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

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, the supremacist ethno-religious state that they are struggling against is. But nice try, Chuck.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If you’re an Arab Muslim in Israel you can prosper. If you’re a Jewish person living in Palestinian territory you may literally be killed. How on earth could anybody support Palestine over Israel?

Because Israel is an ethno-religious supremacist state that most of the world rightly despises?

[WMS]

Israel has put their foot down on Palestines for the past half century. Pretty sure the right-wingers in government are the ones creating the division and avoiding peace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Olmert

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin

Etc. Yes, both sides need to work harder to achieve peace, but the fact is that for decades, the Palestinians have been doing their best to obstruct peace- did you know that after the Oslo Accords were signed, the acts of terrorism only increased? All of this terrorism and hate-mongering by the Palestinians radicalized the Israeli population and turned it from the population that screamed "peace" and elected Rabin by landslide margin to the population that gets terrified when Bibi says that the Arabs are turning out to vote and then reelect him with 30 seats despite actually hating him. The Palestinians can very well blame themselves for this radicalization, though I recognize that both sides share some blame. We're not the ones teaching blatant antisemitism and inciting hate against Jews and Israel in our state-funded education system, though.

Just pointing out the most relevant comment in this entire thread that in a better timeline should have resulted in productive debate. But by all means, let the train wreck continue.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

As a Palestinian I think everyone here knows my stance on this, but nice job making me hate you Chuck.

[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?