Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumXi Jinping wants a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital
Xi Jinping has a solution to the decades-long Israel-Palestine conflict.
Speaking to the Arab League in Cairo, the Chinese president announced that he supports the notion of a full Palestinian state, and said that eastern Jerusalem should serve as the new countrys capital.
China firmly supports the Middle East peace process and supports the establishment of a State of Palestine enjoying full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders, Xi told delegates yesterday (Jan. 21). We understand the legitimate aspirations of Palestine to integrate into the international community as a state.
Such a statement puts China directly in the middle of a tense standoff between Israel and Palestine. East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan from 1949, but fell under Israeli control following the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel says that the cityhome to sites of religious importance to both Muslims and Jewsshould remain undivided, but Palestinians argue that East Jerusalem ought to be their capital.
Xis announcement is unusual given Chinas official policy of non-intervention. Beijing usually avoids ethical issues when dealing with foreign governments, in part to dodge criticism of its own domestic human rights abuses. An increasingly active China could risk eroding Beijings defense against criticisms from other governments.
more
http://qz.com/600681/xi-jinping-wants-a-palestinian-state-with-east-jerusalem-as-its-capital/
King_David
(14,851 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Israel's Technion to Open China Campus
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134122038
China blazes a trail to Startup Nation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134106534
Israel attracts more investment from China with new $102 million VC fund from Singulariteam
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113494134
King_David
(14,851 posts)And so ? What's your point ?
Does anyone deny China's abysmal human right record? Can you point to anything in those links you provided?
I could also post a bunch of completely irrelevant links on Chinese restaurants in Miami if you want?
Can you tell us all briefly so we can all understand what you're getting at?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)current US administration?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Can you explain briefly here in a paragraph simply so we can all understand what those irrelevant links posted have to do with this OP please .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)from the poster who only knows from deflection and bullshit. Don't even bother asking for a reason as you'll get nothing but deflection and bullshit - you know it, I know it, everyone with a brain knows it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)That would be something.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I was surprised that Xi spoke up about this, but I think he is trying to get the Syrian mess cleaned up, or more accurately trying to keep the regional war from spreading.
And you have to think that Xi thinks its serious or he'd keep his mouth shut like usual.
shira
(30,109 posts)The problem is the Palestinian side which prefers the '67 occupation over accepting Israel's '48 occupation.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Like, less, much much less, than they care about what I think? Which is not much at all? Zero?
shira
(30,109 posts)....support a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.
Israel made 2 offers to the PA that were rejected.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Issue solved, people move on with their lives.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)If it will work for the Palestinians, it should work for Likud right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:16 AM - Edit history (1)
shira
(30,109 posts)So the reality is the PA is against a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
The reason being they can't accept Israel's 1948 occupation.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)there can't be a Palestininan capital there. East Jerusalem would just be a cul de sac with no possibility to expand in any direction, just as it has been unable to do since 1967.
The truth is that Israel could live without the illegal settlements, but a Palestinian state can't be viable with them.
shira
(30,109 posts)You've been against every possible 2 state solution from the start, so why pretend a few settlements here or there are the problem?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Remove them, and there won't be any great geographical obstacle to the two-state solution.
My take is that the whole settlement enterprise was and is a big mistake, and one of the many unfortunate outcomes is that they make the two-state solution a practical impossibility. The problem is also that the settlements just can't be removed. If a house is built and civilians live there, they shouldn't be removed, right? I believe that civilians have rights under any circumstances, and that would apply to settlers too...
I think it's very possible that the settlements just can't be removed, and if that is true, then realities on the ground will decide what's going to happen. The way I see it, the settlements prevent a two-state from being geographically possible, and that makes the one-state solution the only solution left.
now, this is only my own take on the problem, and I'm sure that you might not agree with me, but this is what I honestly believe.
shira
(30,109 posts)I think your problem is you're against a Jewish state no matter the size of it.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)While the UN partition plan for Palestine (Resolution 181) didn't take the right to self-determination of the Arab population living there into account, it would have been a much better alternative than civil war.
I think it's extremely important to point out that the Jewish state would have had 498 000 Jews and 325 000 Arabs, and the partition plan explicitly stated that Jews and Arabs would have equal rights: "Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;". While I don't believe that the 1947 borders are viable today (were they ever?), I do think that the people who were displaced by war should be able to return, which would be in spirit with the partition plan resolution and a few other other ones passed after 1947. It's pretty obvious that the "Jewish state" as envisaged in the Partition Plan is not the kind of "Jewish state" we have today, where Arab Israelis don't have full civil rights.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
shira
(30,109 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It was all done over their heads...
shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Australia votes against Palestinian UN resolution on Israel
Australia has voted against a proposal in the United Nations Security Council demanding Israel end the occupation of Palestinian territories within two years.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/australia-votes-against-palestinian-un-resolution-on-israel-20141230-
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It's just that the position of the Australian government on the issue doesn't reflect the opinion of its constituency:
Australia, Israel and Palestine
Source: Australian Institute of International Affairs, November 6, 2015
The Israel-Palestine dispute is now into its sixty-sixth year, and Israels occupation of Palestinian territory has lasted nearly forty-seven of those years punctuated by wars, intifadas and the planting of Jewish settlements across the West Bank.
Australia played an honourable part in helping secure international acceptance of the new state of Israel, with the then Australian External Affairs Minister having chaired the United Nations committee which recommended acceptance of the 1947 partition plan for the British Palestine mandate. Since then successive governments have claimed to be even-handed in their responses to the ongoing conflict though not very convincingly in recent years, especially since the spread of Islamist terrorism. Last November Australian Foreign Minister Bishop announced that the government had reversed course on two major voting issues at the UN: the annual resolution condemning expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and the resolution demanding that the Geneva Convention apply to the occupied territories. Until a recent switch of Canadas position, outside of the US Australia stood alone among western governments in its uncritical alignment with Israel.
Parliament versus the people?
Research on Australian public opinion about the dispute should be treated with some caution, given that pollsters are generally unable to measure the intensity of views expressed. Furthermore, print media analysis is often shallow. Rocket attacks and retaliatory bombings or shootings, along with brief up-dates on peace negotiations, are routinely reported, but media discussion seldom canvasses the root sources of conflict or its ongoing social and economic costs.
However, a 2010 study found that 78% of Australians were opposed to Israels settlements policy, 80% wanted Canberra to argue for negotiations to be respectful of international law and human rights, and only 22% thought Jerusalem should be recognised as Israels capital. More recently at the time of the 2012 General Assembly vote on Palestinian non-member observer State status, 51% of Australians thought their country should vote Yes and only 15% No.
Read more: http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australian_outlook/australia-israel-and-palestine/
Note: My bolding.
Let me know when Tibet is free from occupation.