IIRC, in the late 80s or early 90s, Shamir claimed if he’d had his way “there’d be a million Jews in Judea and Samaria and there’d be no more talk of a Palestinian state.”
The link states a premise that can be debated, but the premise speaks for itself. I agree with it. If you disagree, you can debate it if you wish.
You asserted it as fact. It doesn’t work that way.
Your first link says it all:
The Palestinians view the east as the capital of their future state, according to the 1993 Oslo Accords, but Trump’s move puts this hope in serious jeopardy.
If it’s to be worked out between the parties involved, then other states shouldn’t be putting their thumbs on the scale. Which is why the rest of the world refrained from doing what Trump just did.
Yes, and what Trump just did reflects the Likudist view that there aren’t really two parties with rights involved. Which is *also *something the rest of the world has long known better than to adopt.
Well, it’s been a few weeks. I assume everything is solved?
Only a few more dead Palestinians, nothing to worry about, move along now.
US vetoes otherwise unanimous Security Council vote (including France and the UK) declaring the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital illegal.
Where does it say “illegal”? It’s just another resolution.
It’s the UN, dammit.
That’s not exactly what the resolution says.
(bolding mine)
Calling on states to refrain from building diplomatic missions in Jerusalem is not the as claiming what the US did was illegal.
Jaw-droppingly stupid and dangerous, yes. But stupid, no.
I think you mean “Jaw-droppingly stupid and dangerous, yes. But* illegal,* no.”
I’ll go along with “stupid” if not quite "Jaw-droppingly stupid " and add "political grandstaning to get our minds of bigger issues. "
By recobnizing Jerusalem as the capital we are saying what is, and is not, up for grabs. Syria was very upset in 1964 when the U.S. started funding an Israeli water project. Someone in the government said “in 1948 they guaranteed Israel’s past, and now they’re guaranteeing their future.” The Arabs have to know there’s no reward for intransigence.
I’m curious: In your view, in an ideal world, what happens next? What do the Palestinians do and what’s the end state? Do you want them to come to the bargaining table, and what’s negotiable?
(Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, it’s possible to stop all terrorism)
D’oh! Yup, my bad!
Which just shows how far the Likud has moved to the left since then.
It just shows one person’s opinion.
Meaning that East Jerusalem isn’t “up for grabs” as the capital of a Palestinian state?
Unilaterally declaring things to be non-negotiable is not a good-faith, trust-building way to enter a negotiation.
It is, however, par for the course in Middle-Eastern haggling.
Lots of things are never subject to negotiation, until they are.