Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Quote: Please, skippy, save the emotional rhetoric regarding "our" capital. Giving up a small portion of East Jerusalem, with access to Temple Mount, would be a preferred solution in my opinion. Jerusalem doesn't have to be divided entirely in half.

Fine, then we come to an accord. We give the Palestinians what we offered before, control over their holy sites even though that denies us the temple mount we would do it. Then you have the only claim to the city addressed, Palestinian control of the holy site.

Quote: Also, Jerusalem does not necessarily have defined borders. It can be expanded westwards as well.

The actual city is clearly defined and has been for centuries.

Quote: Because Jerusalem itself is important to Muslims and Christians, and many Palestinians I know of, including my aunt's husband, friends at school, former school teachers, family friends, etc. all come from there, as do many of the Palestinians who have been displaced in 1967 into areas east of Jerusalem.

Because it's important to you, you should have it? It is the core of Judeaism, the holiest place in all the world, it is the tangible soul of our faith and our history all tracing back to it, it is our capitol, it is a central part of Israel. The muslim claim is to the third holiest site in Islam, we have offered you control over those holy sites we have been rebuked. Hebron is important to us, why dont we split every major city that we have a deep religous connection to?

Muslims are 30% of the population in Jerusalem, there is simply no claim to the city except for the Dome of the Rock which we have offered.

Quote: I did not deny that. I said the Jews can live wherever they want in Jerusalem, but East Jerusalem, or a part of it, should go to the Palestinians because Jerusalem is part of the deal. It is Jewish, but it is also Christian and Muslim.

It is almost wholly Jewish and most important to Jews, populated mostly by Jews, and run by Jews. We arent handing any great part of it over. You want your holy sites ok, but beyond that nothing.

[US Retard]

superskippy wrote: Quote: False. The UN's GA RE-affirmed (affirmed again) Palestine's rights to "independence and sovereignty" over 32 years ago in 1974.
But the UN doesnt recognize a state called Palestine. Nor did it recognize the attempt in 1988 to declare indepence. The closest it has come is giving the PLO the ability to observe but not speak or vote at the UN.
???

Quote: “How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy.”
— Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Sorry, but the facts are clear.

The Question of Palestine & the United Nations in March 2003 wrote: Later, in its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, the General Assembly acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine made by the Palestine National Council. The Assembly reaffirmed the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty over its territory occupied since 1967. Also, the General Assembly decided that the designation “Palestine” should be used in place of the designation “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the United Nations system, with- out prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system.

Ten years later, in 1998, the General Assembly, in its resolution 52/250 of 7 July, decided to confer upon Palestine, in its capacity as Observer, additional rights and privileges of participation in the sessions and work of the General Assembly, as well as in United Nations and international conferences.
So the UN does recognize a state called Palestine and it did recognize Palestine's independence in 1988--as well as in 1974. Furthermore, Palestine has additional rights and privileges of participation in the UN.

superskippy wrote: Quote: If the settled Israeli land were purchased from the Palestinians it would no longer be "private Palestinian land". So the 40% of private Palestinian land mentioned above could not have been purchased. It was stolen. It was illegal. It is a historical trend among powerful states.
Well that isnt legally true, there is unclaimed land which no Palestinians have deeds to which we have claimed often as grounds for settlements. The private lands are everything else and we commonly pay for the territory, but that in itself at the moment shouldnt be going on.
Unclaimed land is not private Palestinian land. Once private Palestinian land is sold to the state of Israel it ceases to be private Palestinian land. No?

[US Retard]

superskippy wrote: Because it's important to you, you should have it? It is the core of Judeaism, the holiest place in all the world, it is the tangible soul of our faith and our history all tracing back to it, it is our capitol, it is a central part of Israel. The muslim claim is to the third holiest site in Islam, we have offered you control over those holy sites we have been rebuked. Hebron is important to us, why dont we split every major city that we have a deep religous connection to?
So because it's important to you, you should have it? Again, Israel needs to apply to itself the same standards it applies to others.

superskippy wrote: Muslims are 30% of the population in Jerusalem, there is simply no claim to the city except for the Dome of the Rock which we have offered.
Again, Saracen has been discussing EAST Jerusalem "which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications".
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm

[superskippy]

Quote: So the UN does recognize a state called Palestine and it did recognize Palestine's independence in 1988--as well as in 1974. Furthermore, Palestine has additional rights and privileges of participation in the UN.

No it didnt, Palestine has no rights or participation in the UN, instead the PLO as the sole negotiator group has very limited observer status in the General Assembly, which is a non-binding council.

Quote: Unclaimed land is not private Palestinian land. Once private Palestinian land is sold to the state of Israel it ceases to be private Palestinian land. No?

Once it is sold it isnt private Palestinian land. But it still cuts into the areas claimed by a Palestinian state, which causes more trouble.

Quote: So because it's important to you, you should have it? Again, Israel needs to apply to itself the same standards it applies to others.

Because it is the most important. There is no other piece of ground on this entire planet more important to us. Muslims have one building in the city that draws importance to them, and we have offered to give it to them. Jerusalem is the center of Judeaism, it is the center of Israel, and the governmental capital of our state.

Quote: Again, Saracen has been discussing EAST Jerusalem "which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications".

East Jerusalem the actual city is hardly a center of commercial or cultural life for the Palestinians. Besides noting that they are a minority even in the city of East Jerusalem, they are blocked off from the West Bank. The Palestinian control there is almost non-existan, whereas the Jewish majority population and Israeli control make it a core area of Israel.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Fine, then we come to an accord. We give the Palestinians what we offered before, control over their holy sites even though that denies us the temple mount we would do it. Then you have the only claim to the city addressed, Palestinian control of the holy site.


Part of Jerusalem, not necessarily 50/50, plus the holy sites.

Quote: The actual city is clearly defined and has been for centuries.

Proof of this... I don't doubt you though.

Quote: Because it's important to you, you should have it? It is the core of Judeaism, the holiest place in all the world, it is the tangible soul of our faith and our history all tracing back to it, it is our capitol, it is a central part of Israel. The muslim claim is to the third holiest site in Islam, we have offered you control over those holy sites we have been rebuked. Hebron is important to us, why dont we split every major city that we have a deep religous connection to?

Muslims are 30% of the population in Jerusalem, there is simply no claim to the city except for the Dome of the Rock which we have offered.

Read above.

Quote: It is almost wholly Jewish and most important to Jews, populated mostly by Jews, and run by Jews. We arent handing any great part of it over. You want your holy sites ok, but beyond that nothing.

Part of it should be given to the Palestinian state: the Palestinians should be able to visit it, and thus they need a place like part of East Jerusalem if not all of it.

[superskippy]

Quote: Part of Jerusalem, not necessarily 50/50, plus the holy sites.

Why? The Palestinians are a minority in the city, they have no economic, communications, or governmental link, their only link is a religous one to a single building and estate. Why would you refuse a compromise of giving the holy sites?

Quote: Proof of this... I don't doubt you though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem

Why not look through the sections on the four quarters, and the topography.

I mean it's one of those basic things that are so basic it's hard to find evidence for, this is a city that is over 4,000 years old, it's set borders and existance as a city are almost universally accepted.

Quote: Part of it should be given to the Palestinian state: the Palestinians should be able to visit it, and thus they need a place like part of East Jerusalem if not all of it.

They dont need any part of East Jerusalem, it would be in fact contradictory to the Palestinian movement. Why should a minority become the controllers of the majority? The urban area of East Jerusalem discounting our expanded distrct to the surrounding towns, is majority Jewish. The Palestinian link is sustained soley to the Holy sites, there is no great cultural link, economic link, population link, or in fact any link.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Why? The Palestinians are a minority in the city, they have no economic, communications, or governmental link, their only link is a religous one to a single building and estate. Why would you refuse a compromise of giving the holy sites?

I'm talking about a strip of Jerusalem that connects it to the rest of the West Bank.

Quote: They dont need any part of East Jerusalem, it would be in fact contradictory to the Palestinian movement. Why should a minority become the controllers of the majority? The urban area of East Jerusalem discounting our expanded distrct to the surrounding towns, is majority Jewish. The Palestinian link is sustained soley to the Holy sites, there is no great cultural link, economic link, population link, or in fact any link.

The cultural link is that some Palestinians are Jerusalemite, and can trace their ancestry to the first Muslims who were living there.

[superskippy]

Quote: I'm talking about a strip of Jerusalem that connects it to the rest of the West Bank.

So you dont want the city, you want the outlying towns and villages that make up the district?

Quote: The cultural link is that some Palestinians are Jerusalemite, and can trace their ancestry to the first Muslims who were living there.

The Palestinian minority that lives in the city, and it is a minority, isnt being forced to be removed they can remain. As for your cultural link that is a tiny one, which at best applies to a very small fraction of Palestinians.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: So you dont want the city, you want the outlying towns and villages that make up the district?

Yeah, wherever the Palestinians are most concentrated.

Quote: The Palestinian minority that lives in the city, and it is a minority, isnt being forced to be removed they can remain. As for your cultural link that is a tiny one, which at best applies to a very small fraction of Palestinians.

Not really. A large portion of Palestinians claim to be of Jerusalemite descent.

Another proposal: I propose that the Waqf allow Jewish prayers on Temple Mount. This is actually one issue that I tend to disagree with the Waqf on.

[superskippy]

Quote: Yeah, wherever the Palestinians are most concentrated.

I have no great issue with setting aside the outlying towns and villages if that what it must come to.

Quote: Not really. A large portion of Palestinians claim to be of Jerusalemite descent.

Which is impossible considering the Palestinian presence in the city has been small for more than 150 years with Jews being the majority in the city since the 1800's. There is no mathimatical way any significant amount of Palestinians could claim any real link to Jerusalem, and even tinier fraction could possible claim any deep historical link.

Quote: Another proposal: I propose that the Waqf allow Jewish prayers on Temple Mount. This is actually one issue that I tend to disagree with the Waqf on.

Thats good to hear.

[Saracen]

Is this one of those other threads where we finally reach a negotiable settlement? :)

Good discussion. Shalom/Salaam.

[superskippy]

I think so, it's always good to see we can grab some of those every so often. There so rare.