It is currently Sat May 25, 2019 3:05 am


Announcement: Registrations are currently disabled. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle East

Discussion of current news and world events.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Thunderian

OG for real

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 21 December 2016
  • Thanks Received: 104

US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle East

PostWed Feb 15, 2017 3:20 am

Exceptionally smart move by Trump's White House.

US won't insist on two-state solution to Israel-Palestine conflict, White House official says

The United States will not insist on a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, a White House official has said.

Speaking a day before Donald Trump holds a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the official said a number of options were on the table.

"Whether that comes in the form of a two-state solution if that's what the parties want, or something else," the official said, on condition of anonymity.

During the presidential campaign, Mr Trump regularly voiced pro-Israeli sentiments, including a promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Mr Netanyahu is meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday before he meets Mr Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday. While former Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Israel's plan to expand settlements, Mr Tillerson was unlikely to take the same path.

He will also meet House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

An aide to the Israeli Prime Minister said the aim of the talks was to forge ever closer links between the two right-wing leaders, a few weeks after they held a telephone call.

"There isn't going to be any daylight, no gaps," the adviser said.

Other subjects of discussion between the two leaders will include Iran and expanded Israeli settlements.

The President caused controversy when he suggested in late January that the US embassy might move to Jerusalem, marking a big change from conventional US foreign policy.

His frequent statements about the embassy in Jersusalem, a city claimed by both Jews and Palestinians as their capital, come despite warnings that it would violate international law and destroy the peace process.

Former President Barack Obama also said the status quo between Israel and Palestine was "unsustainable" but also warned that the moment for a two-state solution was "passing".

Israel annexed east Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War, a move that is not recognised by the international community.

Newly-appointed US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is a supporter of Israeli settlements.

Mr Trump once pointed to his Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as the man to broker a peace agreement.

Despite apparent shared views between the US and Israeli leaders, Mr Netanyahu might be concerned that Steve Bannon, the US chief strategist, could provoke Iran via his "war on Islam" which would further unhinge relations in the Middle East.

The US recently declared that Iran was "on notice" after it carried out a nuclear missile test. The man who announced the move, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, was forced to resign this week after failing to admit he had phoned the Russian ambassador to reassure them that sanctions would be overturned.

The meeting of Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu also comes shortly after the President issued a statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day which failed to mention the Jewish people, six million of whom were murdered by the Nazis. The Anti-Defamation League said the omission was "troubling".

Vice President Mike Pence tweeted about the Holocaust shortly after the statement was released, which did mention the Jewish people.

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-israel-palestine-two-state-solution-white-house-a7580736.html
Offline

Rainerann

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 04 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 103

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostWed Feb 15, 2017 11:52 am

Well sure, the US shouldn't have a say because neither state is part of the US. What we should do now, is stop funding the madness and mind our own business.
Offline

Kung Fu

Registered User

2.5 stars

  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Thanks Received: 207

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostWed Feb 15, 2017 1:38 pm

Newly-appointed US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is a supporter of Israeli settlements.

Mr Trump once pointed to his Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as the man to broker a peace agreement.



Stopped reading after I read the above. I only wish they stated the above in the beginning so I wouldn't have wasted a minute of my time reading all the other nonsense that came before it.
Offline

Creeper

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 08 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostWed Feb 15, 2017 7:08 pm

The US won't insist on a two-state solution?

Image

If moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, when that city is disputed territory (and considered holy not only to Jews, but to Christians and Muslims as well), isn't putting the writing on the wall, then I don't know what is... They want to wipe Palestine off the map, this isn't anything new...

Image
A fool thinks himself to be wise,
a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Everything is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
Offline
User avatar

Scimitar

Servant of God

Registered User

4 stars

  • Posts: 2106
  • Joined: 01 March 2013
  • Location: Unplugged.
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks Received: 582

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostWed Feb 15, 2017 8:01 pm

phpBB [video]


Scimi
Image


I have nothing to do with any recommendations to join any war on any person , race or community. I do not support ISIS nor any other movement, I seek opportunities to unite mankind, I seek to look at common ground and choose to ignore differences. I do not support violence, I condemn it. I have no affiliations with any promoting of violence be it political, racial or religious.
Offline
User avatar

Thunderian

OG for real

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 21 December 2016
  • Thanks Received: 104

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostWed Feb 15, 2017 10:45 pm

Creeper wrote:
Image


That map that everyone keeps posting is a lie. If your argument has any merit, you shouldn't need to base it on lies, should you? But I keep seeing it posted over and over, as if it means something. So let's look at the facts.

The first panel of the map gives the impression that the white areas are the land privately owned by Jews in 1947, and the green areas are privately owned by Arabs.

Image

The fact is that only a very small percentage of what is present-day Israel was privately owned land, and only about half of that was owned outright by "Palestinians". There were distinctions of land that were as follows:

Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.

Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.

Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.

Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.


When Jews started emigrating to Palestine in greater numbers, they found it very difficult to purchase land. The price Jews had to pay was generally much higher than what Arabs had to pay, and those who sold land to Jews were persecuted by their fellow Arabs (this is something that continues to present day, with many examples of Arabs being killed for selling land to Jews).

What land the Jews were able to buy was generally arid and considered dead. As noted, this type of land was more than half of Palestine. The Jews began using techniques to cultivate the desert and make it bloom, something they continue to do to this day, with technology they have offered many times to Arab states but have been refused because hate.

Image

In contrast, many of the Arabs in Palestine were either nomadic, which by definition means they owned no land, or were tenants on land owned by the state or by foreigners who were not Jews. In addition to this, the farms and businesses started by emigrated Jews created an economic boom, drawing Arabs from surrounding countries who were seeking jobs. The general standard of living improved for Arabs as more and more Jews moved into Palestine and began working formerly "dead" land, which in turn drew more Arabs, meaning that a good deal of "Palestinians" have roots in the land that only go back to the 1930's, instead of the thousands of years we keep hearing about.

The long and the short of it is that "Palestinians" never owned anywhere near the amount of land they are supposed to, according to that map Creeper posted. Historians put the number of Arabs who were displaced from land they actually owned at the creation of the state of Israel and the subsequent war by Arab states against the Jews at less than 50,000 -- or less than 10% of the number of Palestinian refugees at the end of the war. Where Palestinians have legitimate claims on land, Israel has taken steps to compensate them, but the fact remains that you can't steal land from people who never owned it, and you can't claim land that was never yours to begin with.

So please stop posting that ignorant and lying map. :smile:
Offline

Rainerann

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 04 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 103

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostThu Feb 16, 2017 5:37 am

Munther Isaac, my favorite speaker from Christ at the Checkpoint is a Christian professor at Bethlehem Bible College and native Christian Palestinian.

phpBB [video]
Offline
User avatar

Thunderian

OG for real

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 21 December 2016
  • Thanks Received: 104

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostThu Feb 16, 2017 7:00 am

Rainerann, do you have any comment on my previous post? Do you believe that Israel is guilty of stealing the land they inhabit now?

It's generally tumbleweeds from the Scimitar set when they are confronted with actual facts, so I am starved for a discussion with anyone whose knowledge of the subject runs deeper than memes and jihadi propaganda.
Offline

Rainerann

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 04 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 103

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostThu Feb 16, 2017 8:03 am

Thunderian wrote:Rainerann, do you have any comment on my previous post? Do you believe that Israel is guilty of stealing the land they inhabit now?

It's generally tumbleweeds from the Scimitar set when they are confronted with actual facts, so I am starved for a discussion with anyone whose knowledge of the subject runs deeper than memes and jihadi propaganda.


I'm sure that I don't know what previous post you are referring to; however, I find using the word "stealing" to be an awkward way of referring to the concept of Jews returning to the land. I do believe in a remnant, and I even entertain how it would be useful to have these Jewish people join the body of Christ in the same way as it was useful to have the disciples chosen to teach the early church. They were able to teach according to the law and understand how the New Covenant was relevant to the Torah in order to teach the nations about Christ. I actually even look forward to this.

Therefore, the concept of Jews returning to Israel is not about drawing state lines, it is about witnessing a manifestation of His power. Unfortunately, I think the only witness of His power we will see in Israel anytime soon, is going to be when the witnesses of Revelation 11 return to Israel. My guess is that their message will be focused on their need to repent. There are many things to repent of within Judaism that don't even have anything to do with creating arguments about them accepting another faith. There are a myriad of unorthodox teachings that have nothing to do with Torah within Judaism that no one within Judaism seems to be willing to repent of. The Talmud has really atrocious teachings. According to the scriptures I read, things that I have read in the Talmud would need to be forsaken in order for me to believe they have any favor from God to return to the land.

So, do I think they are "stealing" the land? No. Do I think that there is evidence that it is not the will of God that they return to the land? Yes. Do I think they are forcing themselves into the land? Yes. Do I think that people who believe they are God's chosen people can find a better way to spend their time as a result of this reality? Yes. There are plenty of other things they could be doing because they are experiencing this resistence.

Do I think they should be doing be something else because of this? Yes, and I also think that as people who hold the Old Testament to be their Holy scriptures, there should be some sort of demonstration of repentance in some form. I find it very offputting that so many people forget that they are having this problem because they were taken into captivity according to scripture. It would seem logical that if they wanted to return, they should find some way to demonstrate repentance. I find the arguments that Israel has the right to the land to be very self righteous and very unbecoming of people who call themselves chosen by God.
Offline
User avatar

Thunderian

OG for real

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 21 December 2016
  • Thanks Received: 104

Re: US won't insist on a two-state solution in the Middle Ea

PostThu Feb 16, 2017 9:29 am

Rainerann wrote:
I'm sure that I don't know what previous post you are referring to;


I meant my reply to Creeper's map.

I do believe in a remnant, and I even entertain how it would be useful to have these Jewish people join the body of Christ in the same way as it was useful to have the disciples chosen to teach the early church. They were able to teach according to the law and understand how the New Covenant was relevant to the Torah in order to teach the nations about Christ. I actually even look forward to this.


What we are seeing now is a precursor to the redemption of Israel. They are not back in their land because they are a good people, but because God has willed it. They still have a lot more to go through.

Therefore, the concept of Jews returning to Israel is not about drawing state lines, it is about witnessing a manifestation of His power.


I agree. The land Israel currently holds is not the land they were promised and will eventually have, but God promised thousands of years ago that he would gather Israel in the last days, and that's what has happened.

Unfortunately, I think the only witness of His power we will see in Israel anytime soon, is going to be when the witnesses of Revelation 11 return to Israel. My guess is that their message will be focused on their need to repent. There are many things to repent of within Judaism that don't even have anything to do with creating arguments about them accepting another faith. There are a myriad of unorthodox teachings that have nothing to do with Torah within Judaism that no one within Judaism seems to be willing to repent of. The Talmud has really atrocious teachings. According to the scriptures I read, things that I have read in the Talmud would need to be forsaken in order for me to believe they have any favor from God to return to the land.


They will be called to repentance. The Lord says in Ezekiel, Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.


So, do I think they are "stealing" the land? No. Do I think that there is evidence that it is not the will of God that they return to the land? Yes.


What evidence? I think the evidence that God has preserved them far outweighs any that he is somehow displeased that they are there now. Again, he promised they would be gathered there. Their deliverance in the many wars they've fought against the Arab world are nothing short of miraculous, wouldn't you say?

Do I think they are forcing themselves into the land? Yes.


How so? As I said in my previous post, they bought that land. They won that land in wars where they were not the aggressor.

Do I think that people who believe they are God's chosen people can find a better way to spend their time as a result of this reality? Yes. There are plenty of other things they could be doing because they are experiencing this resistence.


Do you believe that because they are experiencing resistance that it's not the will of God that they be there? And when you say that they believe they are God's chosen people, does that mean that you do not believe that?

Do I think they should be doing be something else because of this? Yes, and I also think that as people who hold the Old Testament to be their Holy scriptures, there should be some sort of demonstration of repentance in some form.


But Israel is not presently believing, and many of them are secular. The Bible says they will not be complete until after the Tribulation. I really think that what is occurring now is for their preservation as a people.

I find it very offputting that so many people forget that they are having this problem because they were taken into captivity according to scripture.


What problems are they having now that they haven't had for thousands of years? They have always been hated, persecuted, scattered and murdered. Now, though, they are strong, united and rich. Israel is ranked as one of the best countries in the world to live, and it's people (Jews and Arabs) are happier and better educated than their counterparts anywhere else on earth. It's an amazing country. How did this happen if not by God's hand?

It would seem logical that if they wanted to return, they should find some way to demonstrate repentance. I find the arguments that Israel has the right to the land to be very self righteous and very unbecoming of people who call themselves chosen by God.


Repentance was not set as a condition of the Lord gathering them back to Israel. The present configuration of the nation of Israel is not a reward for them, but a display of God's sovereign power and a keeping of his promise.
Next

Return to News and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron