France Warns Trump: Moving U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem A ‘Provocation’
y Deborah Danan15 Jan 2017

TEL AVIV – Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem as per President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise is a “provocation” that would result in “serious consequences,” France warned at Sunday’s peace summit in Paris.

Foreign ministers from around 70 nations gathered in Paris Sunday in an attempt to urge Israeli and Palestinian leaders to recommit to the so-called two-state solution. Representatives from the United Nations, European Union, Arab League and Organization of Islamic Cooperation were also in attendance.

However, neither Israel nor the Palestinians had any representation at the conference.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault blasted Trump over his pledge to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“Of course (it’s a provocation). I think he would not be able to do it,” Jean-Marc Ayrault told France 3 television at the conference. “It would have extremely serious consequences and it’s not the first time that it’s on the agenda of a U.S. president, but none have let themselves make that decision.”

“One cannot have such a clear-cut, unilateral position. You have to create the conditions for peace,” he added.

Earlier on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the conference as “pointless” and the “final palpitations” of yesterday’s world.

The summit, Netanyahu said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, was “coordinated between the French and the Palestinians with the goal of trying to impose conditions on Israel that are not compatible with Israel’s national interests.”

“It also distances peace as it hardens Palestinians conditions and keeps them away from direct negotiations without preconditions. I have to say that this conference is among the last remnants of the world of yore. Tomorrow will look different, and tomorrow is very close,” he added.

Ayrault argued that France has no “intention other than promoting peace” and added that “there is no time to waste.”

“The two-state solution, under such threat today, and the necessity of preserving it, were forcefully reaffirmed by resolution 2334,” he said, referring to the recently approved UN Security Council resolution that attacks Israeli settlement building as a “flagrant violation of international law.”

Ayrault opened the conference by outlining its aim to reinstate the two-state solution as “the only possibility — the only — that would allow us to respond to the legitimate aspirations” of Israel and the Palestinians.

“Both parties are very far apart and their relationship is one of distrust — a particularly dangerous situation,” Ayrault added. “Our collective responsibility is to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. We know it is difficult, but is there an alternative? No, there isn’t.”

In a recent interview with CBS News, Secretary of State John Kerry said that an embassy move would cause “an explosion, an absolute explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank, and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned Trump against the move, saying it was “aggressive.”

His close aide, the Palestinian Authority’s supreme Sharia judge Mahmoud Al-Habbash, said that an embassy move would be tantamount to a “declaration of war.”

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/...s-consequences/

'extremely serious consequences' such as ????

About 'Palestine'

Yasser Arafat had a life long foal of destroying Isreal to the end he created the myth of the Palestinian State stolen by the British and the Jews.

Zitat

---

Yasser Arafat is the founding father of Palestinian nationalism. He is also the godfather of 20th century terrorism. The nationalist movement that he created ab ovo remains unique in history as the only one throughout the entire world whose defining paradigm is terrorism, and whose raison d’etre is the destruction of a sovereign state and the decimation of its Jewish population. Even after its leader’s death, still loyal to his legacy, the Palestinian Authority remains focused on the destruction of Israel rather than on a healthy nationalism and the building of an economically viable, Palestinian state.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/indiv...e.asp?indid=650

---

Zitat

---

DEFINING PALESTINE AND THE PALESTINIANS

According to Palestinian revisionism, the Palestinians lived from time immemorial in historic Palestine, which is portrayed as a veritable paradise of flourishing orchards and fertile vineyards, teeming with happy peasants. Then, according to the mythic narrative, the Zionists came and, with the support of the British, stole the Palestinians’ land,

..................................................................

The term “Palestine” (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region that is more or less today’s Israel. The name derives from the Philistines, who originated from the eastern Mediterranean, and invaded the region in the 11th and 12th centuries B.C. The Philistines were apparently either from Greece, Crete, the Aegean Islands, and/or Ionia. They seem to be related to the Bronze Age Greeks, and they spoke a language akin to Mycenaean Greek. Their descendents, still living on the shores of the Mediterranean, greeted Roman invaders a thousand years later. The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area under the sovereignty of their city-states became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”

Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy, remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.

During the centuries of Ottoman rule, no Arabs under Turkish rule made any attempt to formulate an ideology of national identity, least of all the impoverished Arab peasantry in the region today known as Israel.

The term “Palestinian,” ironically, was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The Arabs of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus). While some Arab nationalist writers, and coffee-shop intellectuals in Cairo or Beirut, developed the concept of Arab nationalism in large part as a response to Zionism, the terms “Palestine” and “Palestinian” were used in their traditional sense as geographic designations, not as national identities.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=46

---