That's the language in the current draft.

"The final status is negotiable, so long as the final status is what we want." It's a farce.

I was just pointing out that this is something that was added to the platform in 2012 by the platform committee selected by Obama.

Incidentally, the 2016 amendment would have made this adjustment:

Amended paragraph (apologies for the caps):

WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS A TWO STATE SOLUTION TO ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN CONFLICT, TO RECOGNIZE BORDERS THAT PROVIDE THE PALESTINIANS WITH AN END TO OCCUPATION AND ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS SO THEY MAY LIVE IN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNTY AND DIGNITY.

Un-amended paragraph:

We will continue to work toward a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated directly by the parties that guarantees Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state with recognized borders and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity.

There was a second proposed amendment that would have added this text (after the word dignity, above)

WE ALSO CALL FOR AN INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO REBUILD GAZA, WHICH THE U.N. WARNS COULD BE UNINHABITABLE BY 2020, AND WHERE POVERTY AND HOPELESSNESS UNDERMINE PEACE AND SECURITY FOR BOTH PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELIS

When did the United States recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?

And has a greater degree of Palestinian autonomy today that at any other point in its history.

The Likud party is deplorable.

I have actively supported political parties in Israel that are in the opposition.

Which political party in Israel do you support?

is that they will betray you in time if your motives are questionable to begin with.

Happy posting!

And said the Temple Mount was Muslim now and that Jews should just get over it?

How progressive of you.

for Palestinians.

But of course, the haters and weak minded see me as an anti-Semite: intent on pissing on their racist parade.

for a very long time.

Yes, some need to get over it and move on instead of trying to steal what is not theirs.

It's where Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac.

The aksa mosque is in a whole different area, so this "mosque complex" exists only in your mind.

Your complaints are ancient history.

Al Asqa is very much in the present.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

What does that have to do with you denying people the right to pray?

Do you support the religious bigotry of the Islamic wakf?

And you have the snide audacity to expect the Muslims to cede more to right wing Jewish extremism?

The Jewish bigots in Israel have one mission: the cleansing of Al Asqa and replacing it with a new temple.

Was it just a spur of the moment thing, Amman decided, "oh, guess we'll cross the river today"?

The Arab League almost successfully voted to expel them as a result.

1) Jordan does not and never has had a "greater Syria" policy. You're thinking of Syria. It's kind of in the name. (edit - turns out Jordan had a policy of the same name. Weird.)

2) You're thinking of Jordan's attempt at annexation of the West Bank. This occurred two years after the initial occupation, which was the subject of my question.

3) But since you brought it up, is unilateral annexation of territory beyond your state's border illegal or not?

not for the party platform.

And given the Palestinians' history of murdering Olympic athletes, hijacking several planes over the decades, blowing themselves up (which YES, is more depraved than other terror acts bc one can't be held responsible and is thought to be a martyr with 72 virgins), their earning of respect is pretty low.

Also, the American people will not vote for a candidate who is part of a party that would throw the Jewish State under the bus, especially in the age of Islamist terrorism.

who freed the world from fascism, communism, and who elected a racial minority president TWICE, not to mention we didn't colonize a whole continent like the Europeans did nor give the world fascism and communism as they did. There is a moral authority to American opinion when the consensus is this broad.

So, welcome to a brief education in US history on the topics you brought up, my Australian / British / Canadian / Irish / Kiwi friend!

1) For starts, Fascism was not defeated by anyone. In Europe for example, Franco and Salazar outlasted the World War, and the fascist regimes of Spain and Portugal remained in power until 1977 and 1974 respectively. In other parts of the world, Fascism did just fine - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Angola, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, South Vietnam (during its existence), South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia. Here's the kicker - the US openly and ardently supported a great number of these regimes, because fascism was seen as preferable to communism by our government. Now, the US was involved in overthrowing two European Fascist regimes - Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy... but the Nazis were mostly defeated by the soviet Union - which also happened to knock over Fascist Nazi puppet states in Romania, Albania, and Yugoslavia... To replace it with tier own variety of pseudo-communist Stalinist Fascism. Fascism remains a recurring problem in politics around the globe, including here in the US - Watch a few Trump rallies.

Which brings us to...

2) Communism is still an active influence in modern politics as well. For instance one of the most powerful nations on earth is communist. China? Maybe you've heard of it? Communist parties and politics abound in the world as well. You're posting in I/P, maybe you know of Hadash? I believe what you're trying to reference is the collapse of the Soviet Union. And I hate to tell you, but the US had nothing to do with that. it used to be real popular among Republicans to argue that our involvement in the Afghanistan civil war toppled the Soviets, all praise to Saint Ray-Gun yadda yadda WOLVERINES!... but that never made a lot of sense, and got really politically awkward after 9/11. What precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union was Boris Yeltsin's ego. The USSR had what in the US would be called a "Constitutional Crisis" and Russia decided to secede from the union. And since Russia was like 90% of hte Union anyway, that cascaded quickly, forcing Gorbachev to formally dissolve the USSR.

Speaking of the Union of the United States...

3) here's a map.

As you can see, my nation spans an entire continent. From Atlantic to Pacific, we go right across North America. Now, here's another map.

As you can no doubt tell, this is a very different map, of the exact same landmass. If you right-click / view image, you'll get a much larger version that shows a good estimate of the extent and bounds of Native American nations in North America, based mostly on linguistics groups. Sadly we have to do it that way and sadly it has to be a rough estimate because the US kind of, you know, purged the continent of Native Americans during our wholesale colonization of the continent. So, that little point that the US has never colonized an entire continent is kind of... ignorant. because that's how we got the United States. Also you can see our State of Hawaii there in the lower left hand side? Another colonial acquisition.

Speaking of presidents and race...

4) yes, we did elect a member of a racial minority twice. We also elected George Dubya Bush twice. There's a non-zero chance we'll elect Donald Trump at least once. We're also behind the times in electing a member of a minority group to lead our nation. If we elect Clinton, we'll still be behind the times on electing a female leader. We're not really pioneers on this subject. And our presidential election habits tend to not really say much about our character as a people, since we have a bad habit of trading political parties just for the sake of doing so.

5) You're correct, both communism and fascism are European products. So is Democracy. So is the modern idea of capitalism. Most of the political philosophies and ideologies you can think of are either directly rooted in Europe, or are reactionary movements in response to one of those (such as Neoliberalism and its bitchy useless little brother, Objectivism) This makes sense though as the United States is - as I mentioned above - a nation formed mostly by Europeans and their descendants, displacing any native-born systems.

I guarantee that a poll from the 1950's would have shown a very broad consensus among Americans that segregation is good, normal, and essential to a viable nation. Popular opinion is not a reliable basis for ethical decisionmaking.

from your list ?

Ha ha ha

The draft language doesn't correspond to reality, and the mention of two states without mentioning the settlements as the main obstacle to that goal clashes with the language about a viable Palestinian state and providing the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity.

I suppose the Palestinians can get their independence, sovereignty, and dignity in the bi-national state. I would rather that they had a say in the matter, but if nobody else wants two states, what can be done about it?

So in reply to your post...

Huh ?

states but not both, it seems as if the world is slowly realizing the same thing. I perceive that the two-state solution isn't seen as the only solution any longer, and that alternatives must be found. The bi-national state is the path of least resistance, so it's logical that it will be the outcome.

Was just an observation.