The Status of Jeruselum and double standards

[Sixties Fan]

You separate Jews from Zionists.

You have to. Little did you know that there are 50 million Christian zionists in America alone. That is 35 million more than the entire Jewish population worldwide.

The zionists do NOT speak for the Jewish people and antizionism is NOT antisemitism.

Keep up your sick tirades about Zionism is and who is a Zionist and who is a Jew and who......and who.....and who........
(I am getting sleepy.....)

There are 50 million Christian zionists in America alone. That is 35 million more than the entire Jewish population worldwide.

Are you capable of figuring out that you are wrong?

And those 50 Million Christians are more than welcome to be ZIonists and come and visit Israel as many times as they want. It does not mean that they will be moving to Israel any time soon, or ever. The same goes for all the Muslim ZIonists in the world.

Both know who are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, something you keep insisting in changing along with your favorite people, the Nazis and the Jihadists.

See, Israel and the Jews are not alone. Never have been.

 

[abi]

You separate Jews from Zionists.

You have to. Little did you know that there are 50 million Christian zionists in America alone. That is 35 million more than the entire Jewish population worldwide.

The zionists do NOT speak for the Jewish people and antizionism is NOT antisemitism.

Keep up your sick tirades about Zionism is and who is a Zionist and who is a Jew and who......and who.....and who........
(I am getting sleepy.....)

There are 50 million Christian zionists in America alone. That is 35 million more than the entire Jewish population worldwide.

Are you capable of figuring out that you are wrong?

And those 50 Million Christians are more than welcome to be ZIonists and come and visit Israel as many times as they want. It does not mean that they will be moving to Israel any time soon, or ever. The same goes for all the Muslim ZIonists in the world.

Both know who are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, something you keep insisting in changing along with your favorite people, the Nazis and the Jihadists.

See, Israel and the Jews are not alone. Never have been.

Fine, but: zionism ≠ Judaism.

 

[Sixties Fan]

You separate Jews from Zionists.

You have to. Little did you know that there are 50 million Christian zionists in America alone. That is 35 million more than the entire Jewish population worldwide.

The zionists do NOT speak for the Jewish people and antizionism is NOT antisemitism.

Keep up your sick tirades about Zionism is and who is a Zionist and who is a Jew and who......and who.....and who........
(I am getting sleepy.....)

There are 50 million Christian zionists in America alone. That is 35 million more than the entire Jewish population worldwide.

Are you capable of figuring out that you are wrong?

And those 50 Million Christians are more than welcome to be ZIonists and come and visit Israel as many times as they want. It does not mean that they will be moving to Israel any time soon, or ever. The same goes for all the Muslim ZIonists in the world.

Both know who are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, something you keep insisting in changing along with your favorite people, the Nazis and the Jihadists.

See, Israel and the Jews are not alone. Never have been.

Fine, but: zionism ≠ Judaism.

Thank you for appropriating Rabbi Hillel words and for turning his people into non Jews.

He knew the meaning of Zionism even during his time.

But, Herr Goebbles..... knows best

 

[Sixties Fan]

Despite that, when the war ended, England still rewarded the Arabs with a gift of eighty percent of Palestine, to be renamed Transjordan as an exclusive Arab State excluding any Jews.

The remaining one-fifth, an area of some 45,000 square miles, was to be divided between Jews and Arabs with governance based entirely on who was in the majority.

Meanwhile, well before the Balfour Declaration’s call in November 1917 for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, some 90,000 Jews were already living and working in kibbutzim and Jewish cities such as Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Safad where, by far, they constituted the majority.

In fact, at that time the Arab world showed no interest at all in Jerusalem or the Al-Aqsa holy site. Almost none of the Arab leaders ever bothered to visit the Holy City, even after the city fell into Jordanian hands following the 1948 war with Israel.

On the other hand, it would be difficult to find a Jewish leader anywhere who has not visited the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism.

So why then, is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas kicking up such a storm over the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when he certainly knows that that the future American Embassy will be built in West Jerusalem?

(full article online)

Why is the Palestinian leader Abbas making such a fuss about Jerusalem?

 

[Coyote]

How stupid. Look at this... with your eyes open:

Have a clue as to long ago the Muslims built that stuff?

They built that subsequent to war and conquest. Haven't you been whining about land seized during war is illegal?

The laws, values and ethics of today did not exist thousands of years ago.

What you do not seem to realize is that the laws of today have no consequences to the Arab Muslims who want ALL of Israel back into Muslim hands.

They were conquerors in the 7th century CE. They are conquerors now in the 21st Century.

Except that isn't representative of most of the Palestinians who have, until relatively recently when it became less and less probable - supported a two state solution.

Most Palestinian Arabs support the destruction of Israel, and turning ALL of the Mandate for Palestine into a Pan Arab Caliphate.

How stupid. Look at this... with your eyes open:

Have a clue as to long ago the Muslims built that stuff?

They built that subsequent to war and conquest. Haven't you been whining about land seized during war is illegal?

The laws, values and ethics of today did not exist thousands of years ago.

What you do not seem to realize is that the laws of today have no consequences to the Arab Muslims who want ALL of Israel back into Muslim hands.

They were conquerors in the 7th century CE. They are conquerors now in the 21st Century.

Except that isn't representative of most of the Palestinians who have, until relatively recently when it became less and less probable - supported a two state solution.

Most Palestinian Arabs support the destruction of Israel, and turning ALL of the Mandate for Palestine into a Pan Arab Caliphate.

No. Most do not.

Palestinian-Israeli Pulse | PCPSR

These are the results of Palestinian-Israeli Pulse: A Joint Poll conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah, with funding from the European Union (EU) and the Netherlands Representative Office in Ramallah.

MAIN HIGHLIGHTS

• A majority of both Israelis (53%) and Palestinians (52%) support the two-state solution. Palestinian support has risen since December 2016, when 44% supported the solution in principle; among Jews support stood at 50% in December declining to 47% in the current poll.
• Still, fewer people support three possible alternatives to a two-state solution: one state with equal rights, one state without rights, and expulsion or “transfer.”
• Only 43% of Palestinians (hardly any change from December, when 42% supported it) and 32% of Israeli Jews (a nine-point decline from the previous survey) support a permanent peace agreement package, along with 83% of Israeli Arabs – typical of the high level support from Israeli Arabs in previous surveys. In total, 41% of Israelis support the detailed agreement. The peace package comprises: a de-militarized Palestinian state, an Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line with equal territorial exchange, a family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall under Israeli sovereignty and the Muslim and Christian quarters and the al Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount under Palestinian sovereignty, and the end of the conflict and claims. Fifty-three percent of Israelis and 54% of Palestinians are opposed to the two-state comprehensive package.
• The skepticism about the package appears closely related to serious doubts about feasibility. Palestinians and Israelis are both divided almost equally about whether a two state solution is still possible, or whether settlements have expanded too much to make it viable. Among all Israelis, nearly half believes the solution is still viable (49%), while 44% think settlements have spread too much for it to be viable. Among Palestinians, 52% say the two state solution is no longer viable, while 44% think it is. But fully 71% and 79% of Palestinians and Israeli Jews, respectively, do not expect a Palestinian state to be established in the next five years.
• Despite the majority rejection of the two state implementation package, their opposition can be shifted significantly based on added policy incentives. For example, 43% of Jews who are opposed would change their minds if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, including the historic and religious ties to the land – bringing total support to a 58% majority. Almost the same portion of Palestinians, 42%, would change their minds to support the agreement if Israel recognized the Arab and Muslim character of the Palestinian state. When the Palestinians who change their minds for this item are added to original supporters, 66% - nearly two thirds – support the agreement.
• When both sides are offered four similar options for what should happen next on the conflict, both Palestinians and Israelis choose “reach a peace agreement” by a clear plurality, in almost identical numbers: 44% and 45%, respectively. However, just over one-fifth of Palestinians called for an armed struggle against Israel, and 12% of Israelis sought a definitive war with the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The US doesn't recognize Jerusalem in entirety. It's your interpretation.
General Assembly resolution 67/19 (and many others) call East Jerusalem "occupied Palestinian territory". Was it negotiated? Wasn't it a unilateral decision?

The UN is a multilateral body. The presidents statement said Jerusalem not part of it. So what did he mean? Jerusalem is claimed by two factions is it not?

Why the double standard where the Palestinians are punished for unilateral actions and Israel rewarded?

The Jewish People have claimed Jerusalem for 3000 years.

The Arabs, Muslims or Christians, have been on the land for 1400 years.

At what point did the Arabs decide that Jerusalem was important to them and chose to treat it as such?

What care did they give to her? What protection?

What protection of Jerusalem did they ask the Crusaders or the Ottomans?

What is the real significance of Jerusalem to Arabs?

The Hashemite clan made it clear that Jerusalem had no importance to them.

How many Arab clans see Jerusalem as important to Islam, and how long have they been thinking that way?

Those kingdoms ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

I will make the same argument I made on behalf of the Jewish right to the Temple Mount. It doesn’t matter what you think, It matters what people believe. Jerusalem is one of the important cities for Islam. Otherwise why is Israel so careful to preserve Muslim access to the holy sites?

"What people believe is what matters". There's the Rub.

Christians and Muslims have been led many things about themselves, Christianity, Islam, the Jews and Judaism.

Is any and all of it true?

The facts do not matter, at all?

And those who are the victims of those beliefs, must simply deal with it?

Jerusalem was NEVER important to Islam before 1948. EVER.
And "suddenly" turning the city into a "third most important city for Islam", still does not make it so.

Why is Israel careful to preserve Muslim access to the holy sites?

Because Jews are not Muslims, or Christians.

Because Jews DO respect other people's beliefs and holy sites.

Because Jews would not EVER think of doing to the Muslims what they did to the Jews for 1400 years, and still doing, and destroying or denying access to any other religion or belief, if they think it has any importance to them.

The Hashemites did not keep the Jews and Christians from their holy sites for no reason, between 1948 and 1967. Maybe you need to look into the whys of it.

And also the whys, since the Hashemites entered into an accord with Israel over the Temple Mount after 1967, what did that accord say, and how is it respected today by the Hashemites and many other Arab clans.

Israel preserves all heritages found in Israel.
It does not even protect its own heritage from the Muslims who have been destroying everything they find under the Temple Mount and many other places.

Do extreme Muslims know the meaning of respect, based on what I wrote above?

How does UNESCO and all other bodies get to stop them?
How can UNESCO or any other body stop the Muslims from doing that, if they are calling Jewish Landmarks and Heritage "Palestinian Landmarks and Heritage" ?

The facts are often not really "facts" when it comes to thousands of years of history and especially when it comes to religion - it's what people believe about a place.

You can not say Jerusalem was not important to Islam prior to 1946 when one of it's most revered mosques is built there and their prophet ascended to heaven there. It's simply untrue to claim it is not important and only became important when the Jews gained control. The only thing that changed then was not importance but access and control.

There is too much about religion in the discussion. Jerusalem was the center of Palestinian life. It was not only for religion but was also a cultural and economic center of a large portion of Palestine. Of course tourism was an important part of that.The Jerusalem area, that includes Bethlehem, was heavily Christian.

Israel has chopped that up, taking most of it for itself, and destroying the cultural and economic value to the Palestinians.

 

[Sixties Fan]

They built that subsequent to war and conquest. Haven't you been whining about land seized during war is illegal?

The laws, values and ethics of today did not exist thousands of years ago.

What you do not seem to realize is that the laws of today have no consequences to the Arab Muslims who want ALL of Israel back into Muslim hands.

They were conquerors in the 7th century CE. They are conquerors now in the 21st Century.

Except that isn't representative of most of the Palestinians who have, until relatively recently when it became less and less probable - supported a two state solution.

Most Palestinian Arabs support the destruction of Israel, and turning ALL of the Mandate for Palestine into a Pan Arab Caliphate.

They built that subsequent to war and conquest. Haven't you been whining about land seized during war is illegal?

The laws, values and ethics of today did not exist thousands of years ago.

What you do not seem to realize is that the laws of today have no consequences to the Arab Muslims who want ALL of Israel back into Muslim hands.

They were conquerors in the 7th century CE. They are conquerors now in the 21st Century.

Except that isn't representative of most of the Palestinians who have, until relatively recently when it became less and less probable - supported a two state solution.

Most Palestinian Arabs support the destruction of Israel, and turning ALL of the Mandate for Palestine into a Pan Arab Caliphate.

No. Most do not.

Palestinian-Israeli Pulse | PCPSR

These are the results of Palestinian-Israeli Pulse: A Joint Poll conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah, with funding from the European Union (EU) and the Netherlands Representative Office in Ramallah.

MAIN HIGHLIGHTS

• A majority of both Israelis (53%) and Palestinians (52%) support the two-state solution. Palestinian support has risen since December 2016, when 44% supported the solution in principle; among Jews support stood at 50% in December declining to 47% in the current poll.
• Still, fewer people support three possible alternatives to a two-state solution: one state with equal rights, one state without rights, and expulsion or “transfer.”
• Only 43% of Palestinians (hardly any change from December, when 42% supported it) and 32% of Israeli Jews (a nine-point decline from the previous survey) support a permanent peace agreement package, along with 83% of Israeli Arabs – typical of the high level support from Israeli Arabs in previous surveys. In total, 41% of Israelis support the detailed agreement. The peace package comprises: a de-militarized Palestinian state, an Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line with equal territorial exchange, a family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall under Israeli sovereignty and the Muslim and Christian quarters and the al Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount under Palestinian sovereignty, and the end of the conflict and claims. Fifty-three percent of Israelis and 54% of Palestinians are opposed to the two-state comprehensive package.
• The skepticism about the package appears closely related to serious doubts about feasibility. Palestinians and Israelis are both divided almost equally about whether a two state solution is still possible, or whether settlements have expanded too much to make it viable. Among all Israelis, nearly half believes the solution is still viable (49%), while 44% think settlements have spread too much for it to be viable. Among Palestinians, 52% say the two state solution is no longer viable, while 44% think it is. But fully 71% and 79% of Palestinians and Israeli Jews, respectively, do not expect a Palestinian state to be established in the next five years.
• Despite the majority rejection of the two state implementation package, their opposition can be shifted significantly based on added policy incentives. For example, 43% of Jews who are opposed would change their minds if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, including the historic and religious ties to the land – bringing total support to a 58% majority. Almost the same portion of Palestinians, 42%, would change their minds to support the agreement if Israel recognized the Arab and Muslim character of the Palestinian state. When the Palestinians who change their minds for this item are added to original supporters, 66% - nearly two thirds – support the agreement.
• When both sides are offered four similar options for what should happen next on the conflict, both Palestinians and Israelis choose “reach a peace agreement” by a clear plurality, in almost identical numbers: 44% and 45%, respectively. However, just over one-fifth of Palestinians called for an armed struggle against Israel, and 12% of Israelis sought a definitive war with the Palestinians.

I am curious:

What does it mean by "Israel changes textbooks". Change what in the Israeli School textbooks?

Israel "apologizes to / for refugees" (third one) ?

-----------

Is this one of the many Palestinian incentives Israel is supposed to take seriously on the path to Peace?

1 and 2 are already happening.
6 - Israel has accepted many times, I believe.
7 - Release prisoners without a peace treaty - HUGE MISTAKE on the part of Israel (Shalit deal)

It is a long report. But there are many things in it which the Palestinians want which Israel cannot simply agree to, especially without the Arab leaders actually siting down and actually be able to negotiate and give something in exchange.
That is why it is called a negotiation, right?

98 % of everything which the Palestinians wanted was offered in 2008. Why didn't Abbas accept it then?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Speaking of double standards, compensation to Arabs but not to Jewish refugees:

http://www.peacefaq.com/refugees.html

 

[P F Tinmore]

98 % of everything which the Palestinians wanted was offered in 2008. Why didn't Abbas accept it then?

The Palestinians were offered 98% of the prison. The other 2% was the walls and the doors.

 

[Sixties Fan]

98 % of everything which the Palestinians wanted was offered in 2008. Why didn't Abbas accept it then?

The Palestinians were offered 98% of the prison. The other 2% was the walls and the doors.

 

[Coyote]

The laws, values and ethics of today did not exist thousands of years ago.

What you do not seem to realize is that the laws of today have no consequences to the Arab Muslims who want ALL of Israel back into Muslim hands.

They were conquerors in the 7th century CE. They are conquerors now in the 21st Century.

Except that isn't representative of most of the Palestinians who have, until relatively recently when it became less and less probable - supported a two state solution.

Most Palestinian Arabs support the destruction of Israel, and turning ALL of the Mandate for Palestine into a Pan Arab Caliphate.

The laws, values and ethics of today did not exist thousands of years ago.

What you do not seem to realize is that the laws of today have no consequences to the Arab Muslims who want ALL of Israel back into Muslim hands.

They were conquerors in the 7th century CE. They are conquerors now in the 21st Century.

Except that isn't representative of most of the Palestinians who have, until relatively recently when it became less and less probable - supported a two state solution.

Most Palestinian Arabs support the destruction of Israel, and turning ALL of the Mandate for Palestine into a Pan Arab Caliphate.

No. Most do not.

Palestinian-Israeli Pulse | PCPSR

These are the results of Palestinian-Israeli Pulse: A Joint Poll conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah, with funding from the European Union (EU) and the Netherlands Representative Office in Ramallah.

MAIN HIGHLIGHTS

• A majority of both Israelis (53%) and Palestinians (52%) support the two-state solution. Palestinian support has risen since December 2016, when 44% supported the solution in principle; among Jews support stood at 50% in December declining to 47% in the current poll.
• Still, fewer people support three possible alternatives to a two-state solution: one state with equal rights, one state without rights, and expulsion or “transfer.”
• Only 43% of Palestinians (hardly any change from December, when 42% supported it) and 32% of Israeli Jews (a nine-point decline from the previous survey) support a permanent peace agreement package, along with 83% of Israeli Arabs – typical of the high level support from Israeli Arabs in previous surveys. In total, 41% of Israelis support the detailed agreement. The peace package comprises: a de-militarized Palestinian state, an Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line with equal territorial exchange, a family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall under Israeli sovereignty and the Muslim and Christian quarters and the al Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount under Palestinian sovereignty, and the end of the conflict and claims. Fifty-three percent of Israelis and 54% of Palestinians are opposed to the two-state comprehensive package.
• The skepticism about the package appears closely related to serious doubts about feasibility. Palestinians and Israelis are both divided almost equally about whether a two state solution is still possible, or whether settlements have expanded too much to make it viable. Among all Israelis, nearly half believes the solution is still viable (49%), while 44% think settlements have spread too much for it to be viable. Among Palestinians, 52% say the two state solution is no longer viable, while 44% think it is. But fully 71% and 79% of Palestinians and Israeli Jews, respectively, do not expect a Palestinian state to be established in the next five years.
• Despite the majority rejection of the two state implementation package, their opposition can be shifted significantly based on added policy incentives. For example, 43% of Jews who are opposed would change their minds if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, including the historic and religious ties to the land – bringing total support to a 58% majority. Almost the same portion of Palestinians, 42%, would change their minds to support the agreement if Israel recognized the Arab and Muslim character of the Palestinian state. When the Palestinians who change their minds for this item are added to original supporters, 66% - nearly two thirds – support the agreement.
• When both sides are offered four similar options for what should happen next on the conflict, both Palestinians and Israelis choose “reach a peace agreement” by a clear plurality, in almost identical numbers: 44% and 45%, respectively. However, just over one-fifth of Palestinians called for an armed struggle against Israel, and 12% of Israelis sought a definitive war with the Palestinians.

I am curious:

What does it mean by "Israel changes textbooks". Change what in the Israeli School textbooks?

Israel "apologizes to / for refugees" (third one) ?

-----------

Is this one of the many Palestinian incentives Israel is supposed to take seriously on the path to Peace?

1 and 2 are already happening.
6 - Israel has accepted many times, I believe.
7 - Release prisoners without a peace treaty - HUGE MISTAKE on the part of Israel (Shalit deal)

It is a long report. But there are many things in it which the Palestinians want which Israel cannot simply agree to, especially without the Arab leaders actually siting down and actually be able to negotiate and give something in exchange.
That is why it is called a negotiation, right?

98 % of everything which the Palestinians wanted was offered in 2008. Why didn't Abbas accept it then?

On the textbooks...he paragraph pertaining to it is this. Both sides have controversial textbooks that marginalize or diminish the rights or existence of the other.

Each side was offered seven incentives. Some of the incentives were similar, reflecting either the same policy or a parallel item. Three items tested the same policy: making the Israeli-Palestinian agreement part of the Arab Peace Initiative; including joint Palestinian-Israeli economic ventures; and both sides were asked about the other side removing incitement from their education textbooks, as an incentive. One item was a policy area specifically favorable to one side: for Israelis – allowing the Israeli air force access to Palestinian airspace, and for the Palestinians, release of all prisoners. ​

At any rate - the purpose of what I posted was to show that no, the majority of Palestinians do not support the eradication of Israel and destruction of Jews as you stated.

But it is a very thoughtful article - looking at both sides - for instance...

A fifth incentive stated that the agreement would include a gesture by each side, of a particularly sensitive aspect of the other side’s experience: an apology for the suffering of Palestinian refugees, and the recognition of Jewish holy sites in “Judea and Samaria.” Finally, each side was told that the other side would recognize the national and religious character of its state.​

Seems like this would be a good thing.

 

[Coyote]

Speaking of double standards, compensation to Arabs but not to Jewish refugees:

http://www.peacefaq.com/refugees.html

Link doesn't work...

 

[Coyote]

What often happens is the Arabs are unwilling to sell to Jews but intermediaries claiming they will not do that do just that. They are often employee's of corporations like Elad so it is a very deceptive practice. On the othe side of course - Arabs who sell to Jews face retribution from family and neighbors. And perception matters. They can say Arabs are allowed to live anywhere in Jerusalem but that is not the case in reality. Most "settlements" are Jewish only, even though the laws state that they can not have rules that discriminate ethnically they do.

Are there any new Palestinian settlements in West Jerusalem?

Is there any reason NOT to believe that increasing the number of Jews living in East Jerusalem and decreasing (through lack of residency permits, dishonest selling practices) - is not a means of gaining ethnic control over East Jerusalem?

It's a complex problem, and to add to the mess is housing costs in Jerusalem, which are so high that the Palestinians, who are NOT subsidized by outside groups - simply can not afford to live there.

Private property ownership is not sovereignty, so much of this argument is based on a false premise. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And sovereignty of Jerusalem will not be negotiated based on demographics. Both Parties will want sovereignty of Jerusalem regardless of demographics.

Israel has demonstrated a clear ability to accept its Arab minority and create a legal environment of non-discrimination (despite Team P's wailing to the contrary). Israel, like many nations, still struggles with actual discrimination despite the laws preventing it. Israel also has to consider its own security and the safety of its citizens. Controlling a hostile minority population is a challenge.

Arab Palestine, in contrast, have clearly demonstrated their lack of intent to accept a Jewish minority population and have publicly stated this time and again. We can see it in practice, not just in the West Bank and Gaza but all through the ME.

The Arabs of East Jerusalem have an informal but strict policy (to the point of violence) of not selling homes to Jews. Its discrimination, pure and simple. Despite the fact that Israel has laws to prevent discrimination, Jews also prevent Arabs from buying homes and living in "Jewish neighborhoods". Also discrimination. The level of mistrust is so high, it is impossible not to have discrimination at this point.

The eventual sovereign will have to deal with all of these issues just as Israel, the current legal administrator, is forced to deal with all this. If the intent is to have mixed neighborhoods where both Jews and Arabs live, and to ensure legal access to housing for both Arabs and Jews, Israel is actually on the right track under extremely difficult circumstances. Israel's position is that there should be NO restriction of property purchase based on ethnicity. You agree that is the right policy, yes? Israel is accepting applications for citizenship of Arabs in Israel. You agree that this is the right policy, yes?

The hope is that Jerusalem will be a thriving multi-ethnic, multi-religious city. Israel is certainly more than capable of achieving that goal. Far more capable, at this point, than any Arab Palestinian government.

You make a number of good points for discussion BUT - I'm going to stick to this one for the moment:

Do Jews sell property to Arabs? They often can't, because the property is owned by trusts that forbid the sale to anyone not Jewish right? The Arabs have an "informal policy" and the Jews have a formal one.

Why is one discriminatory and the other not?

 

[Flopper]

Negotiated? Lol
The bully pulpit? While I agree, what was the waste of time vote they did today?
"See America? So much of the world condemns you for moving your own embassy"
Seems to me that the whole UN is childish. including us. so **** it then...
You with me?

Hopefully you understand that the purpose of US movement of it's embassy to Jerusalem is an endorsement of the Israel movement of it's capital which will destroy any efforts for a two state solution along with any possibility of peace in the Middle East.

 

[Shusha]

What often happens is the Arabs are unwilling to sell to Jews but intermediaries claiming they will not do that do just that. They are often employee's of corporations like Elad so it is a very deceptive practice. On the othe side of course - Arabs who sell to Jews face retribution from family and neighbors. And perception matters. They can say Arabs are allowed to live anywhere in Jerusalem but that is not the case in reality. Most "settlements" are Jewish only, even though the laws state that they can not have rules that discriminate ethnically they do.

Are there any new Palestinian settlements in West Jerusalem?

Is there any reason NOT to believe that increasing the number of Jews living in East Jerusalem and decreasing (through lack of residency permits, dishonest selling practices) - is not a means of gaining ethnic control over East Jerusalem?

It's a complex problem, and to add to the mess is housing costs in Jerusalem, which are so high that the Palestinians, who are NOT subsidized by outside groups - simply can not afford to live there.

Private property ownership is not sovereignty, so much of this argument is based on a false premise. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And sovereignty of Jerusalem will not be negotiated based on demographics. Both Parties will want sovereignty of Jerusalem regardless of demographics.

Israel has demonstrated a clear ability to accept its Arab minority and create a legal environment of non-discrimination (despite Team P's wailing to the contrary). Israel, like many nations, still struggles with actual discrimination despite the laws preventing it. Israel also has to consider its own security and the safety of its citizens. Controlling a hostile minority population is a challenge.

Arab Palestine, in contrast, have clearly demonstrated their lack of intent to accept a Jewish minority population and have publicly stated this time and again. We can see it in practice, not just in the West Bank and Gaza but all through the ME.

The Arabs of East Jerusalem have an informal but strict policy (to the point of violence) of not selling homes to Jews. Its discrimination, pure and simple. Despite the fact that Israel has laws to prevent discrimination, Jews also prevent Arabs from buying homes and living in "Jewish neighborhoods". Also discrimination. The level of mistrust is so high, it is impossible not to have discrimination at this point.

The eventual sovereign will have to deal with all of these issues just as Israel, the current legal administrator, is forced to deal with all this. If the intent is to have mixed neighborhoods where both Jews and Arabs live, and to ensure legal access to housing for both Arabs and Jews, Israel is actually on the right track under extremely difficult circumstances. Israel's position is that there should be NO restriction of property purchase based on ethnicity. You agree that is the right policy, yes? Israel is accepting applications for citizenship of Arabs in Israel. You agree that this is the right policy, yes?

The hope is that Jerusalem will be a thriving multi-ethnic, multi-religious city. Israel is certainly more than capable of achieving that goal. Far more capable, at this point, than any Arab Palestinian government.

You make a number of good points for discussion BUT - I'm going to stick to this one for the moment:

Do Jews sell property to Arabs? They often can't, because the property is owned by trusts that forbid the sale to anyone not Jewish right? The Arabs have an "informal policy" and the Jews have a formal one.

Why is one discriminatory and the other not?

Property owned by trusts can't be sold to anyone. It can be leased to either Jews or Arabs as I understand it.

It is illegal in Israel to discriminate by ethnicity or religion

The policies and laws are fair and morally correct as far as I know.

As opposed to in Palestine were selling to Jews (technically the phrasing is ׳the enemy') has made it legal to discriminate.

In both places there is discrimination in actual practice.

 

[Coyote]

What often happens is the Arabs are unwilling to sell to Jews but intermediaries claiming they will not do that do just that. They are often employee's of corporations like Elad so it is a very deceptive practice. On the othe side of course - Arabs who sell to Jews face retribution from family and neighbors. And perception matters. They can say Arabs are allowed to live anywhere in Jerusalem but that is not the case in reality. Most "settlements" are Jewish only, even though the laws state that they can not have rules that discriminate ethnically they do.

Are there any new Palestinian settlements in West Jerusalem?

Is there any reason NOT to believe that increasing the number of Jews living in East Jerusalem and decreasing (through lack of residency permits, dishonest selling practices) - is not a means of gaining ethnic control over East Jerusalem?

It's a complex problem, and to add to the mess is housing costs in Jerusalem, which are so high that the Palestinians, who are NOT subsidized by outside groups - simply can not afford to live there.

Private property ownership is not sovereignty, so much of this argument is based on a false premise. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And sovereignty of Jerusalem will not be negotiated based on demographics. Both Parties will want sovereignty of Jerusalem regardless of demographics.

Israel has demonstrated a clear ability to accept its Arab minority and create a legal environment of non-discrimination (despite Team P's wailing to the contrary). Israel, like many nations, still struggles with actual discrimination despite the laws preventing it. Israel also has to consider its own security and the safety of its citizens. Controlling a hostile minority population is a challenge.

Arab Palestine, in contrast, have clearly demonstrated their lack of intent to accept a Jewish minority population and have publicly stated this time and again. We can see it in practice, not just in the West Bank and Gaza but all through the ME.

The Arabs of East Jerusalem have an informal but strict policy (to the point of violence) of not selling homes to Jews. Its discrimination, pure and simple. Despite the fact that Israel has laws to prevent discrimination, Jews also prevent Arabs from buying homes and living in "Jewish neighborhoods". Also discrimination. The level of mistrust is so high, it is impossible not to have discrimination at this point.

The eventual sovereign will have to deal with all of these issues just as Israel, the current legal administrator, is forced to deal with all this. If the intent is to have mixed neighborhoods where both Jews and Arabs live, and to ensure legal access to housing for both Arabs and Jews, Israel is actually on the right track under extremely difficult circumstances. Israel's position is that there should be NO restriction of property purchase based on ethnicity. You agree that is the right policy, yes? Israel is accepting applications for citizenship of Arabs in Israel. You agree that this is the right policy, yes?

The hope is that Jerusalem will be a thriving multi-ethnic, multi-religious city. Israel is certainly more than capable of achieving that goal. Far more capable, at this point, than any Arab Palestinian government.

You make a number of good points for discussion BUT - I'm going to stick to this one for the moment:

Do Jews sell property to Arabs? They often can't, because the property is owned by trusts that forbid the sale to anyone not Jewish right? The Arabs have an "informal policy" and the Jews have a formal one.

Why is one discriminatory and the other not?

Property owned by trusts can't be sold to anyone. It can be leased to either Jews or Arabs as I understand it.

It is illegal in Israel to discriminate by ethnicity or religion

The policies and laws are fair and morally correct as far as I know.

As opposed to in Palestine were selling to Jews (technically the phrasing is ׳the enemy') has made it legal to discriminate.

In both places there is discrimination in actual practice.

Thank you, I agree and it is problematic.

For example, in regards to leasing - Arabs still face obstacles:

Israeli Arabs face red tape when leasing JNF land
Despite state assurances to the contrary, Arab citizens of Israel who buy apartments on land owned by the Jewish National Fund are still having a hard time registering their homes in the Land Registry (Tabu), Arab residents of Carmiel claim.

Nizar Bakri and his brother Qassem both bought apartments in a Carmiel building three years ago and began the process of having the property registered in their names. To their chagrin, while their Jewish neighbors had no problem completing the process in a timely fashion, their apartments have yet to be registered.

The Israel Lands Authority makes no bones about the reason. In a letter Bakri received from the ILA, the agency writes: “At issue is a minority lessee and the land on which the apartments are built belongs to the Jewish National Fund, and there is a need to implement a swap between the authorities. There has been a request to execute what was requested but it will take considerable time.”

The source of the problem is that the fact that the JNF insists that its lands be sold only to Jews, since historically its lands were purchased with money from Jewish donors for the purpose of settling Jews in the Land of Israel.

The issue of Arabs purchasing assets on JNF land, including in Carmiel, has come up before the High Court of Justice and is the subject of a petition filed nine years ago by Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights, that is still pending.

In the state’s response to that petition, the attorney general, speaking on behalf of both the ILA and the JNF, promised that JNF lands would be marketed to all sectors of the public, irrespective of religion or ethnic background, and that lands, or apartments built on lands, belonging to the JNF that are sold to non-Jews would be transferred to state ownership, and the state would compensate the JNF with an equal amount of land.

In June 2005, the ILA published a summary of its agreement with the JNF, under which the JNF would transfer all its non-agricultural lands to state ownership. In return, the state was to give the JNF an equal amount of land that was not forests or land designated for development, 90 percent of it being land in the Negev and a small part of it in the Galilee.

Despite this agreement, registration procedures for non-Jews are being dragged out, requiring property owners to wait for years without the status of their properties being clarified. In a letter written to the ILA on Bakri’s behalf by Adalah attorney Suhad Bishara, she noted that the procrastination violates the right to purchase property and can cause problems down the road. In theory, as long as the apartment remains “leased” from the ILA, there are things that cannot be done with the apartment without ILA permission, and in some cases these actions will incur fees. Bakri argued that an unregistered apartment might not get a good price if he puts it up for sale.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So...over and over we are told that recognition and borders must be done through negotiation between the parties.

In 2012, the Palestinians sought to be upgraded to "non-member observer state" status - a move widely condemned by the US and Israel and a few others.

Diplomatic recognition - Wikipedia

On Thursday, 29 November 2012, in a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations.[76][77] The new status equates Palestine's with that of the Holy See. The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine".[78] Voting "no" were Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama and the United States of America.


The vote was an important benchmark for the partially recognized State of Palestine and its citizens, while it was a diplomatic setback for Israel and the United States. Status as an observer state in the UN will allow the State of Palestine to join treaties and specialized UN agencies,[79] the Law of the Seas treaty, and the International Criminal Court. It will permit Palestine to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space as a sovereign state recognized by the UN, and allow the Palestinian people the right to sue for sovereignty over their territory in the International Court of Justice and to bring "crimes against humanity" and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawfully occupying the territory of State of Palestine, against Israel in the International Criminal Court.[80][81]


The UN has, after the resolution was passed, permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as "The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations",[82] seen by many as a reflexion of the UN's de facto position of recognizing the State of Palestine's sovereignty under international law,[76] and Palestine has started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports.[77][83] The Palestinian authorities have also instructed its diplomats to officially represent the "State of Palestine", as opposed to the "Palestine National Authority".[77] Additionally, on 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon decided that "the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents",[34] recognizing the "State of Palestine" as the official name of the Palestinian nation.


On Thursday 26 September 2013 at the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas was given the right to sit in the General Assembly's beige chair which is reserved for heads of state waiting to take the podium and address the General Assembly.[84]​

Israel's reaction

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the debate, in particular Abbas' speech, in saying: "The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against the Israel Defense Forces and the citizens of Israel. Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner.[5] The way to peace between Jerusalem and Ramallah [sic] is in direct negotiations, without preconditions, and not in one-sided U.N. decisions. By going to the U.N., the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel and Israel will act accordingly."[46] Israeli critics[vague] of the resolution, said it enshrined the principle of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, a position rejected by the Israeli government, while upholding the Palestinian claim for refugees' right of return. An unnamed official said: "They got a state without end of conflict. This sets new terms of reference that will never allow negotiations to start.[47] "[48] Ynetnews suggested Netanyahu and Israel would accept the resolution in return for U.S. support in regards to joint opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme.[49]


In response to the Palestinian move at the UN, Israel authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in a Palestinian area of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, In addition, planning will be furthered for the area, known administratively as the E1 Plan.[50][51] Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz stated that the tax payments collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority that month would be used to offset what he said was Palestinian debt to the Israel Electric Corporation.[52] In protest at Israeli settlement development, Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Denmark summoned the Israeli ambassador and Germany, Italy and Russia criticised the move; meanwhile Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, and U.S. President Barack Obama's former chief of staff, described the behaviour of Benjamin Netanyahu as "unfathomable".[51][53][54] MKs Michael Ben-Ari and Aryeh Eldad called for the public burnings of Palestinian flags in response to the passage of the resolution, but were prevented from doing so by the Israeli police.[48][55]


Former UN ambassador Yoram Ettinger called the resolution a "violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords", and that Israel should embrace the former Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy's Levy Report, which asserted that the West Bank was not "occupied territory" since no foreign entity was sovereign in the area in 1967.[56]


Netanyahu visited Prague, Czech Republic where he told his counterpart Petr Nečas: "Thank you for your country’s opposition to the one-sided resolution at the United Nations; thank you for your friendship; thank you for your courage.[57] On 2 December 2012, Netanyahu also thanked Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying that he had "thanked Canada for its friendship and principled position this week at the UN."[58]​

So essentially Israel's reaction was a form of collective punishment (taking the the tax money and amping up settlement building in East Jerusalem.

Now fast forward to the UNILATERAL decision by the US to recognize Jerusalem (in entirety) as the capital of Israel and then it's use of the bully pulpit in an attempt to punish those who push back on said unilateral decision.

So much for the idea that these things should be negotiated - that does not seem to be applied even handedly at all. Israel is rewarded. Palestine is punished. The requirement for these things to be negotiated only seems to apply to the Palestinians.

Jews were banned from Jerusalem then the Mooselims started a war they lost.

Karma is a *****.

 

[Shusha]

What often happens is the Arabs are unwilling to sell to Jews but intermediaries claiming they will not do that do just that. They are often employee's of corporations like Elad so it is a very deceptive practice. On the othe side of course - Arabs who sell to Jews face retribution from family and neighbors. And perception matters. They can say Arabs are allowed to live anywhere in Jerusalem but that is not the case in reality. Most "settlements" are Jewish only, even though the laws state that they can not have rules that discriminate ethnically they do.

Are there any new Palestinian settlements in West Jerusalem?

Is there any reason NOT to believe that increasing the number of Jews living in East Jerusalem and decreasing (through lack of residency permits, dishonest selling practices) - is not a means of gaining ethnic control over East Jerusalem?

It's a complex problem, and to add to the mess is housing costs in Jerusalem, which are so high that the Palestinians, who are NOT subsidized by outside groups - simply can not afford to live there.

Private property ownership is not sovereignty, so much of this argument is based on a false premise. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And sovereignty of Jerusalem will not be negotiated based on demographics. Both Parties will want sovereignty of Jerusalem regardless of demographics.

Israel has demonstrated a clear ability to accept its Arab minority and create a legal environment of non-discrimination (despite Team P's wailing to the contrary). Israel, like many nations, still struggles with actual discrimination despite the laws preventing it. Israel also has to consider its own security and the safety of its citizens. Controlling a hostile minority population is a challenge.

Arab Palestine, in contrast, have clearly demonstrated their lack of intent to accept a Jewish minority population and have publicly stated this time and again. We can see it in practice, not just in the West Bank and Gaza but all through the ME.

The Arabs of East Jerusalem have an informal but strict policy (to the point of violence) of not selling homes to Jews. Its discrimination, pure and simple. Despite the fact that Israel has laws to prevent discrimination, Jews also prevent Arabs from buying homes and living in "Jewish neighborhoods". Also discrimination. The level of mistrust is so high, it is impossible not to have discrimination at this point.

The eventual sovereign will have to deal with all of these issues just as Israel, the current legal administrator, is forced to deal with all this. If the intent is to have mixed neighborhoods where both Jews and Arabs live, and to ensure legal access to housing for both Arabs and Jews, Israel is actually on the right track under extremely difficult circumstances. Israel's position is that there should be NO restriction of property purchase based on ethnicity. You agree that is the right policy, yes? Israel is accepting applications for citizenship of Arabs in Israel. You agree that this is the right policy, yes?

The hope is that Jerusalem will be a thriving multi-ethnic, multi-religious city. Israel is certainly more than capable of achieving that goal. Far more capable, at this point, than any Arab Palestinian government.

You make a number of good points for discussion BUT - I'm going to stick to this one for the moment:

Do Jews sell property to Arabs? They often can't, because the property is owned by trusts that forbid the sale to anyone not Jewish right? The Arabs have an "informal policy" and the Jews have a formal one.

Why is one discriminatory and the other not?

Property owned by trusts can't be sold to anyone. It can be leased to either Jews or Arabs as I understand it.

It is illegal in Israel to discriminate by ethnicity or religion

The policies and laws are fair and morally correct as far as I know.

As opposed to in Palestine were selling to Jews (technically the phrasing is ׳the enemy') has made it legal to discriminate.

In both places there is discrimination in actual practice.

Thank you, I agree and it is problematic.

For example, in regards to leasing - Arabs still face obstacles:

Israeli Arabs face red tape when leasing JNF land
Despite state assurances to the contrary, Arab citizens of Israel who buy apartments on land owned by the Jewish National Fund are still having a hard time registering their homes in the Land Registry (Tabu), Arab residents of Carmiel claim.

Nizar Bakri and his brother Qassem both bought apartments in a Carmiel building three years ago and began the process of having the property registered in their names. To their chagrin, while their Jewish neighbors had no problem completing the process in a timely fashion, their apartments have yet to be registered.

The Israel Lands Authority makes no bones about the reason. In a letter Bakri received from the ILA, the agency writes: “At issue is a minority lessee and the land on which the apartments are built belongs to the Jewish National Fund, and there is a need to implement a swap between the authorities. There has been a request to execute what was requested but it will take considerable time.”

The source of the problem is that the fact that the JNF insists that its lands be sold only to Jews, since historically its lands were purchased with money from Jewish donors for the purpose of settling Jews in the Land of Israel.

The issue of Arabs purchasing assets on JNF land, including in Carmiel, has come up before the High Court of Justice and is the subject of a petition filed nine years ago by Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights, that is still pending.

In the state’s response to that petition, the attorney general, speaking on behalf of both the ILA and the JNF, promised that JNF lands would be marketed to all sectors of the public, irrespective of religion or ethnic background, and that lands, or apartments built on lands, belonging to the JNF that are sold to non-Jews would be transferred to state ownership, and the state would compensate the JNF with an equal amount of land.

In June 2005, the ILA published a summary of its agreement with the JNF, under which the JNF would transfer all its non-agricultural lands to state ownership. In return, the state was to give the JNF an equal amount of land that was not forests or land designated for development, 90 percent of it being land in the Negev and a small part of it in the Galilee.

Despite this agreement, registration procedures for non-Jews are being dragged out, requiring property owners to wait for years without the status of their properties being clarified. In a letter written to the ILA on Bakri’s behalf by Adalah attorney Suhad Bishara, she noted that the procrastination violates the right to purchase property and can cause problems down the road. In theory, as long as the apartment remains “leased” from the ILA, there are things that cannot be done with the apartment without ILA permission, and in some cases these actions will incur fees. Bakri argued that an unregistered apartment might not get a good price if he puts it up for sale.

Yep. It seems to me that the laws and policies are fine. Its the practice that needs work. I'm sure you will find similar patterns in certain neighborhoods in the US as well. Discrimination runs deep even in places without a civil war.

 

[abi]

Before you claimed it was illegal to discriminate in Israel, true?

Good, then how would you explain the database with over 50 discriminatory laws?
The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel

I chose a Jewish source on purpose.

Yep. It seems to me that the laws and policies are fine. Its the practice that needs work.

How can discriminatory laws be fine?

civil war

Do you have any idea what you do with whatever credibility you might have here when regurgitating the concept that a civil war is what happens when people come from one continent to attack people from a totally different continent?

 

[Shusha]

Before you claimed it was illegal to discriminate in Israel, true?

Good, then how would you explain the database with over 50 discriminatory laws?
The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel

Yes, yes. Team P always brings up Adalah's database. I've read every single one of those 50 claims. None of them are truly discriminatory in the letter of the law. Though, as Coyote and I have been discussing, there is discrimination in Israel in practice and there is the minor issue of the on-going conflict.