Chuck Schumer: Palestinians are the reason there is no peace in the Middle East

[Badger]

Palestinians have been throwing rocks at Israeli's since I was a boy, and 40 years later, nothing seems to have changed.

Yep. For 40 years Israel has occupied Palestine. Coincidence?

[Badger]

Schumer's position that Palestinians don't believe a Jewish state should exist nullifies his stance on a two-state solution and places all of the blame in the conflict on Palestinians. He sounds like a right-wing extremist.

but....most Palestinians (and nearly everybody else in the area) don't believe that a Jewish state should exist.  How would Schumer's position on that fact change anything at all?  And how does parroting what the other side says make him sound like an extremist?

And someone can say that most Israelis believe Palestinians don't exist, and that they belong in Jordan. It's nonsense to attribute a hive-mind to any particular group, and it is antithetical of having support for a two-state solution.

Sadly, doesn't the Electoral dominance for nearly two decades buy Israeli right-wing parties that hold exactly such views empirically demonstrate that to be true?

I can't quite say the same thing on the other side, simply because photography still is the governing body in the Palestinian Authority which continues to support the Oslo Accords provision of Israel's right to exist, though it would not Shock me that enough of fatah's supporters on the street combine with nearly all of Hamas supporters combined constitute a majority of Palestinians opposed to Israel's right to exist.

Regarding the initial post, I guess it's all about context. Was Schumer saying this in a context of that's where the division lays and we have to move past that to a true compromise for peace, or is he basically endorsing the Israeli Manifest Destiny vision that uses the Old Testament as justification for expanding the countries borders today to the Jordan River?

[Badger]

Palestinians have been throwing rocks at Israeli's since I was a boy, and 40 years later, nothing seems to have changed.

Yep. For 40 years Israel has occupied Palestine. Coincidence?

Are you even a Republican on a single issue

Since when is acknowledging that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist in a two-state solution a solely Democratic position, or anti Republican?

Frankly, beep boop, I'm more concerned whether or not any position I take is the just thing to support, not whether it supports a particular party or not. You demonstrate the same Independence on various issues such as stopping Obamacare. Surely you understand?

EDIT: and no, damn near every moderate Democrat I can think of firmly supports the two-state solution involving Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, nor am I the only Republican supporting such opposition. Admittedly I'm becoming more isolated as with many issues due to increasing islamophobia starting with bush and now fanned by orange head and his cast of characters. But saying that most moderate Democrats oppose palestine's right to exist? I'm calling BS on that.

[Badger]

Some of the anti-Israel posters here are being ridiculous.


A statement about the Palestinian government = a statement about all Arabs? Really?

I don't take offense if someone opposes the Indian government, and my family's from there. Why would Arab-Americans (many of whom are not even from Palestine) take offense if Schumer doesn't like the Palestinian government?

and btw, the Palestinian government does not believe that Israel should exist, so I'm not sure what's wrong there, either.

Again, doesn't fatah still support, albeit occasionally reluctantly when hostilities flare, support Israel's right to exist?

[Badger]

Palestinians have been throwing rocks at Israeli's since I was a boy, and 40 years later, nothing seems to have changed.

Yep. For 40 years Israel has occupied Palestine. Coincidence?

Are you even a Republican on a single issue

Since when is acknowledging that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist in a two-state solution a solely Democratic position, or anti Republican?

Frankly, beep boop, I'm more concerned whether or not any position I take is the just thing to support, not whether it supports a particular party or not. You demonstrate the same Independence on various issues such as stopping Obamacare. Surely you understand?

EDIT: and no, damn near every moderate Democrat I can think of firmly supports the two-state solution involving Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, nor am I the only Republican supporting such opposition. Admittedly I'm becoming more isolated as with many issues due to increasing islamophobia starting with bush and now fanned by orange head and his cast of characters. But saying that most moderate Democrats oppose palestine's right to exist? I'm calling BS on that.

It is that comment I'm referring too, not the support of the two-state solution.

The two are by definition inclusive of one another. What the hell is your position anyway? You are absolutely chasing your tail on this.

[Badger]

Palestinians have been throwing rocks at Israeli's since I was a boy, and 40 years later, nothing seems to have changed.

Yep. For 40 years Israel has occupied Palestine. Coincidence?

Are you even a Republican on a single issue

Since when is acknowledging that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist in a two-state solution a solely Democratic position, or anti Republican?

Frankly, beep boop, I'm more concerned whether or not any position I take is the just thing to support, not whether it supports a particular party or not. You demonstrate the same Independence on various issues such as stopping Obamacare. Surely you understand?

EDIT: and no, damn near every moderate Democrat I can think of firmly supports the two-state solution involving Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, nor am I the only Republican supporting such opposition. Admittedly I'm becoming more isolated as with many issues due to increasing islamophobia starting with bush and now fanned by orange head and his cast of characters. But saying that most moderate Democrats oppose palestine's right to exist? I'm calling BS on that.

It is that comment I'm referring too, not the support of the two-state solution.

The two are by definition inclusive of one another. What the hell is your position anyway? You are absolutely chasing your tail on this.

Palestine started multiple wars against Israel and a punishment for losing wars they started was Israel got to was they got to expand their borders. If Palestine never wanted Israel to occupy that land they should never have started wars against them in the first place. That land is Israel's and rightfully so.

That is something mind-bogglingly narrow brained answer even for you. I'm sorry, but that's far more accurate than harsh.

First off, what parrot guy said. This would be like saying the German Nazi started World War II so we still have the right to occupy Italy today. In fact it would be even less accurate because Italy was an actual state with an actual Army actually had an organized, well somewhat, war against America. Palestinians certainly supported the wars against, but note it wasn't any land of Syria, Jordans, or Egypt that was taken over. Well, the Golan Heights and Sinai, but didn't trading land for peace work out very well for Israel in those situations? And those were areas where there were relatively small native populations that Israel had to suppress.

Secondly, you are flipping adoption of Might makes right is not only chilling, but grossly antithetical to our actual National interest. Here's a quiz beep boop, you think the Treaty of Versailles had, oh, I don't know, Amy possible long term effects on World War 1 in later to stabilizing the planet? Maybe, just maybe having in part to do with occupation of land?

Basically, your claim that Israel's combined grievance of the occupants of the Palestinian territories supported our enemies who declared war on us previously, and might makes right, so these lands get to the hours now, does not even rise to the level of being just short-sighted. Such a occupation will continue to stabilize the region and, contrary to Israeli War Hawks beliefs, is actually probably the greatest threat to Israel's long-term security as a nation.

But to get back where we started, don't delude yourself that supposedly moderate Democrats support your name belief that a two-state solution isn't the only feasible way. You have yet to name one. I'm not even certain Schumer supports a one state solution.

It's not that you're a good Republican and I'm a bad one. I just don't make a very good uninformed idiot.

[Badger]

Palestinians have been throwing rocks at Israeli's since I was a boy, and 40 years later, nothing seems to have changed.

Yep. For 40 years Israel has occupied Palestine. Coincidence?

Are you even a Republican on a single issue

Since when is acknowledging that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist in a two-state solution a solely Democratic position, or anti Republican?

Frankly, beep boop, I'm more concerned whether or not any position I take is the just thing to support, not whether it supports a particular party or not. You demonstrate the same Independence on various issues such as stopping Obamacare. Surely you understand?

EDIT: and no, damn near every moderate Democrat I can think of firmly supports the two-state solution involving Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, nor am I the only Republican supporting such opposition. Admittedly I'm becoming more isolated as with many issues due to increasing islamophobia starting with bush and now fanned by orange head and his cast of characters. But saying that most moderate Democrats oppose palestine's right to exist? I'm calling BS on that.

It is that comment I'm referring too, not the support of the two-state solution.

The two are by definition inclusive of one another. What the hell is your position anyway? You are absolutely chasing your tail on this.

Palestine started multiple wars against Israel and a punishment for losing wars they started was Israel got to was they got to expand their borders. If Palestine never wanted Israel to occupy that land they should never have started wars against them in the first place. That land is Israel's and rightfully so.

That is something mind-bogglingly narrow brained answer even for you. I'm sorry, but that's far more accurate than harsh.

First off, what parrot guy said. This would be like saying the German Nazi started World War II so we still have the right to occupy Italy today. In fact it would be even less accurate because Italy was an actual state with an actual Army actually had an organized, well somewhat, war against America. Palestinians certainly supported the wars against, but note it wasn't any land of Syria, Jordans, or Egypt that was taken over. Well, the Golan Heights and Sinai, but didn't trading land for peace work out very well for Israel in those situations? And those were areas where there were relatively small native populations that Israel had to suppress.

Secondly, you are flipping adoption of Might makes right is not only chilling, but grossly antithetical to our actual National interest. Here's a quiz beep boop, you think the Treaty of Versailles had, oh, I don't know, Amy possible long term effects on World War 1 in later to stabilizing the planet? Maybe, just maybe having in part to do with occupation of land?

Basically, your claim that Israel's combined grievance of the occupants of the Palestinian territories supported our enemies who declared war on us previously, and might makes right, so these lands get to the hours now, does not even rise to the level of being just short-sighted. Such a occupation will continue to stabilize the region and, contrary to Israeli War Hawks beliefs, is actually probably the greatest threat to Israel's long-term security as a nation.

But to get back where we started, don't delude yourself that supposedly moderate Democrats support your name belief that a two-state solution isn't the only feasible way. You have yet to name one. I'm not even certain Schumer supports a one state solution.

It's not that you're a good Republican and I'm a bad one. I just don't make a very good uninformed idiot.

I support a Two State solution as long as Jerusalem is fully an Israeli city.


Splitting Jerusalem up won't make things more peaceful by the way, and some proof of that is splitting Kashmir up hasnt reduced tensions between India and Pakistan.

Well, I support internationalisation of the city which is a fundamental part of most serious peace plans.

But more to the point, you and I otherwise basically agree on the basic ingredients of a middle eastern peace plan, and yet I'm a far leftist?