Palestinians should first start with a recognition of Israel, Israel's right to exist and a denunciation of violence.

And if you've forgotten or - much more likely given your posts - didn't care, Palestine is the one under occupation.

Hamas says they don't recognize Israel and they control a large part of Palestine. They also continue the violence which results in blockades and embargoes.

You're trying to have it both ways.

Tell me, do you support butchering Palestinians en masse the same way you cheer for the slaughter of Egyptians?

You have an uncanny ability to put words in other people's mouths that they never uttered themselves.

Together with your occasional diatribes against "mullahs." And now your expressed ignorance as regards to Palestine. There's a clear pattern to your posts, is all I'm saying

Hamas is irrelevant to the rights of Palestinians and Palestine. its actions and rhetoric do not justify denying those rights to Palestine, any more than the kahanist movement behind most of Israel's modern politics justifies denial of Israel's rights (rights being different from assumed privileges, mind.)

Well, you've got the con part right; now just put Neo in front of it.

NOTE TO JURY: Please review the poster's entirety of commentary within this thread. Thank you.

I was fully anticipating that you, staunch member of the Israelcandonowrong brigade that you are, would be alerting on me.

At any rate. Palestinian rights exist. Hamas doesn't impact that. Rights are not conditional on good behavior.

They can kill, they can fire rockets, they can preach destruction of Israel ad nauseum, they can boast about raping and enslaving Jewish women, they can set up rocket launchers in civilian areas including pre-schools ... yet THEY HAVE RIGHTS DAMNIT !!!!

Until they do, then there will be no unified PLA.

(And yes, you can point all sorts of fingers as to why the PLA is not unified, that is irrelevant.)

telling Al Jazeera it undermined Palestinian rights, including the rights of refugees and the future of Jerusalem.

"This was a terrible resolution which was unaninimously opposed by every major Palestinian faction, it contained so many compromises in an attempt to avoid a US veto that it was weaker than existing UN resolutions," he said."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/12/un-votes-against-palestinian-statehood-20141230212147910509.html

This indicates there is some disagrement among the Palastinian people over this UN Resolution.

The resolution was amended when the Palestinian factions expressed reservations about the initial draft.

The wording was changed in order to accommodate the objections by Hamas and others.

I would point out that Abuminah is a blogger from Chicago who really doesn't like Abbas and Fatah.

Fatah, Hamas agreed to recognize Israel.

You might be thinking of Hamas' founding charter, but Hamas accepted Israel's right to exist as of April 2014.

When will Israel recognize Palestinian's right to their own state?

Denunciation of violence goes both ways or have you missed all the dead children on beaches murdered by Israel? Huh.

It's not going to end here. Palestinian Officials will continue to bring heat on Israel on an international stage. The Palestinians will take the repercussions of doing so when Israel gets blood-thirsty again and decide to kill more human beings to vent their inbred psychotic rage and public humiliation.

And so this sorry tale continues.

They blew it. A long time ago. Numerous of opportunities to recognize Palestine has been offered, but all of them was blown apart by the idiots of Hamas and Fatah.

Israel has every right to defend itself from attacks from terroristic group, and Gaza is occupied by Hamas, and won't recognize Israel.

Until Hamas is removed from power or planet (I don't care), unified Palestine will NEVER exist.

Palestine has every right to exist and does not because of Israel's illegal and immoral occupation.

Until Palistinians deal with Humas, they deserve nothing.

The Israelis don't have the right to practice apartheid in illegally occupied land. The Palestinians will always resist that.

All the settlements from Gaza were removed years ago.

In the West Bank, Hamas is fairly marginalized.

Israel USES violence all the time to force its will on the Palestinians.

If Israel recognized the Palestinians' right to a state along the pre-1967 borders, that would be a good first step to peace. But Israel wants the land, not so much the peace.

but it was Yasser Arafat who wouldn't sign the treaty.

Israel has agreed to all the demands of the Palestinians many times except one of "right to return." The right to return is not something that any government would agree to.

Israel agree to give up SOME of the land, and even that was with onerous restrictions on the Palestinians.

What the Israelis offered, but not in writing was:

An Israeli withdrawal from 91% of what Israel defined as the West Bank, which didn't include large portions of the West Bank that were unilaterally annexed to occupied East Jerusalem post-1967 before East Jerusalem itself was annexed to Israel in a move not recognized by the international community, or areas like the Latrun Valley. Israel's insistence on this definition of a much-reduced West Bank, rather than the internationally recognized pre-1967 boundaries of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israeli annexation of the remaining 9% of the already shrunken West Bank in exchange for a 9:1 land swap for unspecified land in Israel.

The fertile and strategically important Jordan Valley along the border with neighboring Jordan would remain under Israeli control under the terms of an unspecified 99-year "lease."

That is hardly anything like a return to roughly the pre-1967 borders. It was a terrible deal for the Palestinians and they rightly rejected it.

He was there, you weren't. The Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the Sea. They will take nothing else. They will still be saying that 100 years from now.

And you can take Clinton's word for it if you wish. He was either being dishonest or wrong.

I posted the Israeli conditions. They put the lie to the Israeli propaganda.

So you're wrong that "most" support a two state solution.

http://thearabdailynews.com/2014/11/05/new-poll-majority-palestinians-support-two-state-solution/

In 2007 Olmert offered the Palestinians almost 100% of the disputed lands and they rejected that, just like at Camp David and Taba.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578

If you think any US president honestly gives a shit about Israel-Palestine beyond getting a feather in their cap for "solving" it, you're delusional.

And how is it that you think it's the Israelis being "driven to the sea" when it is so plainly the Israelis who are doing the pushing into River and sea? This is the Israeli "proposal" at Camp David:



Arafat was expected to make concessions in order to achieve this.

That is, in order to lose 30% of the West bank and Gaza, he had to give up more. The surrender of the remainder of Palestine under Israeli occupation and the abandonment of the rights of the refugees created by Israel's barbarism in 1947-48 was taken as granted, and discussion thereof was not an option.

Arafat was being asked to slice the throat of Palestine and hand the remains to Israel. he demurred.

And the Israelis call themselves "generous"for this. Which is weird, because nowhere else will you see anyone considered generous, if they steal something, and offer to give some of it back, in exchange for more property and concessions from the owner.

We will see who is "delusional" as you put it.

and this is the best response you've got.

You need to do more homework before making a fool of yourself.

Are you afraid of making " a fool of yourself"?

I take it you think both President Clinton and Dennis Ross are propagandists for Israel?

There was no Israel in 1947.

Whose barbarism do you mean?

Who keeps initiating the attacks on Israel?

Certainly not Israel.

Hamas has a charter that calls for destruction of Israel and there is ample evidence, even today, that Gaza continues to have zero interest in recognizing the state of Israel, and therefore do not have any further right to argue until Hamas is removed from power, and Gaza is turned over to the PA for unification.

Otherwise, you can keep clutching strawmen, because Palestine has no right to exist until Hamas is removed and given free and fair elections (Think about it, when was the *LAST* time PA held elections since Hamas?)

The brutal and illegal Israeli occupation provokes many of the attacks on Israel. And those attacks are usually barely more than some crude rockets blowing up in the desert.

You keep harping about Hamas. Hamas is a minority group among the Palestinians.

It is the only thing that will finally get Israel to move for peace instead of grabbing the land.

Along with pretty much every Palestinian faction.

Neither Israel or Hamas want peace. So, of course they are against it.

Liberals and far right conservatives both oppose Jeb Bush becoming president, but that does not put them on the same side as one another by any stretch of the imagination.

Look at the reasons given by Hamas for their opposition to the resolution versus those given by Israel. They are completely in opposition to one another, much like the liberal opposition to Jeb Bush versus the conservative opposition to him.

Another example: David Duke is a whole-hearted endorser of the BDS movement with respect to Israel. His reasons for doing so are very different than that of Ali Abuminah, for instance. They are certainly not on the same side in spite of sharing the same opposition.

They were supposed to be a yes vote but switched to abstain. That's why it didn't pass even with France and Luxembourg voting yes.

Who screwed them?

Do you think the US should have voted yes?

I guess she was able to check those impulses.

Anything our "friends" do is OK. Sort of like waterboarding isn't torture when we or our "friends" do it.