Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 49,889
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Oh puhlease. You don't support a two-state solution because you think they'll want more and more state.
-
Features
What's the fuss about recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital?
- Thread starter Lumpenproletariat
- Start date
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Your history lesson is remarkably short term. What about the centuries Jerusalem was shared by a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish population under Ottoman rule? What about the centuries of cooperation between Muslims and Jews when both were threatened and oppressed by European Christian Crusaders? What about the centuries before that? You start the lesson with a Partition Plan from less than 100 years ago that was rejected by both Zionists and Palestinians, was never close to being implemented, and was a grossly unfair power grab.
Plan Dalet was implemented before the Arabs attacked. It was formulated before open strife broke out between Zionists and the local population of Palestinians. It was a land grab designed to secure resources and strategically important locations for the planned Jewish State, and it succeeded. You know all this. You know the timeline.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,128
- Location
- Cascadia
- Basic Beliefs
- Militant Agnostic...aka functional Atheist
And what about the Canaanites? They were there when the upstart Israelites kicked in the door.
And my heathen forebears were probably there millenia before those twerps ever came along. We had a claim, but we got pushed out.
And my heathen forebears were probably there millenia before those twerps ever came along. We had a claim, but we got pushed out.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I've often, in my head, compared my country (Northern Ireland) to Israel. Like all comparisons, it's only partly accurate.
As an interesting side note, the 'two sides' here have 'adopted' a side there. Irish Nationalists broadly support the 'oppressed' Palestinians and British Unionists broadly support 'threatened' Israeli Jews. Which, if nothing else, tells you about the propensity of human apes to pick sides in someone else's dispute.
From the British (protestant) Unionist perspective, there is a lot of shared sympathy regarding Jews facing annihilation by the locals (by which I mean the wider Muslim societies in the region). The underlying ingredient has famously been described as a 'defending the Citadel' psychology. Like The Israeli Jews, the British protestants essentially 'grabbed' (or were handed) the now disputed land, except much further back in history (1600's) and since then, they've been out on a limb, with only the strength of their own defiance to rely on, mostly.
Because that's what it is. Disputed land. I am reminded of what Gore Vidal once said about human relations, 'if there's only one small piece of bread and two very hungry people, who gets it, you or me?'.
I also find it typical of the human condition that the persecuted (going back to WW2) can turn into the persecutors if the situation changes. Not unlike how a lot of persecuted Irish people (mostly Catholics, but not entirely since some lesser protestant sects also suffered discrimination) escaped to the USA and subsequently played their part in wiping out the native americans. Apes is apes. Watch out for picking sides, because if you were on the other side, you'd probably be saying what they're saying.
Just my general tuppenceworth.
On a positive note, we sorted ourselves out here, to a good degree (although the problems rumble on) and nobody but nobody used to think that was even possible during the Troubles. So I hold out some hope for the Israeli/Palestine problem, while admitting that it's probably worse and poses more of a threat to the world than our smaller, more local issue.
As an interesting side note, the 'two sides' here have 'adopted' a side there. Irish Nationalists broadly support the 'oppressed' Palestinians and British Unionists broadly support 'threatened' Israeli Jews. Which, if nothing else, tells you about the propensity of human apes to pick sides in someone else's dispute.
From the British (protestant) Unionist perspective, there is a lot of shared sympathy regarding Jews facing annihilation by the locals (by which I mean the wider Muslim societies in the region). The underlying ingredient has famously been described as a 'defending the Citadel' psychology. Like The Israeli Jews, the British protestants essentially 'grabbed' (or were handed) the now disputed land, except much further back in history (1600's) and since then, they've been out on a limb, with only the strength of their own defiance to rely on, mostly.
Because that's what it is. Disputed land. I am reminded of what Gore Vidal once said about human relations, 'if there's only one small piece of bread and two very hungry people, who gets it, you or me?'.
I also find it typical of the human condition that the persecuted (going back to WW2) can turn into the persecutors if the situation changes. Not unlike how a lot of persecuted Irish people (mostly Catholics, but not entirely since some lesser protestant sects also suffered discrimination) escaped to the USA and subsequently played their part in wiping out the native americans. Apes is apes. Watch out for picking sides, because if you were on the other side, you'd probably be saying what they're saying.
Just my general tuppenceworth.
On a positive note, we sorted ourselves out here, to a good degree (although the problems rumble on) and nobody but nobody used to think that was even possible during the Troubles. So I hold out some hope for the Israeli/Palestine problem, while admitting that it's probably worse and poses more of a threat to the world than our smaller, more local issue.
Last edited:
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The fuss is first about no Arab right of return to their property which was occupied by Israelis after the first war of independence.
Today it is a continuation. For decades Israel has enacted a slow motion ethnic cleansing in areas under its direct control. Condemeimg of land and refusal to issue building permits to non Jews. It is documented by the UN.
Note that there is opposition in Israel, but all we here is the current conservative admin in our media. If a Muslim state was doing this we would never hear the end of it. In Netanyahu's own word, the expansion is based on mandate from god.
Today it is a continuation. For decades Israel has enacted a slow motion ethnic cleansing in areas under its direct control. Condemeimg of land and refusal to issue building permits to non Jews. It is documented by the UN.
Note that there is opposition in Israel, but all we here is the current conservative admin in our media. If a Muslim state was doing this we would never hear the end of it. In Netanyahu's own word, the expansion is based on mandate from god.
Derec
Contributor
That so-called "right of return" for grandchildren and great-grandchildren of 1948 refugees would mean the end of the State of Israel due to demographics and everybody involved knows that.
And as we all know, UN is completely unbiased when it comes to Israel.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Do you have a citation?
Derec
Contributor
They could, but they choose to dabble in Intifadas instead.
What about this plan?
Minister claims Netanyahu, Trump will push for Palestinian state in Sinai
Intriguing, but not ambitious enough. I say, make the Sinai block large enough to relocate the entire West Bank population, ceding it to Israel as Judea and Samaria. A newly constructed city named "Al Quds" will feature a hill onto which the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque can be transferred stone by stone. That would free the Temple Mount for a rebuilt Jewish Temple.
Derec
Contributor
No, but religion is part of culture and Israel's cultural ties to Jerusalem are much stronger than Palestinian/Muslim ones.
In addition to that, Jerusalem has politically been the capital of three Jewish states, the Kingdom of Judah, Hasmonean Kindom and the modern State of Israel. How many Muslim states has Jerusalem been the capital of? How many of those have been Palestinian?
And since possession is 9/10 of the law, Israel possesses West Jerusalem outright and has de facto annexed East Jerusalem.
untermensche
Contributor
Arctish
Centimillionaire
It would not mean the end of the State of Israel. It would mean the end of the unassailable Jewish majority; Jews would still be the majority population but no by much, and any successful political parties would have to work with Christian and Muslim Israelis in order to govern. In time it might mean that Israel's character would be secular instead of Jewish.
Clever. You dismiss their legitimate claims to the land taken over by Zionists, make a bullshit assertion about their ability to establish their own state in Palestine, and pooh-pooh their sincerity, all in a single sentence.
So you're in favor of ethnic cleansing, the total extirpation of the non-jewish population to make way for largely European immigrants. You favor forcing Palestinians off their productive farmland and into a region so arid it barely supports camels. Gee, I wonder what possible reason anyone might have for making such a suggestion?
How about this instead: the UN pays off Egypt to allow Jewish immigrants settle in the Sinai and the Palestinians stay in their homes. That way, the only people moving into a new home are the ones who already want to resettle.
Derec
Contributor
Jerusalem has been capital of the modern State of Israel since its inception. It is only since 1980 . There was no excuse not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital or to move the embassies there. Even today, why not move embassies to West Jerusalem? The reason is simple: Palestinians do not want to share Jerusalem either.
Even if you don't accept East Jerusalem, there is still West Jerusalem. So why not move your embassy there?
Actually East Jerusalem has a status distinct from the West Bank. I very much doubt any Israeli government would give it up. Time for Palestinians to acknowledge the fact that Ramallah is probably the best capital they can get. Or maybe newly built Al Quds, if they go with my expanded Gaza/Sinai idea.
Derec
Contributor
There is a distinction between Jews as religious and ethnic group. Israel is already a secular state and many Jews by ethnicity are non-religious.
A State of Israel with a Palestinian majority would be Israel in name only, and that only until the new Palestinian-dominated legislature can effect a name change.
Derec
Contributor
By the way, guess who agrees with Trump on Jerusalem as capital of Israel?
Even undivided (ie including East) capital of Israel, according to Obama.
Even undivided (ie including East) capital of Israel, according to Obama.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
So what? The name isn't important. They can call it Bob for all I care. The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within its borders.
Derec
Contributor
Which Muslim/Arab-dominated state does that today?
untermensche
Contributor
So you are saying Israel has a right to continually violate human rights in it's apartheid state?
Because others do it?
If Israel is no better than any other nation in the region why is the US protecting it from the shared judgement of the entire rest of the planet?
We have Israel and the US on one side and the entire rest of the planet on the other. One which has run a brutal apartheid state for decades and the other the terrorist invader of Iraq and creator of ISIS.
What would a rational person make of this?
Derec
Contributor
No, I am saying that if what is now Israel became an Arab/Muslim dominated state, it would start to resemble other such states that do not uphold human rights of anyone, much less everyone.
Israel is treating its Arab citizens much better than any of the Arab states.
untermensche
Contributor
Israel is regularly kidnapping and torturing and killing Palestinians.
It denies Palestinians free contact with the world.
A great deal of the land occupied by Jews in Jerusalem was stolen.
Israel has continually stolen land for decades.
It is a brutal repressive ugly nation.
And the whole world except for some Americans can see it.
Once again Americans prove to be the stupidest humans on earth. They are not only the most blood thirsty and criminal.