BS. The Palestinians started the violent conflict, refused the UN fix, including their own country (for the first time in history) , declared war of Israel and lost time after time. Then they turned to terrorism against innocent civilians for the last 7 decades. They are lucky that Israel continues to look for a peaceful solution at all.

You call this looking for a peaceful solution, while the civilized world calls is war crimes....

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, DriveByTrucker said:

You call this looking for a peaceful solution, while the civilized world calls is war crimes....

 

 

 

I call it a response to thousands of rockets fired at civilians over many years. Actions have consequences. No wonder Trump is not committed to a Palestinian state.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[daveAustin]

Trump would probably get a lot more backers if he woke up on Israel and the climate issue.

[bandito]

2 minutes ago, DriveByTrucker said:

You call this looking for a peaceful solution, while the civilized world calls is war crimes....

 

 

 

Are you the "civilized world"?

The palestinians have but one thing in mind, driving the Israelis in the sea.

In case this will not get done than fire rockets daily at Israel.

Terrorists and murderers these so called Palestinians.

[DriveByTrucker]

1 minute ago, bandito said:

 

Are you the "civilized world"?

The palestinians have but one thing in mind, driving the Israelis in the sea.

In case this will not get done than fire rockets daily at Israel.

Terrorists and murderers these so called Palestinians.

Funny that you say that Palestinians have only one thing in mind driving the Israelis in the sea, because ironically that is exactly what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians (literally!), and they drive them of their land and replace them by illegal settlements, they prevent Palestinians from access to drinking water and food.

For you all Palestinians are terrorists (after all they are Muslims so in your eyes they have to be terrorists), on the other hand any normal person wouldn't find it acceptable that a state drops bombs on a prison camp, that is surrounded by a high wall so that people cant flee and it ensures the maximum casualties. Who cares they are women and children! They are all terrorists after all! The state of Israel is responsible for war crimes and genocide which you defend. Do you also defend the the Hutus when they massacred the Tutsi's? Do you also condemn the WW2 resistance in France/Denmark/Holland because of their terrorist and murderous acts against the Nazis?

 

[Ulysses G.]

8 minutes ago, DriveByTrucker said:

 They are all terrorists after all!

Not true, but they have elected terrorist groups to represent them and they have carried out thousands of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians over many years. No wonder President Trump might be hesitant about a two-state solution.

 

Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_Palestinian_militant_groups

Edited February 16, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

Trump and Netanyahu, desperate to please his new powerful chum in the White House and perhaps score a few brownie points to deflect from his corruption charges, may accidentally be fast tracking Israel to a one state solution, which IMO is inevitable anyway.

 

OP...
"The one-state idea that Trump referred to would be deeply problematic for both sides. One concept would be two systems for two peoples, which many Palestinians would see as apartheid. Another version would mean equal rights for all, including for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank, but that would compromise Israel’s Jewish character."

 

If it is the latter, equal rights for all new Palestinian citizens, with all Jews, Christians and Muslims, Palestinians and Israelis living in one democratic state, I am in favor of it.

 

If it is the former, two systems for two peoples, one superior one for Israelis, and one inferior for the Palestinians with Israel in 100% control over a patchwork quilt of bantustans, then of course it would be overt apartheid. At least the charade would be over, and the global community could then agitate against such as system just as they did against South Africa. Which might ultimately lead to a one state solution and the eventual end to the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism.

 

There may be in between areas... a confederation with two parliaments, but all peoples having the right to live, work and worship wherever they like, plus a yuuuge compensation package for Palestinian and Jewish refugees to entice them to sign up.

 
Or perhaps a gradual enfranchisement of new citizens and current Israelis too having to earn the right to vote based on some sort of community service, including army service (yes, a big ask...but who knows in these changing times).

 

At least the ethnic cleansing card is off the table..at least for now.

 

The spanner in the works, possibly even deliberately placed there by Netanyahu, to derail the whole process is his insistence that Palestinians recognize the Jewish State of Israel, which of course is completely unnecessary. It would condemn the current non Jewish 20% (and future citizens) of the Israeli population to instant 2nd class status. It would be impossible to maintain anyway, as demographics change, unless you introduce compulsory birth control, and discriminatory family reunification and marriage laws for non Jews.

 

What is so bad about simply having a clause in the constitution saying Israel could always be a haven for genuinely persecuted world Jewry?

 

Anyway, the devil is in the detail, which is yet to be revealed.

Edited February 16, 2017 by dexterm

[Srikcir]

54 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Trump and Netanyahu, desperate to please his new powerful chum in the White House and perhaps score a few brownie points to deflect from his corruption charges, may accidentally be fast tracking Israel to a one state solution, which IMO is inevitable anyway.

 

OP...
"The one-state idea that Trump referred to would be deeply problematic for both sides. One concept would be two systems for two peoples, which many Palestinians would see as apartheid. Another version would mean equal rights for all, including for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank, but that would compromise Israel’s Jewish character."

 

If it is the latter, equal rights for all new Palestinian citizens, with all Jews, Christians and Muslims, Palestinians and Israelis living in one democratic state, I am in favor of it.

 

If it is the former, two systems for two peoples, one superior one for Israelis, and one inferior for the Palestinians with Israel in 100% control over a patchwork quilt of bantustans, then of course it would be overt apartheid. At least the charade would be over, and the global community could then agitate against such as system just as they did against South Africa. Which might ultimately lead to a one state solution and the eventual end to the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism.

 

There may be in between areas... a confederation with two parliaments, but all peoples having the right to live, work and worship wherever they like, plus a yuuuge compensation package for Palestinian and Jewish refugees to entice them to sign up.

 
Or perhaps a gradual enfranchisement of new citizens and current Israelis too having to earn the right to vote based on some sort of community service, including army service (yes, a big ask...but who knows in these changing times).

 

At least the ethnic cleansing card is off the table..at least for now.

 

The spanner in the works, possibly even deliberately placed there by Netanyahu, to derail the whole process is his insistence that Palestinians recognize the Jewish State of Israel, which of course is completely unnecessary. It would condemn the current non Jewish 20% (and future citizens) of the Israeli population to instant 2nd class status. It would be impossible to maintain anyway, as demographics change, unless you introduce compulsory birth control, and discriminatory family reunification and marriage laws for non Jews.

 

What is so bad about simply having a clause in the constitution saying Israel could always be a haven for genuinely persecuted world Jewry?

 

Anyway, the devil is in the detail, which is yet to be revealed.

You have carefully and comprehensively thought out the possible options that might have a working chance of becoming part of a comprehensive solution. There might be even others not yet considered such as (thinking out of the box) merger of Palestine with Lebanon.

 

But what Trump has done is pronounced a policy "on the fly" without considered consultation with government experts in his own State Department or even a private cue to Netanyahu before the press conference of his soft criticism on the current Israeli developments and his "whatever happens, happens" perspective. The end result is that Trump has as a minimum confused both Israeli and Palestine officials of what Trump's policies are with regard to achieving resolution. And as a maximum dismissed himself as a serious and competent negotiator.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Srikcir
spelling

[Morch]

@ezzra

 

With regard to Netanyahu making no commitment to reduce illegal settlement building, the OP is somewhat off mark or was simply posted before the following:

 

After Trump Meeting, Netanyahu Says Willing to Examine Reining in Settlement Construction

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.772023

 

Not quite a freeze of illegal settlement expansion, but a far cry from a a free pass to pursue extreme right wing policies on this front. This probably fits nicely with Netanyahu wishes, as it appeases both his coalition partners/political rivals and avoids pushing Trump's administration too far.

 

Somewhat contrary to your "account", Israel pretty much demolished the Gaza Strip settlements that were abandoned. If the "full bloom" imagery was a reference to the mythological greenhouses, things didn't exactly went down this way - due to failures on both side's part.

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, DriveByTrucker said:

 

What load of Israeli propaganda BS! "Israeli withdrew from Gaza leaving behind houses and villages" What are you talking about? The Israelis drove Palestinians from their land and into Gaza, build a wall around it and now its the biggest illegal prison camp! 

The Israelis are the occupying power which drops cluster and phosphorus bombs on this prison camp called Gaza! Has the aggression of the Israeli government on Gaza changed anything? Yes, it has killed thousands and thousands of innocent women and children! The fascist Likud party has only one goal, and that is to wipe out all Muslims from Palestine.

 

Yet another one of them fiery rants,  presenting a one-sided "account" as a whole picture.

 

The Likud party does not have a goal such as "wipe all the Muslims from Palestine". Israel did not drive the Palestinians into Gaza, it was populated by Palestinians to begin with. The blockade on Gaza is directly related to attacks by the Hamas (and if maintained by Egypt as well). Rockets launched on Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations are considered war crimes (this was even acknowledged by the other Palestinian side). 

 

I doubt that a balanced take of facts interests most posters, though. Seems like these topics are just another playground for opinion heavy fact light partisan views. 

[dexterm]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yet another one of them fiery rants,  presenting a one-sided "account" as a whole picture.

 

The Likud party does not have a goal such as "wipe all the Muslims from Palestine". Israel did not drive the Palestinians into Gaza, it was populated by Palestinians to begin with. The blockade on Gaza is directly related to attacks by the Hamas (and if maintained by Egypt as well). Rockets launched on Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations are considered war crimes (this was even acknowledged by the other Palestinian side). 

 

I doubt that a balanced take of facts interests most posters, though. Seems like these topics are just another playground for opinion heavy fact light partisan views. 

>>Israel did not drive the Palestinians into Gaza

...oh yes they did in many instances.

 

Even Palestinians who had helped Jewish Haganah fighters by hiding them from the British Army, were ethnically cleansed into Gaza.

Well worth a read..
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-true-gaza-back-story-that-the-israelis-aren-t-telling-this-week-9596120.html

 

But never mind the side show of the usual culprits giving their pseudo-history shticks a final airing.

 

I am more interested in your comments on the OP, and where the peace process is headed.

Edited February 16, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Speaking of BS. The Palestinians started the violent conflict, refused the UN fix - including their own country (for the first time in history) , declared war of Israel and lost time after time. Then they turned to terrorism against innocent civilians for the last 7 decades. Israel turned over Gaza to them and instead of gratitude, they immediately launched more terrorist attacks. They are lucky that Israel continues to look for a peaceful solution at all. No wonder there are reservations about granting them an independent state.

 

And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever given them — an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses. Then they elected Hamas. Then, instead of building a state with its attendant political and economic institutions, they spent the better part of a decade turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to make ceaseless war on Israel.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383024/truth-about-gaza-charles-krauthammer

 

Both you and your idol gloss over the fact that Israel did not "turn over" the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians (neither to Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority), but rather unilaterally withdrew without much by way of coordination.

 

Further inaccuracies - The greenhouses reference is an often used myth - didn't actually come about for the reasons alluded or in the way described. Details were linked on previous topics. The Palestinians (again, which?) were not given an "independent territory".

 

Also, conflating between the Hamas and the Palestinians is about as clued as conflating between extreme Israeli right wingers and the nation as a whole.

 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Israel did not drive the Palestinians into Gaza

...oh yes they did in many instances.

 

Even Palestinians who had helped Jewish Haganah fighters by hiding them from the British Army, were ethnically cleansed into Gaza.

Well worth a read..
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-true-gaza-back-story-that-the-israelis-aren-t-telling-this-week-9596120.html

 

There's a difference between saying that Israel drove some Palestinians to the Gaza Strip, and a general statement about "the Palestinians". I was referring to the latter - which is a hyperbolic exaggeration. Thanks for making my point there.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Welcome to centuries more conflict, more global tension, more hostility between religions, more anti-west terrorism, more security everywhere, more paranoia... Make no mistake, this issue is at the root of it.

 

Welcome to another post claiming to predict how things will pan out for centuries to come, and making an essentially regional (or even localized) conflict into a major global issue. Make no mistake, this is nonsense posting at its best.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, notmyself said:

I agree. Bibi said during the last election that he would never give the land back so there would never be a two state solution anyway.

 

Netanyahu says a whole lot of things, mainly depending on which political pressures are present. The current instance is a good example as any. Prior to this meeting, his coalition partners pressed him to abide by their more extreme views, making vogue political threats if he'll commit to a two-state solution, so obviously he avoided that. On the other hand, when Trump asked him to ease up on illegal settlement expansion he went along with that as well. Further, Netanyahu is not a permanent fixture. His coalition is not particularity wide, his own approval ratings aren't high and the current corruption investigation he's involved in aren't working to his benefit.

 

Also, A two-state solution would require a reliable Palestinian leadership willing and able to carry its own part. There currently isn't such.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Trump would probably get a lot more backers if he woke up on Israel and the climate issue.

 

On the climate issue, perhaps. On the Israel front, doubt that adopting the views of the previous administration would garner much support from his own base (or even cost him some), and would probably not make a dent in the resistance he's facing from the other side of the political divide.

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, bandito said:

 

Are you the "civilized world"?

The palestinians have but one thing in mind, driving the Israelis in the sea.

In case this will not get done than fire rockets daily at Israel.

Terrorists and murderers these so called Palestinians.

 

There are no rockets fired at Israel on a "daily" basis.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, DriveByTrucker said:

Funny that you say that Palestinians have only one thing in mind driving the Israelis in the sea, because ironically that is exactly what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians (literally!), and they drive them of their land and replace them by illegal settlements, they prevent Palestinians from access to drinking water and food.

For you all Palestinians are terrorists (after all they are Muslims so in your eyes they have to be terrorists), on the other hand any normal person wouldn't find it acceptable that a state drops bombs on a prison camp, that is surrounded by a high wall so that people cant flee and it ensures the maximum casualties. Who cares they are women and children! They are all terrorists after all! The state of Israel is responsible for war crimes and genocide which you defend. Do you also defend the the Hutus when they massacred the Tutsi's? Do you also condemn the WW2 resistance in France/Denmark/Holland because of their terrorist and murderous acts against the Nazis?

 

 

Israel is not responsible for genocide. That's hyperbole, and so are your comparisons to other historical instances. It also doesn't have much to do with the OP.

 

The rest of your over the top "account" simply ignores that the Palestinians are not a passive side in this conflict.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Not true, but they have elected terrorist groups to represent them and they have carried out thousands of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians over many years. No wonder President Trump might be hesitant about a two-state solution.

 

Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_Palestinian_militant_groups

 

Are the Israelis, in general, to be held responsible for anything done by illegal settlers in the West Bank? Or by coalition parties representing them in government? Are all US citizens responsible for the actions of whichever administration? Not all Palestinians voted for Hamas.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

A personal attack on a member has been removed. Please keep the discussion civil.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

You have carefully and comprehensively thought out the possible options that might have a working chance of becoming part of a comprehensive solution. There might be even others not yet considered such as (thinking out of the box) merger of Palestine with Lebanon.

 

But what Trump has done is pronounced a policy "on the fly" without considered consultation with government experts in his own State Department or even a private cue to Netanyahu before the press conference of his soft criticism on the current Israeli developments and his "whatever happens, happens" perspective. The end result is that Trump has as a minimum confused both Israeli and Palestine officials of what Trump's policies are with regard to achieving resolution. And as a maximum dismissed himself as a serious and competent negotiator.

 

 

 

Most of the "options" detailed have a working chance only for those not familiar with actual conditions. Most rely on things being streamlined, parties playing by certain rules or adhering to certain views. That's rather far removed from the reality of the conflict, and indeed, the Middle East in general. It does not actually address how people (both Israelis and Palestinians) view various options, or how different group within these populations are apt to react. A merger of Palestine and Lebanon is indeed out of the box. Sort of like taking two angry beehives and throwing them together, just to see what will happen. Again, no reference to geography or the people.

 

The latter part of your post is spot on. Trump does the Trump thing. Various parties will issue statements, experts will analyze his words, and at the end of the day - no one will be all to clear on where this is heading.

[DriveByTrucker]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Israel is not responsible for genocide. That's hyperbole, and so are your comparisons to other historical instances. It also doesn't have much to do with the OP.

 

The rest of your over the top "account" simply ignores that the Palestinians are not a passive side in this conflict.

You can call the killing of 2100 Palestinian citizens over a period of 2 months (in 2014) what you want, I call it what it is, genocide. And definetly a war crime (or state sponsored terrorism if you prefer that). The comparison to the resistance of WW2 is definitely no hyperbole. But your "balanced" views clearly cant see beyond the "Israeli truth".

You assume that I ignore the Palestinian suicide idiots who walk into a busy bus and slaughter innocent citizens. Just because you ignore the murdering of innocent Palestinians, doesnt mean that I dont strongly condemn the killing of innocent Israeli!

Edited February 16, 2017 by DriveByTrucker