Should Palestine be granted statehood?

[nursebenjamin]

Should Palestine be granted statehood? Why does Obama oppose Palestine statehood at this time, all the while supporting self determination in other Arab countries? Why are U.S. Republicans rejecting aid to Palestinians, even though Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supports sending such aid which, among other goals, is intended to build an economically viable, politically moderate Palestinian state. Should the international community oppose Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank? Do such settlement expansions make "direct negotiations" between Israelis and Palestinians impossible? Should any Resolution be delayed until the West Bank is sufficiently populated by Israelis so that their presence is irreversible? Can the 4.6 million Palestinian refugees now living abroad[1] ever be allowed to return to Israel? Does the American right-wing secretly hope that negotiations between Israel and Palestinian fail, with war and Armageddon being the ultimate goal? What role does religion play in the Mid-East peace process?

[Wootah]

I will refute the post paragraph by paragraph

Good luck with that!

1) Well some do, generalizations are bad:

Israel has full diplomatic relations with the following:
1. Egypt (the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty was signed in 1979), 2. Jordan (the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed in 1994) and 3. Mauritania. Israel has some ties with Morocco, Tunisia, Omar, Qatar and Bahrain

You cite the treaty where Egypt tried to destroy Israel and lost as a sign of refutation. Really? And you think that remotely represents a refutation?

2) Well, Jordan is a distinct nation wiki lists people of Jordan and Palestine individually

Jordan's Arab population mainly consists of Jordanians, Palestinians and Iraqis.

And because many of the Palestinians in Jordan are DISPLACED: they lived in regions that were given to Israel or occupied and lost their homes in the process. This is like someone invaded Canada and said we should "all move to the states because we're similar". Additionally I'd encourage you to look up the mandate that Britain gave to Israel, It was actually called, "the British mandate for PALESTINE".

Understanding the history is how come I know my statement is solid.
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

3) Look at the population of Jerusalem:

Jerusalem had a population of 747,600—64% were Jewish, 32% Muslim, and 2% Christian

It is important to all the abrahamic religions and much of the population Isn't Jewish (though not a majority by any means I don't like to think you'd willingly crush minority rights). Also much of the international community REJECTS Israel's claim to use it as a capital, locating their embassies in Tel Aviv. Also I recall seeing theoretical suggestions of making Jerusalem an international city do to its extreme cultural and religious significance.

Actually Jerusalem has no religious significance to Islam other than it being the seat of Judaism and Christianity and therefore a place to conquer. Again what others think has no bearing on the countries self determination.

4) So many ways to respond:
a) This is a debate site: do you expect us not to discuss a religiously charged political situation in the Religion and Politics subforum? This is fun!
b) You say we can't decide a countries fate then declare we shouldn't make Palestine a nation, the pot calling the kettle black? (I'm bad with idioms forgive me if that is incorrect)
c) We aren't actually deciding: we are offering opinions, learning, and none of us have any actually sway.

a) Err that's why we are posting.
b) Forgiven
c) Hopefully the truth does to you

5) Where did you get your statistic that 50% + 1 of the world’s population thinks Jews should be killed? Do you honestly think repressing a religious and ethnic minority will make the problem go away? And the only way to remove the religious aspect would be to destroy the abrahamic religions, you go first.

From the Koran. That's what you are trying to do to Israel, no Palestinian is repressed. I note your desire for violence. I just want to discuss things on a debate forum and allow people to live and I support the only country in the Middle East that allows that. Perhaps you should do the same.

Edit: Spelling, grammar, syntax, all those things I mangmangled

But I do appreciate your efforts in this regard.

[Nilloc James]

You cite the treaty where Egypt tried to destroy Israel and lost as a sign of refutation. Really? And you think that remotely represents a refutation?

No I cited it as demonstrating that some Arab nations have recognized Israel.
But let’s take a look at Jordan for example

Jordan and Israel signed a historic peace treaty on October 26, 1994, witnessed by President Clinton, accompanied by Secretary Christopher. The U.S. has participated with Jordan and Israel in trilateral development discussions during which key issues have been water-sharing and security; cooperation on Jordan Rift Valley development; infrastructure projects; and trade, finance, and banking issues.

In 1996, the United States added Jordan to their major non-NATO ally agreement.

Look Arab nations are capable of being decent and working with Israel. It's hard to do, I struggle with it occasionally but we should not generalize all Arab nations.

And here is more about Egypt, yes they fought before, I fully concede that, but there has been progress:

The state of war between both countries which dated back from the 1948 Arab–Israeli War ended in 1979 with the Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty a year after the Camp David Accords. Since then, relations have improved. Egypt has an embassy in Tel Aviv and a general consulate in Eilat. Israel has an embassy in Cairo and a general consulate in Alexandria.

Being a pioneer of peace making in the region and driven from its belief that a peaceful Middle East is the best solution for the development of Egypt, the third Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking trip to Israel in 1977, the 1978 Camp David Accords, and the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty represented a fundamental shift in the politics of the region; from a strategy of confrontation to one of peace as a strategic choice. Egypt was subsequently ostracized by other Arab states and ejected from the Arab League from 1979 to 1989.

Understanding the history is how come I know my statement is solid.
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

SO what about the large populations of Palestinians living in regions that have been occupied by Israel, like the West Bank, what is your suggestion for them?

Actually Jerusalem has no religious significance to Islam other than it being the seat of Judaism and Christianity and therefore a place to conquer. Again what others think has no bearing on the countries self determination.

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

a) Err that's why we are posting.
b) Forgiven
c) Hopefully the truth does to you

I'm still curious as to why you included the original, "Finally why do you think you have a right to decide another country's affairs[,]" comment.

From the Koran. That's what you are trying to do to Israel, no Palestinian is repressed.

Koran quotes please. And remember, not every Muslim follows every word in the Koran, just like no Christian follows every word in the bible or else I would have been stoned to death by now.

I note your desire for violence. I just want to discuss things on a debate forum and allow people to live and I support the only country in the Middle East that allows that. Perhaps you should do the same.

I'm not sure WHERE one would get the idea I am suggesting violence. I was quite enjoying this discussion till this ad hominem, and am appalled by it. My words have been warped, my character slandered and my code of ethics insulted.

My "destroy the abrahamic religions" was in no means literal. It was a humorous way of suggesting that the religious tensions will never be resolved unless the religions themselves learn to get along or go away.

Let's take a look at my early comments (where I annotated the PNA charter)

"Why must there always be guns?"
"[...]no one wins when the weapons come out. "
"[dignity and rights] extended to all, Including Israeli individuals "
"Israel's right to self-determination! "
"Let's hope they don't get too carried away with all the "armed revolution""
(I actually meant NO VIOLENCE, but I like having a little gallows humour)
"must compromise...."
"both nations need security and land"

Are those the words of an "anti-Israeli nut case". Any reasonable person would say no. I actively condemned everything that hinted at violence in the Charter. I'm a moderate on this issue, there has to be a way to solve this that upholds the dignity and rights of all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2 ... 48-present

Every person on that list of fatalities is a tragedy. REGARDLESS OF NATIONALLITY, ETHNICITY, OR RELIGON. Every human being deserved, this year 4 Palestinian children were killed, that is terrible. This year 4 Israeli children were killed, equally terrible!

You're suggestion that I am calling for violence is completely unfounded. Next you suggest I am against human rights, democracy and freedom. How dare you!



That’s a confirmation email that I write letters for amnesty international, hardly the "anti-human rights hack" your are trying to smear me as. Your dishonest attack on my character, trying to depict me as the very things I stand for speak for themselves; I want a free, peaceful, that respects human rights for all. That is why I oppose the extremists of both sides.

Let's look at the final values Palestinians 7978 (1620), Israelis 1503 (142). Parenthesis are children. Do you know what the problem with Wikipedia’s total is? It should look like this: Total: 9481 (1762) human beings killed. That's 9481 more people than should have been.

Do not attempt to depict me as a violent war mongerer, an anti-Israeli nut, or attack my ethics.

[Wootah]

No I cited it as demonstrating that some Arab nations have recognized Israel.

But do you take the point. It was a treaty after an attempted war. It is a complete counter point for your view.

But let’s take a look at Jordan for example

Jordan and Israel signed a historic peace treaty on October 26, 1994, witnessed by President Clinton, accompanied by Secretary Christopher. The U.S. has participated with Jordan and Israel in trilateral development discussions during which key issues have been water-sharing and security; cooperation on Jordan Rift Valley development; infrastructure projects; and trade, finance, and banking issues.

In 1996, the United States added Jordan to their major non-NATO ally agreement.

I think peace treaties are meaningless. I have never signed a peace treaty with my friends or neighbours.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 98579.html

Look Arab nations are capable of being decent and working with Israel. It's hard to do, I struggle with it occasionally but we should not generalize all Arab nations.

What do you struggle with exactly?

And here is more about Egypt, yes they fought before, I fully concede that, but there has been progress:

The state of war between both countries which dated back from the 1948 Arab–Israeli War ended in 1979 with the Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty a year after the Camp David Accords. Since then, relations have improved. Egypt has an embassy in Tel Aviv and a general consulate in Eilat. Israel has an embassy in Cairo and a general consulate in Alexandria.

Being a pioneer of peace making in the region and driven from its belief that a peaceful Middle East is the best solution for the development of Egypt, the third Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking trip to Israel in 1977, the 1978 Camp David Accords, and the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty represented a fundamental shift in the politics of the region; from a strategy of confrontation to one of peace as a strategic choice. Egypt was subsequently ostracized by other Arab states and ejected from the Arab League from 1979 to 1989.

The progress was made under an authoritarian regime. Dictators prefer the status quo. And if some sense was Anwar's head then 'hooray'. Now let's see what the muslim brotherhood gets up to in Egypt.

Understanding the history is how come I know my statement is solid.
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

SO what about the large populations of Palestinians living in regions that have been occupied by Israel, like the West Bank, what is your suggestion for them?

If I was one of them I would work hard, raise my family and be grateful to be near a booming economy and having a higher rate of income than most of my Arab neighbours and nearer to quality .

Actually Jerusalem has no religious significance to Islam other than it being the seat of Judaism and Christianity and therefore a place to conquer. Again what others think has no bearing on the countries self determination.

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

One tawdry unspecific verse. If I was to argue for you I would argue that Jursalem has great significance as a place of conquest over Judaism and Christianity and since conquest is in the Koran it is significant.

a) Err that's why we are posting.
b) Forgiven
c) Hopefully the truth does to you

I'm still curious as to why you included the original, "Finally why do you think you have a right to decide another country's affairs[,]" comment.

Because we don't debate what to do in France or Poland like this. Let's discuss Belgium's right to build....

From the Koran. That's what you are trying to do to Israel, no Palestinian is repressed.

Koran quotes please. And remember, not every Muslim follows every word in the Koran, just like no Christian follows every word in the bible or else I would have been stoned to death by now.

As many quotes as you could want.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... olence.htm
9:29 http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/fe ... commentary

I note your desire for violence. I just want to discuss things on a debate forum and allow people to live and I support the only country in the Middle East that allows that. Perhaps you should do the same.

I'm not sure WHERE one would get the idea I am suggesting violence. I was quite enjoying this discussion till this ad hominem, and am appalled by it. My words have been warped, my character slandered and my code of ethics insulted.

I think I got the idea from your post. 'And the only way to remove the religious aspect would be to destroy the abrahamic religions, you go first.'

My "destroy the abrahamic religions" was in no means literal. It was a humorous way of suggesting that the religious tensions will never be resolved unless the religions themselves learn to get along or go away.

I would use the smiley face emoticon if you are making a joke.

Let's take a look at my early comments (where I annotated the PNA charter)

"Why must there always be guns?"
"[...]no one wins when the weapons come out. "
"[dignity and rights] extended to all, Including Israeli individuals "
"Israel's right to self-determination! "
"Let's hope they don't get too carried away with all the "armed revolution""
(I actually meant NO VIOLENCE, but I like having a little gallows humour)
"must compromise...."
"both nations need security and land"

Are those the words of an "anti-Israeli nut case". Any reasonable person would say no. I actively condemned everything that hinted at violence in the Charter. I'm a moderate on this issue, there has to be a way to solve this that upholds the dignity and rights of all.

I didn't think you were a nut case. I don't know your ideology. But I believe in free speech so I don't see how you intend on destroying anything without destroying basic liberties first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2 ... 48-present

Every person on that list of fatalities is a tragedy. REGARDLESS OF NATIONALLITY, ETHNICITY, OR RELIGON. Every human being deserved, this year 4 Palestinian children were killed, that is terrible. This year 4 Israeli children were killed, equally terrible!

All death is tragedy.

You're suggestion that I am calling for violence is completely unfounded. Next you suggest I am against human rights, democracy and freedom. How dare you!

I really hope you are still joking because it comes across as absurd.

That’s a confirmation email that I write letters for amnesty international, hardly the "anti-human rights hack" your are trying to smear me as. Your dishonest attack on my character, trying to depict me as the very things I stand for speak for themselves; I want a free, peaceful, that respects human rights for all. That is why I oppose the extremists of both sides.

I find this part of our discussion totally absurd.

Let's look at the final values Palestinians 7978 (1620), Israelis 1503 (142). Parenthesis are children. Do you know what the problem with Wikipedia’s total is? It should look like this: Total: 9481 (1762) human beings killed. That's 9481 more people than should have been.

Do not attempt to depict me as a violent war mongerer, an anti-Israeli nut, or attack my ethics.

I just followed the evidence.

Ideologically speaking do you think we should count the war dead in WW2 in 1 column or 2?

[Wootah]

Darias,

* PLO statement from 3 days ago.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.318835

* Jordan and Egypt are/were both authoritarian regimes. Let's see what the muslim brotherhood wants in Egypt.

But these countries are a detraction to the real issue here, which is whether or not Palestinians will have a state -- and whether or not there will be any peace. We can make sweeping judgements about "the Arab," but that gets us no where - and is the equivalent of anti-semitism.

They have a state called Jordan and they can live peacefully in Israel already. Nothing more is needed.

* Texas can cede if it wants. It's the united states.

Yes. You see, Jerusalem belonged to the natives of Palestine before Israel ever became a state -- such natives included Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

That has no relevance to anything. I'm in Australia, almost by definition that makes me a displaced person. Can I have my home back?

* I just didn't understand the rest of your post. You don't want peace to come first? You don't want the arabs in Israel to enjoy being part of the only democratic and prosperous country in the Middle East?

* It's all in the koran and hadith and you know this I suspect.

[Nilloc James]

But do you take the point. It was a treaty after an attempted war. It is a complete counter point for your view.

Treaties are a step in the right direction.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 98579.html

I like the fact you ignore the part where "Jordian security forces" are the ones defending the embassy.

The progress was made under an authoritarian regime. Dictators prefer the status quo. And if some sense was Anwar's head then 'hooray'. Now let's see what the muslim brotherhood gets up to in Egypt.

You're right that it is too soon to tell.

If I was one of them I would work hard, raise my family and be grateful to be near a booming economy and having a higher rate of income than most of my Arab neighbours and nearer to quality .

Speaking from the perspecive of an individual who is not a displaced person or in an occupied territory.

One tawdry unspecific verse. If I was to argue for you I would argue that Jursalem has great significance as a place of conquest over Judaism and Christianity and since conquest is in the Koran it is significant.

As many quotes as you could want.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... olence.htm
9:29 http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/fe ... commentary

And the bible says adulterers and blasphemers should be stoned. If christains are allowed to play multiple choice with their holy books why aren't muslims?

Because we don't debate what to do in France or Poland like this. Let's discuss Belgium's right to build....

I remember debating France banning the burka, though I can't recall if it was on this forum.

I find this part of our discussion totally absurd.

I agree, let's leave attacks on my character and ethics out of this conversation. The audience can decide what they think of me on their own. Let my words speak for themselves: I do my best to be balanced, I dislike violence, and respect human rights.

[Darias]

Darias,

* PLO statement from 3 days ago.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.318835

The PLO officially recognized Israel as a State in 1993. The source you gave is not talking about acknowledging Israel's right to exist as a State, as that has already been done. This article, if you read it carefully, is talking about the PLO recognizing Israel as a Jewish State, a State who's populace consists of mostly Jews. This has many many implications -- which I for one am surprised by. One, it basically suggests that in exchange for Israel withdrawing (both its troops and illegal settlers) back within its own territorial boundaries as defined by the UN in 1948 -- or at least the territory it possessed prior to 1967 -- the PLO would recognize Israel as primarily a Jewish State. And that suggests that the PLO would no longer demand Palestinian "right of return." The issue of "right of return" refers to all of the Palestinian Arabs who once lived in Israeli territory before 1948 and were both forcibly displaced (though a fraction left voluntarily by request of other Arab nations), and are now in diaspora. Many refugees wish to return to their homes in Israel, but Israel refuses their "right of return" because it does not desire to grant citizenship to so many Palestinian Arabs. This, the Israeli government claims, would undo the Jewishness of the State and possibly create security risks.

In other democracies around the world, nationality isn't necessarily married to race, such as in America, where all people can become legal citizens. However this is not the case in the region, where both groups desire their own states, particularly ethnic states.

Netanyahu claims that some Palestinian authorities are racists because they won't accept the presence of Jewish settlers on their land. What he doesn't acknowledge is that these settlements, though globally recognized as illegal and illegitimate, are funded, supported, armed, and protected by the Israeli government. The settlers themselves are usually extremely-right wing and very religious. They tend not to recognize the rights of Palestinians -- and they certainly do not want Palestinians to have a state. The very idea that these modern Jewish settlements would possibly become part of a future Palestinian State is more unthinkable and reprehensible to the settlers themselves than it is to Palestinians.

Most likely, these settlements, being populated by Israeli citizens, would remain part of the State of Israel -- at least that's what the Israeli government wants. Netanyahu does not wish for the settlements to stop expanding in the least, even though this outrages Palestinians and rightfully so. Yet he claims Palestinians don't want peace.

The thing is, I believe these actions are evidence that within the current administration in Israel, the cessation let alone dismantling of illegal settlements is not in their national interests. The whole plan being, keep up settlement construction so that you can claim "well all these people live here now, so the land is ours, you can't do anything about it anyway."

Peace of course is what everyone wants, but if the current administration really truly wants Palestinians to have a state at all, it will be one that submits to all illegal settler encroachment and claims, both present and future -- one which is fully demilitarized -- one which is patrolled and occupied fully by IDF soldiers -- and one that does not have any political authority over East Jerusalem despite all of the capital being composed of mostly Arab Muslims and Christians, especially that part of the city.

This of course would be unthinkable and unacceptable to any Palestinian, even the most moderate and peace-loving. Would it be acceptable to you if you were a Palestinian who wanted your land to be yours?

To put this in perspective, would it be acceptable if your neighbor built a garage in your yard and then enclosed it with a fence so you couldn't access it? What if he decided to move into your house and put his kids in one of your bedrooms?

What if no one cared, and even if they did, no one did anything or could do anything about it.

No, that wouldn't warrant violence on your part, but sure would suck wouldn't it?

* Jordan and Egypt are/were both authoritarian regimes. Let's see what the muslim brotherhood wants in Egypt.

Yes they were, but the Muslim brotherhood, despite being a more unified political party within Egypt, does not represent the views of all Egyptians. Egypt now essentially is a police state. The former leader was a dictator that the U.S. paid. Egypt and Israel have a peace treaty because of the diplomatic efforts of the United States. Still, many Egyptians do not like the government of Israel for what it is doing in Palestine, as does most of the Muslim world.

Jordon is a kingdom, and it has a political relationship with Israel that is stable.

Turkey is a democracy and was the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel. The relationship between the two nations are very strained at the moment because IDF forces murdered Turkish citizens including an American and has not given an apology. Turkey has removed its diplomats from the embassy in protest. The right-wing Israli administration has threatened to aid the PKK, a terrorist organization in Turkey in its efforts to establish a Kurdish State within Turkey. Ironic isn't it? What if Turkey decided to give weapons and public support to HAMAS? Israel and the U.S would go ape-****. So it is unfortunate that their once strong relationship has went to pot. But that's mostly the fault of the Israeli government.

But these countries are a detraction to the real issue here, which is whether or not Palestinians will have a state -- and whether or not there will be any peace. We can make sweeping judgements about "the Arab," but that gets us no where - and is the equivalent of anti-semitism.

They have a state called Jordan and they can live peacefully in Israel already. Nothing more is needed.

* Texas can cede if it wants. It's the united states.

1. Jordan is the Palestinian State? Tell that to Palestinians, lol.

Many displaced Palestinians are living in surrounding nations. Some Palestinians live in Israel. Some live in Jordan, but Jordan isn't a Palestinian State; it's an Arab state yes, but it's its own state. Most Palestinians desire to have a State of their own, as was allotted to them by the UN, including the Palestinians who once lived in Israel before they were displaced by Israel's war for Independence.

No one is telling you that your state is Mexico if you were a Texan and wanted your own State. If you were a Texan you might know Spanish and like Mexican food, you might even be of Mexican descent -- but you would have pride in your own State; you would not identify with Mexico as your state.

2. Though not the point of my original argument, In theory Texas could cede, but in reality that's pretty much a joke.

Yes. You see, Jerusalem belonged to the natives of Palestine before Israel ever became a state -- such natives included Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

That has no relevance to anything. I'm in Australia, almost by definition that makes me a displaced person. Can I have my home back?

Most of the population of the city of Jerusalem has been Arab for the past few thousand years or so. The three largest quarters of Israel are Armenian, Christian, and Muslim -- all Arab. The smallest quarter, prior to 1967, was Jewish. And the quarters weren't so perfectly defined, Christians lived in the Muslim quarter and visa versa.

However after 1967, the government of Israel demolished the Moroccan quarter of the city to make a huge plaza for religious pilgrims to visit the Western wall. Nearly 700 Palestinians living there were displaced. This expanded the Jewish Quarter greatly and now the larger presence of Jews is used as a political claim that the entire city of Israel has always been primarily Jewish -- never-mind the Christians and Muslims(both Arabs) who lived there for centuries on end while they weren't there (at least not many).

This is why the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinians in general desire East Jerusalem to be part of their future state.


Unlike Australia and the U.S., the native populations who's land was wrongfully stolen by settlers cannot be given back. Hundreds of years of history cannot be undone.

However, the conflict in the region of Palestine is not even a century old. Plus we live in modern times, in which the rights of all people are recognized, not just white Europeans. The declaration of Human rights by the UN declares that all people have a right to self determination and this also applies to Palestinians -- at least it should.

If Native Americans or Aborigines appealed to the UN for their own state within the two nations, I'd probably support their efforts too, but those are other issues entirely and I'm not as well-informed on either of them.

* I just didn't understand the rest of your post. You don't want peace to come first? You don't want the arabs in Israel to enjoy being part of the only democratic and prosperous country in the Middle East?

I was explaining the position of both sided in my previous post. I personally would prefer peace to be established in the region (both officially and on the ground). However, I also know that the reality of a Palestinian State existing before both sides join arms in a loving embrace is MUCH more likely. Unfortunately, there will always be nutjobs, like armed radical religious settlers who murder Palestinians and radical religious Palestinians who lob rockets at Israelis. I hope that in the future, those realities will be diminished, but I highly doubt that the hatred and enmity resulting from the better part of a century of wrongdoing by both sides will be completely erased from the hearts and minds of everyone involved in the conflict any time soon.

But surely, for peace-talks to proceed now, radical groups would have to stop attacking, and the Israeli government would have to at least halt construction and expansion of settlements -- keep in mind that the radical elements like HAMAS do not represent Palestinians officially.

Peace-talks would ultimately involve the creation of a Palestinian State of some sort, as that is the entire reason for the conflict -- either by radicals or by ordinary protestors.

And because the Israeli government doesn't care about stopping the construction of settlements, and because they don't care about the demands of Palestinians -- this is why the PNA appealed to the UN for statehood, just as Israel did not so long ago.

The US didn't approve, and wants the PNA to work out the terms for their people's statehood with the current Israeli government, who doesn't want them to have a state in any form other than one that is defined by Israeli terms alone -- a state in name only, without sovereignty -- territorial or otherwise.

Sure Netanyahu says he supports a 2 State solution, but everything the Israeli government is doing now suggest that this is just a word salad meant to sound good politically. It means nothing because everyone knows that's not what the government actually wants.

* It's all in the koran and hadith and you know this I suspect.

The destruction of Israel or the genocide of Jews is not found in the Qur'an. Jews are "people of the book" as are Christians. Parts of the Qur'an that encourage strife with Christians, Jews, and Pagans are an historical reference to broken treaties which permitted Muslim pilgrims safe passage. Those, though interpreted by radicals as timeless, have no bearing on the present or any time other than the time in which they were written. The same is true of many violent scriptures in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is far more violent than the Qur'an, but none of us sit here and make wide-sweeping generalizations of Jewish people based on their holy book now do we? (The Nazis did though).

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
_____
SOURCE

Throughout much of history, where Christians have waged horrible actions against Jews, Muslim nations have welcomed them in.

During the Black Death, many Christians burned Jewish villages and killed many Jews in a desperate attempt to please God, so that He would remove the plague, his wrath, from them.

When Spain expelled Jews and Christian descendants of Arabic Muslims who had converted to Christiandom in the late 15th, early 16th century -- The Ottoman Empire welcomed them in and let them practice their religion freely.

Most Islamic empires have traditionally been much more tolerate to those of other faiths than have Western religious empires. England couldn't even give any rights to Christians of non-Anglican inclination for the longest time.

And in the early 20th century, we have a largely Christian Germany, both Catholic and Protestant, many of whom felt it was their religious duty to punish the Jews, the killers of their Lord.


Its funny how modern political conflicts which lead to religious extremism can suddenly erase history and re-write it to make Muslims "Jew haters" and Christians "a Jew's best friend."

[Wootah]

Treaties are a step in the right direction.

Barely. The treaty of Versailles did not solve the problems of WW1. But I can concede a barely.

I like the fact you ignore the part where "Jordian security forces" are the ones defending the embassy.

As I said the authoritarian regimes are somewhat more sensible at times.

Speaking from the perspecive of an individual who is not a displaced person or in an occupied territory.

How would you know who I am? I live in Australia, by definition we are all displaced here. Do you think the convicts came willingly or that my parents did or that the refugees come willingly now?

And the bible says adulterers and blasphemers should be stoned. If christains are allowed to play multiple choice with their holy books why aren't muslims?

There is no command on Christians to stone anyone. Do you recognise that you are presenting a red herring here and not focussing on the topic or do you think your comment here is on topic?

I remember debating France banning the burka, though I can't recall if it was on this forum.

Yes but you reveal here that the issue is a religious issue we are discussing and not just town planning for Israel. We are not discussing town planning in France right now are we, why is that?

[Wootah]

* Darias I just don't understand what you find so reassuring about pieces of paper. Do you honestly think that even if Israel surrendered its ability to defend itself that the PLO would just start governing their state and ignoring Israel. Do you think the middle eastern crisis would be over? Where is your sense of real politik?

* 'though globally recognized as illegal and illegitimate'. Why are you not recognising the reality of how absurd it is that the world thinks they can interfere in another countries zoning and building policies?

The thing is, I believe these actions are evidence that within the current administration in Israel, the cessation let alone dismantling of illegal settlements is not in their national interests. The whole plan being, keep up settlement construction so that you can claim "well all these people live here now, so the land is ours, you can't do anything about it anyway."

Why isn't building Israel in Israel's national interests? What will happen?

This of course would be unthinkable and unacceptable to any Palestinian, even the most moderate and peace-loving. Would it be acceptable to you if you were a Palestinian who wanted your land to be yours?

As I said when I compared myself with the reality of my muslim neighbours I would be waving the Israeli flag and getting on with life. Don't these people believe in multi-culturalism?

To put this in perspective, would it be acceptable if your neighbor built a garage in your yard and then enclosed it with a fence so you couldn't access it? What if he decided to move into your house and put his kids in one of your bedrooms?

If I kept trying to kill him but failing then it would be. But none of what you said represents what the individual in Israel wants. You are creating myths and illusions of race to support your agenda and to not support what I think the individual person in Israel wants - a job, a home, the chance of a better future for his children. I think your point is a completely manufactured reality, one that is linked to the religious agenda of Islam (unwittingly of course) and ultimately socialism. I would be astounded if the non-religious Palestinian man on the street cared two hoots for a Palestinian state rather than those things. Maybe it is the Christian in me, we are used to doing the best we can living in the enemy lands.

But that's mostly the fault of the Israeli government.

What did the do? Who did they attack?

Most of the population of the city of Jerusalem has been Arab for the past few thousand years or so. The three largest quarters of Israel are Armenian, Christian, and Muslim -- all Arab. The smallest quarter, prior to 1967, was Jewish. And the quarters weren't so perfectly defined, Christians lived in the Muslim quarter and visa versa.

However after 1967, the government of Israel demolished the Moroccan quarter of the city to make a huge plaza for religious pilgrims to visit the Western wall. Nearly 700 Palestinians living there were displaced. This expanded the Jewish Quarter greatly and now the larger presence of Jews is used as a political claim that the entire city of Israel has always been primarily Jewish -- never-mind the Christians and Muslims(both Arabs) who lived there for centuries on end while they weren't there (at least not many).

This is why the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinians in general desire East Jerusalem to be part of their future state.


Unlike Australia and the U.S., the native populations who's land was wrongfully stolen by settlers cannot be given back. Hundreds of years of history cannot be undone.

However, the conflict in the region of Palestine is not even a century old. Plus we live in modern times, in which the rights of all people are recognized, not just white Europeans. The declaration of Human rights by the UN declares that all people have a right to self determination and this also applies to Palestinians -- at least it should.

If Native Americans or Aborigines appealed to the UN for their own state within the two nations, I'd probably support their efforts too, but those are other issues entirely and I'm not as well-informed on either of them.

Have you ever wondered who you are serving with this reality you have constructed for yourself? Is you intent really to have us trawl through history and work out who was there first and what would that prove? We know that most of the time the person that gets their first did so by stepping on someone else to get there. Maybe being first is evidence most of the crime. As you can see, it's all a constructed reality and the question is why accept yours. What has become of you that you would willingly stir up issues in America or Australia?

It's not about countries or states. The average arab in Israel will not be better off in a two state solution. So why whip them up? Who do serve?

The destruction of Israel or the genocide of Jews is not found in the Qur'an. Jews are "people of the book" as are Christians. Parts of the Qur'an that encourage strife with Christians, Jews, and Pagans are an historical reference to broken treaties which permitted Muslim pilgrims safe passage. Those, though interpreted by radicals as timeless, have no bearing on the present or any time other than the time in which they were written. The same is true of many violent scriptures in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is far more violent than the Qur'an, but none of us sit here and make wide-sweeping generalizations of Jewish people based on their holy book now do we? (The Nazis did though).

The violence in the Old Testament is described violence. The violence in the Koran is prescribed.

Throughout much of history, where Christians have waged horrible actions against Jews, Muslim nations have welcomed them in.

During the Black Death, many Christians burned Jewish villages and killed many Jews in a desperate attempt to please God, so that He would remove the plague, his wrath, from them.

When Spain expelled Jews and Christian descendants of Arabic Muslims who had converted to Christiandom in the late 15th, early 16th century -- The Ottoman Empire welcomed them in and let them practice their religion freely.

Most Islamic empires have traditionally been much more tolerate to those of other faiths than have Western religious empires. England couldn't even give any rights to Christians of non-Anglican inclination for the longest time.

And in the early 20th century, we have a largely Christian Germany, both Catholic and Protestant, many of whom felt it was their religious duty to punish the Jews, the killers of their Lord.


Its funny how modern political conflicts which lead to religious extremism can suddenly erase history and re-write it to make Muslims "Jew haters" and Christians "a Jew's best friend."

I actually don't understand your point here. Are you arguing that once Israel is destroyed they will be better off with Muslim rulers?

[Darias]

* Darias I just don't understand what you find so reassuring about pieces of paper. Do you honestly think that even if Israel surrendered its ability to defend itself that the PLO would just start governing their state and ignoring Israel. Do you think the middle eastern crisis would be over? Where is your sense of real politik?

* 'though globally recognized as illegal and illegitimate'. Why are you not recognising the reality of how absurd it is that the world thinks they can interfere in another countries zoning and building policies?

I find it odd that you assume that the State of Israel would be defenseless if the government ceased building or "God forbid" abandoned settlements on land isn't legally theirs by any standard. I take it you agree with the current Israeli right-wing government talking-point. It's the sort of like the argument neoconservatives use in the United States -- in that we must maintain thousands of bases around the world in every country to protect ourselves -- except in this case it's not just military bases, it's also huge settlements. The military occupation of the West Bank is a separate issue though and shouldn't be confused with illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.

The PLO at this point, is desperate for a state. They recognize the State of Israel, and just the other day, as you pointed out, they recognize that Israel is to be a particularly Jewish (ethnic, cultural, and religious) State -- how that is compatible with the idea of a true democratic state is beyond me, but that's its own issue. It's pretty much the same thing Palestinians want for themselves, and I suppose the same is true for all nations.

The PLO doesn't support terrorism, but no - I am not naive enough to believe that the conflict will completely come to an end. Here's a question for you -- do conflicts really ever end? There will always be a few terrorists. And in this particular case there will be lingering hatred for the government of Israel, and that might be maintained in a few people -- and it may lead some of them to become radicalized -- but I suspect that the amount of general unrest by Palestinians, as well as terrorist activities will be decreased if Palestine ever gets a state. Much of the terrorism, in the minds of HAMAS, is done for political purposes mainly -- and HAMAS wants a Palestinian State just as much as the majority of Palestinians, but HAMAS is a terrorist organization that while maintaining political control of Gaza, does not represent the majority of views of Palestinians -- even the Palestinians who voted for them. Most Palestinians want a 2 State solution. Most recognize Israel's right to exist. Most recognize it would be hypocritical to demand a state of their own and deny Israel's right to exist. That of course isn't the issue for most Palestinians. What most Palestinians want is their own State -- defined by the borders the UN had given them -- all of which is occupied by the IDF, much of which is being illegally colonized by Israeli citizens -- who are supported by their government.

And it's illegal because it isn't Israel's land and never was. Israel appealed to the UN for statehood and the UN drew up the map and gave them more than enough of Palestinian land -- leaving the natives with 22% of the land that originally belonged to them. This was unfair from the start because the Palestinian population was much larger than the Jewish Zionist population; so the land the UN appropriated for the Israeli State was much greater than what was left for the natives to cling to. Today Israel is building on and occupying most of that 22% of land.

Here is a helpful graphic:



And not only is Israel illegally occupying land that doesn't belong to the State and never has, it is also building a wall, enclosing the territory it has illegally occupied within the West Bank, in efforts to entrap natives in what are essentially ghettos.



The West Bank is governed by the Palestinian National Authority and does not have the HAMAS problem that Gaza does. The Palestinians who live in the West Bank argue that if Israel wants to build a wall for "security purposes" it should do so on its own territory, rather than building it within Palestinian land and encircling Palestinian cities -- all of which is illegal.

And there's a reason why I keep saying "illegal." The first is, because it is by any legal standard against the law -- a violation of sovereignty to build cities and walls on another nation's land in hopes of claiming it for yourself. If Mexico started doing that to the United States, you'd be out of your mind, as would I. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Palestinians have been trying to get a State for the longest time. The British promised Palestinians their own independent State if they helped them fight off the Ottoman Empire; instead the British supported the creation of a Zionist State. The UN partitioned land to the Israelis and Palestinians but the Palestinians have never been able to get a State despite their many attempts to do so. With unquestioning American support of the policies of the current Israeli administration -- I don't see how Palestinians will ever get a State or get peace.

The thing is, I believe these actions are evidence that within the current administration in Israel, the cessation let alone dismantling of illegal settlements is not in their national interests. The whole plan being, keep up settlement construction so that you can claim "well all these people live here now, so the land is ours, you can't do anything about it anyway."

Why isn't building Israel in Israel's national interests? What will happen?

Israel is welcome to build Israel in Israel. But the current administration feels, as have past administrations, that it is above the law and can build Israel outside of Israel's borders. The current administration claims that the settlements (cities) and bases it has in land that it's illegally occupying helps protect Israel and is a matter of security; that's why Netanyahu argues it is an issue of defense. Not all Israelis agree with this, in fact many of them do not.

I believe, as do many Israelis, that it is not in Israel's national interest to break international law and provoke and incite Palestinians. Not only is it inhumane for Palestinians who deserve the right to their own nation free of occupation and encroachment, road blocks, etc. -- it also is the driving force behind radicalism in the region. Most terrorist aren't attacking Israel out of hatred for Israel alone; no that's silly to assume. Most who do it get caught up in it out of desperation. They have no political voice and no political rights -- so, they fight -- to send a message.

I, like Yassar Arafat feel that violent revolt is damaging to the Palestinian struggle for statehood. Peaceful protests and means are always preferable. And that's exactly what the PNA has done. And because of what the PNA has done, despite HAMAS dislike of them, HAMAS even promised to stop attacks. That is a pretty big thing for a terrorist group. It suggests that they don't just attack and kill because of hatred, but also for political purposes; I believe most terrorism is political at heart, even if it is saturated in religious extremism.

I don't support violence, and I think it's horrible. I don't think that there are any winners in this situation. Either Israelis will be forced out of their homes which is on land that they knew was not theirs to begin with, or Palestinians will continue to be stateless -- or maybe some sort of land swap deal might occur which will allow current settlements to remain and grant Palestinians equal amounts of Israel land; that's the US position anyways.

This of course would be unthinkable and unacceptable to any Palestinian, even the most moderate and peace-loving. Would it be acceptable to you if you were a Palestinian who wanted your land to be yours?

As I said when I compared myself with the reality of my muslim neighbours I would be waving the Israeli flag and getting on with life. Don't these people believe in multi-culturalism?

So if China decided to colonize the United States, and build a wall around U.S cities to protect their own settlements, and place troops on the ground. And if they did this claiming that the land is theirs anyway because they are the descendants of the original ancestors of the natives who lived there (After all Native Americans trace their roots back to Asian settlers).

And if your rights to vote were taken from you, and your guns were taken from you -- you're telling me that you would just wave the Chinese flag and get on with life, you a firm believer in multi-culturalism?

I have a feeling you might join a revolt, maybe even throw some rocks at tanks. Surely this illustration might help you understand why Palestinians did resort to unrest during this decade after decades of failed peace negotiations? I'm not saying anything justifies murder or terrorism, I'm just explaining the issue.

To put this in perspective, would it be acceptable if your neighbor built a garage in your yard and then enclosed it with a fence so you couldn't access it? What if he decided to move into your house and put his kids in one of your bedrooms?

If I kept trying to kill him but failing then it would be. But none of what you said represents what the individual in Israel wants. You are creating myths and illusions of race to support your agenda and to not support what I think the individual person in Israel wants - a job, a home, the chance of a better future for his children. I think your point is a completely manufactured reality, one that is linked to the religious agenda of Islam (unwittingly of course) and ultimately socialism. I would be astounded if the non-religious Palestinian man on the street cared two hoots for a Palestinian state rather than those things. Maybe it is the Christian in me, we are used to doing the best we can living in the enemy lands.

I'm creating myths? How so? What does Islam and socialism have to do with this conflict? Who said anything about socialism?

Yes, most Israelis do want a job and a home and a peaceful future for their children -- the same as most humans on the planet, including Palestinians. And most Israelis do claim to support a two state solution -- maybe not the same two-state vision most Palestinians want, but they certainly do want a Palestinian state to exist - because they can sympathize with the Palestinians. Even Netanyahu supports a two state solution (perhaps what he says is not true but just stated for political purposes, but at least he claims to).

You talk of manufactured reality. Interesting. Well, here's the thing: all national identities are manufactured. All are fictions in the sense that they are economical with the facts. All national narratives claim that they are being oppressed by an oppressor. All national narratives justify the actions of their governments. It's true for Israelis, it's true for Palestinians, and it's true for the United States.

The thing is, what we want to avoid, is confusing national narrative with history. History is what occurred. Narrative is the explanation of why something occurred.

Palestinian national identity is just as fictitious as Israeli and Jewish identity. Palestinians disagree as to whether their identity is based upon uninterrupted habitation of the land -- or if their identity was forged as the result of 20th century struggles against Ottomans, British and Israelis.

Israelis also question their identity. Before the Israeli state existed, Jews lived everywhere and had different cultures and views. The most orthodox Jews opposed Zionism because they felt men were interfering with God's work of returning Jews to the land. Not all Jews supported the settlement of Palestine, but many found themselves having to go there as America and other nations would not accept the immigration of Jews, even Jews escaping Hitler.

Secular Zionists claim that Israel has a right to exist because Jews need a national home -- a home that was denied to them by most of the western world.

Religious Zionists claim that Israel has the right to exist because the land has always been for the Jews -- it is "God given"

Palestinians claim that Palestine has a right to exist because they are the natives of the land.

Religious Palestinians, Christians and Muslims believe that they have a right to the land because they have lived there for the better part of 2000 years whereas Jews have not (at least for the most part).


My only problem is when people on both sides ignore reality and claim all the land for themselves - that's what irritates me. And such ideas are propagated by religion as well as politics. If Religion ceased to be an issue - nay if religion never existed -- we'd still have this conflict today.

Most of the population of the city of Jerusalem has been Arab for the past few thousand years or so. The three largest quarters of Israel are Armenian, Christian, and Muslim -- all Arab. The smallest quarter, prior to 1967, was Jewish. And the quarters weren't so perfectly defined, Christians lived in the Muslim quarter and visa versa.

However after 1967, the government of Israel demolished the Moroccan quarter of the city to make a huge plaza for religious pilgrims to visit the Western wall. Nearly 700 Palestinians living there were displaced. This expanded the Jewish Quarter greatly and now the larger presence of Jews is used as a political claim that the entire city of Israel has always been primarily Jewish -- never-mind the Christians and Muslims(both Arabs) who lived there for centuries on end while they weren't there (at least not many).

This is why the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinians in general desire East Jerusalem to be part of their future state.


Unlike Australia and the U.S., the native populations who's land was wrongfully stolen by settlers cannot be given back. Hundreds of years of history cannot be undone.

However, the conflict in the region of Palestine is not even a century old. Plus we live in modern times, in which the rights of all people are recognized, not just white Europeans. The declaration of Human rights by the UN declares that all people have a right to self determination and this also applies to Palestinians -- at least it should.

If Native Americans or Aborigines appealed to the UN for their own state within the two nations, I'd probably support their efforts too, but those are other issues entirely and I'm not as well-informed on either of them.

Have you ever wondered who you are serving with this reality you have constructed for yourself? Is you intent really to have us trawl through history and work out who was there first and what would that prove? We know that most of the time the person that gets their first did so by stepping on someone else to get there. Maybe being first is evidence most of the crime. As you can see, it's all a constructed reality and the question is why accept yours. What has become of you that you would willingly stir up issues in America or Australia?

It's not about countries or states. The average arab in Israel will not be better off in a two state solution. So why whip them up? Who do serve?

Yes we have history and yes we have facts, but there's no such thing as objective history -- a history free from interpretation of any sort. If that were the case history would be nothing but a list of dates and big events. The thing is, you have your myths and worldviews that conform to your politics too. I'm not claiming I'm free of bias, but there's always more than 1 version of events. Narratives are never to be confused with what actually happened, even though they might incorporate the truth. Each narrative denies the validity of the other side -- downplays truths that it doesn't agree with. That's just the nature of groups and their stories.

I'm not asking anyone to accept the world as I see it, I just wish we'd all try to see the world from other people's perspective sometimes; it might explain the world a little better -- and heck it might help the world be a more peaceful place.

Most Palestinians would be better off with their own state. They would gain political rights and their economy wouldn't be inhibited by Israeli checkpoints. They wouldn't be manipulated by political and religious extremists -- at least not as much as they are now.

The majority of Palestinians are not better off without their own state, you see, Israel refuses to let most Palestinians return to the homes of their relatives who were displaced not so many years ago. Israel desires to be a primarily Jewish state, in ethnic and cultural make up. Sure they might accept the presence of a few Palestinians, but not all of them (especially in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; no Palestinians are allowed to live there). Because of this, most Palestinians cannot become Israeli citizens -- and are basically living a stateless existence with no rights or political voice.

The destruction of Israel or the genocide of Jews is not found in the Qur'an. Jews are "people of the book" as are Christians. Parts of the Qur'an that encourage strife with Christians, Jews, and Pagans are an historical reference to broken treaties which permitted Muslim pilgrims safe passage. Those, though interpreted by radicals as timeless, have no bearing on the present or any time other than the time in which they were written. The same is true of many violent scriptures in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is far more violent than the Qur'an, but none of us sit here and make wide-sweeping generalizations of Jewish people based on their holy book now do we? (The Nazis did though).

The violence in the Old Testament is described violence. The violence in the Koran is prescribed.

Much of the violence of the Old Testament is God ordained, written as though God himself commanded it. It includes genocide.

But that says nothing of Judaism today. The same thing can be said of the Qur'an and Islam today. It all depends upon interpretation.

Radical interpretations and sects flourish where human rights and democracy does not. Radicals who exist in democracies are localized, such as Westboro Baptist. This is because their ideas don't spread very far given the fact we have education and political rights readily available.

But in places where rights are held back and education is low, radical beliefs flourish.

Sometimes the state of people in these places inspires radicalism in people no matter where they live -- like the American terrorist Alwalaki. He believed that it was impossible to be a Muslim and an American at the same time in good conscious because he believed that America wanted to destroy Islam and slaughter Muslims, as evidenced by their political intervention and wars in the middle east -- at least that was how he saw it.

It's virtually the same thing Osama believed. The fact is, if the U.S. had stayed out of the middle east and left Afghanistan to the Soviets, Osama wouldnt have won that war with weapons from the CIA. If we had never got involved in the gulf war and let the Arab League handle the injustice done by Saddam -- Osama never would have had a quibble with us ever -- and al-Qaeda would have never existed. And terrorism against the U.S. would not exist.

But history turned out differently, and now we find ourselves conquering and occupying more and more countries, who are becoming increasingly hostile as a reaction to our actions, in order to secure our nation's defense.

It could have all been avoided and we could be secure and free and at the same time not a global empire. Oh well.

Throughout much of history, where Christians have waged horrible actions against Jews, Muslim nations have welcomed them in.

During the Black Death, many Christians burned Jewish villages and killed many Jews in a desperate attempt to please God, so that He would remove the plague, his wrath, from them.

When Spain expelled Jews and Christian descendants of Arabic Muslims who had converted to Christiandom in the late 15th, early 16th century -- The Ottoman Empire welcomed them in and let them practice their religion freely.

Most Islamic empires have traditionally been much more tolerate to those of other faiths than have Western religious empires. England couldn't even give any rights to Christians of non-Anglican inclination for the longest time.

And in the early 20th century, we have a largely Christian Germany, both Catholic and Protestant, many of whom felt it was their religious duty to punish the Jews, the killers of their Lord.


Its funny how modern political conflicts which lead to religious extremism can suddenly erase history and re-write it to make Muslims "Jew haters" and Christians "a Jew's best friend."

I actually don't understand your point here. Are you arguing that once Israel is destroyed they will be better off with Muslim rulers?

No, I'm just using history to challenge your view that Islam and Muslims hate Jews and that it is true of all Muslims everywhere throughout time.

I believe that Israel has just as much of a right to exist as Palestine. Who said anything about Muslim rulers or the destruction of Israel? Since when does a Palestinian State = the wholesale destruction of Israel or Jews as a race? Why do you assume most Palestinians want that?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Should Palestine be granted statehood?

Only when they recognize Israel's right to exist, denounce terrorism, and make concrete steps to ensure the safety of all who would find themselves in contact, or contrast, with this new state.

For what my opinion's worth, there's plenty of reason to fear any Palestinian state that does not take the above actions.

Why does Obama oppose Palestine statehood at this time, all the while supporting self determination in other Arab countries?

Because he knows the far-right would crucify him otherwise?

Why are U.S. Republicans rejecting aid to Palestinians, even though Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supports sending such aid which, among other goals, is intended to build an economically viable, politically moderate Palestinian state.

I propose it's because politicians know that religious conservatives and others recognize Israel's right to exist in a secure and safe manner. Then we get into that whole "friend of my enemy" deal.

Should the international community oppose Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank?

I don't. They got the land fair and square, best I can tell. I propose if a nation didn't want to lose its own land, it shouldn't try to eliminate an entire 'nother nation as Israel's enemies tried to do. And failed. Miserably. With an entire planet watching. On television. Back when reporters just reported.

Do such settlement expansions make "direct negotiations" between Israelis and Palestinians impossible?

Harder yes. Impossible only to those who object to Israel's very existence.

Should any Resolution be delayed until the West Bank is sufficiently populated by Israelis so that their presence is irreversible?

I don't see why such must be the case. If folks are actually seeking peace, it'd be kinda moot to worry about how many of this'n is more'n that'n.

Can the 4.6 million Palestinian refugees now living abroad[1] ever be allowed to return to Israel?

They've been offered return. Remember, these are more than likely folks whose parents fled Israel in her moment of need simply because other nations sought to attack Israel. They lost. Israel should have the full right and responsibility to police their own border - to include disallowing those who fled instead of fighting for the tiny new nation.

Does the American right-wing secretly hope that negotiations between Israel and Palestinian fail, with war and Armageddon being the ultimate goal?

Secretly, heck. There's some actively involved in gittin' 'er done.

What role does religion play in the Mid-East peace process?

Antagonist.