What's the fuss about recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

[Arctish]

They ripped off parts of someone else's religion to bolster their own.

No, they didn't.

Islam grew out of previous versions of Jehovah worship the same way Roman Catholicism grew out of earlier versions of Christianity, and Calvinism grew out of Catholicism, and Unitarianism split off from Calvinism.

Faith groups sometimes divide over accepting someone as a genuine Prophet of God, or how to interpret a passage of Holy Writ, or whether modern scientific knowledge should be accepted in lieu of the story of creation in Genesis, or some other point of contention. But they still share the same roots. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all offshoots of the Abrahamic religion. And they developed in the same part of the world among members of the same ethnic population.

They just *don't* have an equivalent religious claim to the site. The Bible mentions Jerusalem hundreds of times. It's the centre of Jewish religion. The Quran isn't concerned with Jerusalem at all. Muslims for a time prayed towards Jerusalem (because of Jewish influence) before that was changed to Mecca. It's just not the same kind of link.

Islam shares that link because Islam shares faith in the same God and belief in the same Holy Books. Where they differ is over the question 'was Mohammad was a genuine Prophet of God?'. Muslims think he was, Jews and Christians don't.

Muslim and Christian Jerusalemites share the link because Jerusalem is their home.

That doesn't change the bad influence of the concept of Islamic jihad. Muslims worldwide reject doing a peace deal because of the concept of jihad. (I'm obviously not saying "all" of them are motivated by this.)

And note that Jews are also the "indigenous people". Yes there has been immigration from around the world. But a lot of it (most in terms of today's population?) has been from other parts of the Middle East. Of course quite a few "Palestinians" will also be immigrants from other parts of the Middle East.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's wrong to point out that the Islamic culture has invaded the area. It's also worth pointing out that Jews wouldn't be safe under Muslim rule, and they needed their own piece of territory in the Middle East for that reason alone.

Jerusalem is their city, and it doesn't matter if they believe God's Beloved King David danced in the street, or The Son of God Jesus visited the city and was greeted by people waving palm fronds, or God's Holy Prophet Mohammed flew up to heaven from the top of the Temple Mount, or that aliens riding inside a blue comet will bring Peace of Earth if we all plant radishes in the springtime.

It's not reasonable to want the holiest site in Judaism, to be under the ownership of a Muslim nation. Jews will just never agree to that, and you can understand why.

Jerusalem being "their city" still leaves the sovereignty question. Yes you can understand that someone indigenous has a right to be there. But that's a different question as how you carve up the map and decide political sovereignty. There are lots of cases where indigenous people don't get the political regime they want. Independence movements for example.

I don't care what people believe about Jehovah's Holy Will. IMO the religious claims are all delusions and myths. Some folks might truly, sincerely believe that Jerusalem is the most precious thing in all the world. They might be willing to fight to the death to control it. But I don't share their sentiments and I don't see any reason why I should indulge them.

I'm much more interested in the everyday lives of people who actually live in Jerusalem, especially the ones being denied a say in the future of their city. Heck, some of them are being denied the right to stay in their hometown. That's injustice.

I do not accept the premise that some Jewish guy from somewhere in Europe has a greater right to live in Jerusalem than a Muslim or Christian guy who was born and raised there. And I don't see how it's possible that Jerusalem means more to the European guy than it does to Jerusalemites.

 

[Vork]

Islam shares that link because Islam shares faith in the same God and belief in the same Holy Books.

I don't think it does have "belief in the same Holy Books" actually. Anything Muslims don't like in the Hebrew Bible they can just say is a "corruption".

But regardless, Islam is not concerned with Jerusalem in the way that Judaism is. They are two different religions, with different teachings, and different history, regardless of whether you want to appeal to them both being "Abrahamic".

I don't care what people believe about Jehovah's Holy Will. IMO the religious claims are all delusions and myths.

I agree with you-- I'm saying that Judaism has the real religious connection to the site ignoring the truth of the religions. You can make assessments about the nature of the religious connection, without believing that the religions are really true.

Some folks might truly, sincerely believe that Jerusalem is the most precious thing in all the world. They might be willing to fight to the death to control it. But I don't share their sentiments and I don't see any reason why I should indulge them.

Well I think fair minded people, will take account of the importance of religion, and the religious connections, when it comes to something like the Middle East conflict.

It just doesn't work to say, "I think your religions are a joke, so who cares who gets ownership of the holy sites?". Other people do take the issue seriously, and so it's a part of real-world politics whether you like it or not. And in that context, it's wrong to pretend that they both have an equal religious connection to the site. They don't.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think it does have "belief in the same Holy Books" actually. Anything Muslims don't like in the Hebrew Bible they can just say is a "corruption".

But regardless, Islam is not concerned with Jerusalem in the way that Judaism is. They are two different religions, with different teachings, and different history, regardless of whether you want to appeal to them both being "Abrahamic".

I'm not saying it's the same religion.

I'm saying it arose from the same Abrahamic rootstock in the same region among the same Semitic people who built and populated the cities of Jerusalem, Jericho, Hebron, Jenin, Ramallah, Gaza, etc.

I agree with you-- I'm saying that Judaism has the real religious connection to the site ignoring the truth of the religions. You can make assessments about the nature of the religious connection, without believing that the religions are really true.

Okay, so it's important to Jews in a religious way, and in your opinion the ruins of their old temple is way more important than the Muslim's well kept mosque. You are making an Appeal to emotion. It's a fallacy.

Some folks might truly, sincerely believe that Jerusalem is the most precious thing in all the world. They might be willing to fight to the death to control it. But I don't share their sentiments and I don't see any reason why I should indulge them.

Well I think fair minded people, will take account of the importance of religion, and the religious connections, when it comes to something like the Middle East conflict.

It just doesn't work to say, "I think your religions are a joke, so who cares who gets ownership of the holy sites?". Other people do take the issue seriously, and so it's a part of real-world politics whether you like it or not. And in that context, it's wrong to pretend that they both have an equal religious connection to the site. They don't.

I understand that religious people take their religion seriously, and I understand that religious zealots are unreasonable and dangerous. But I think fair minded people recognize that human rights are independent of religious sentiments. It doesn't matter which version of Abraham's God people worship, or how truly, deeply, and madly they worship Him. The basic human rights of the people of Jerusalem to stay in their homes and have a say in the future of their city is held by all Jerusalemites regardless of their faiths. That future certainly shouldn't be decided by people like us who've never even lived there.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, they didn't.

Islam grew out of previous versions of Jehovah worship the same way Roman Catholicism grew out of earlier versions of Christianity, and Calvinism grew out of Catholicism, and Unitarianism split off from Calvinism.

Faith groups sometimes divide over accepting someone as a genuine Prophet of God, or how to interpret a passage of Holy Writ, or whether modern scientific knowledge should be accepted in lieu of the story of creation in Genesis, or some other point of contention. But they still share the same roots. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all offshoots of the Abrahamic religion. And they developed in the same part of the world among members of the same ethnic population.



Islam shares that link because Islam shares faith in the same God and belief in the same Holy Books. Where they differ is over the question 'was Mohammad was a genuine Prophet of God?'. Muslims think he was, Jews and Christians don't.

Muslim and Christian Jerusalemites share the link because Jerusalem is their home.

That doesn't change the bad influence of the concept of Islamic jihad. Muslims worldwide reject doing a peace deal because of the concept of jihad. (I'm obviously not saying "all" of them are motivated by this.)

And note that Jews are also the "indigenous people". Yes there has been immigration from around the world. But a lot of it (most in terms of today's population?) has been from other parts of the Middle East. Of course quite a few "Palestinians" will also be immigrants from other parts of the Middle East.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's wrong to point out that the Islamic culture has invaded the area. It's also worth pointing out that Jews wouldn't be safe under Muslim rule, and they needed their own piece of territory in the Middle East for that reason alone.

Jerusalem is their city, and it doesn't matter if they believe God's Beloved King David danced in the street, or The Son of God Jesus visited the city and was greeted by people waving palm fronds, or God's Holy Prophet Mohammed flew up to heaven from the top of the Temple Mount, or that aliens riding inside a blue comet will bring Peace of Earth if we all plant radishes in the springtime.

It's not reasonable to want the holiest site in Judaism, to be under the ownership of a Muslim nation. Jews will just never agree to that, and you can understand why.

Jerusalem being "their city" still leaves the sovereignty question. Yes you can understand that someone indigenous has a right to be there. But that's a different question as how you carve up the map and decide political sovereignty. There are lots of cases where indigenous people don't get the political regime they want. Independence movements for example.

I don't care what people believe about Jehovah's Holy Will. IMO the religious claims are all delusions and myths. Some folks might truly, sincerely believe that Jerusalem is the most precious thing in all the world. They might be willing to fight to the death to control it. But I don't share their sentiments and I don't see any reason why I should indulge them.

I'm much more interested in the everyday lives of people who actually live in Jerusalem, especially the ones being denied a say in the future of their city. Heck, some of them are being denied the right to stay in their hometown. That's injustice.

I do not accept the premise that some Jewish guy from somewhere in Europe has a greater right to live in Jerusalem than a Muslim or Christian guy who was born and raised there. And I don't see how it's possible that Jerusalem means more to the European guy than it does to Jerusalemites.

I think that a sovereign country should decide it's own immigration policy. America for example has preferences for white immigrants with skills. How is that better or worse than a country wanting immigrants who agree with the dominant religious view? I believe that people living in an area have the right to establish laws and rules within that area. The larger issue here is that there are people living within Israel's borders who don't have citizen rights. This is wrong. The issue is simple, the world should push Israel to give all citizens within their borders citizen rights. Of course, Israel wants to have a Jewish controlled democracy. Overtime, this won't be possible if all Palestinians have voting rights in Israel. So, it creates an incentive for Israel to negotiate. But there really is today a lack of incentive on both sides to negotiate. Pals could be incentivized by promises of large world wide economic incentives to a future Palestinian state.

 

[Derec]

I think that a sovereign country should decide it's own immigration policy. America for example has preferences for white immigrants with skills.

That may have been the case 60 years ago, but is no longer the case today. Today, we have diversity lotteries, chain migration and we tolerate (and in sanctuary states like California and sanctuary cities like NYC even encourage) illegal immigration of uneducated illegal immigrants from the third world with no education and no skills. Oh and we have the scam that is the K1 fiance visa, where people can immigrate based on a (often dubious) relationship and they get to stay in the US even if the marriage breaks up quickly and was (at least as far as the foreign spouse was concerned) nothing but a scheme to get a green card.

 

[Arctish]

Pals could be incentivized by promises of large world wide economic incentives to a future Palestinian state.

I think the only thing that is incentivizing Palestinians today is the progress they've been making at the UN to get their State recognized right f***ing now.

Promises that someday Israel will stop expanding into the West Bank and seizing Palestinian resources are empty.

 

[Vork]

I'm not saying it's the same religion.

I'm saying it arose from the same Abrahamic rootstock in the same region among the same Semitic people who built and populated the cities of Jerusalem, Jericho, Hebron, Jenin, Ramallah, Gaza, etc.



Okay, so it's important to Jews in a religious way, and in your opinion the ruins of their old temple is way more important than the Muslim's well kept mosque. You are making an Appeal to emotion. It's a fallacy.

Some folks might truly, sincerely believe that Jerusalem is the most precious thing in all the world. They might be willing to fight to the death to control it. But I don't share their sentiments and I don't see any reason why I should indulge them.

Well I think fair minded people, will take account of the importance of religion, and the religious connections, when it comes to something like the Middle East conflict.

It just doesn't work to say, "I think your religions are a joke, so who cares who gets ownership of the holy sites?". Other people do take the issue seriously, and so it's a part of real-world politics whether you like it or not. And in that context, it's wrong to pretend that they both have an equal religious connection to the site. They don't.

I understand that religious people take their religion seriously, and I understand that religious zealots are unreasonable and dangerous. But I think fair minded people recognize that human rights are independent of religious sentiments. It doesn't matter which version of Abraham's God people worship, or how truly, deeply, and madly they worship Him. The basic human rights of the people of Jerusalem to stay in their homes and have a say in the future of their city is held by all Jerusalemites regardless of their faiths. That future certainly shouldn't be decided by people like us who've never even lived there.

There are plenty of mosques in the world, regardless of how well kept one is. There is only one temple mount etc. You are ignoring the massive evidence for the Jewish connection to the site, in terms of it being the focus of their religion, and their thousands of years of history with the site.

Just throwing out the name of a fallacy, doesn't make someone actually guilty of a fallacy. You would need to actually spell out why it's wrong to take account of such things, when deciding fair ownership in this kind of case. (In the special situation that the land is disputed anyway and doesn't clearly belong to a particular side in terms of legal sovereignty.)

As for the inhabitants of Jerusalem deciding the future of the city, there was a poll not long ago where even the Arab residents would prefer to stay part of Israel if I remember correctly. Probably an economic thing rather than anything else. And Jerusalem has a Jewish majority so any kind of democratic vote...

 

[Vork]

Pals could be incentivized by promises of large world wide economic incentives to a future Palestinian state.

I think the only thing that is incentivizing Palestinians today is the progress they've been making at the UN to get their State recognized right f***ing now.

Promises that someday Israel will stop expanding into the West Bank and seizing Palestinian resources are empty.

Settlements have been removed in the past. If the Palestinians were willing to do a genuine peace deal and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, then they could work out defined borders. But the Palestinian side isn't interested in peace. Hamas are explicit about that; while Fatah is more diplomatic they get caught saying the same sort of things as Hamas-- they want to destroy Israel and take over, not live side by side with a Jewish state.

Why should Israel look for peace if the Palestinians don't want it?

Also, the West Bank may be "occupied" in a certain military sense, but it's *not* Palestinian land in terms of national sovereignty. A Palestinian state was never properly formed, because the Arab side wanted to exterminate Israel rather than peacefully set up two states. A Jewish settlement is not in "occupied Palestinian territory". It's in land designated for setting up a Jewish state by the international community. That process was messed up by Arab aggression, the same Arab aggression that the Palestinians still show today by refusing to live side by side with a Jewish state.

 

[Juma]

Pals could be incentivized by promises of large world wide economic incentives to a future Palestinian state.

I think the only thing that is incentivizing Palestinians today is the progress they've been making at the UN to get their State recognized right f***ing now.

Promises that someday Israel will stop expanding into the West Bank and seizing Palestinian resources are empty.

Settlements have been removed in the past. If the Palestinians were willing to do a genuine peace deal and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, then they could work out defined borders. But the Palestinian side isn't interested in peace. Hamas are explicit about that; while Fatah is more diplomatic they get caught saying the same sort of things as Hamas-- they want to destroy Israel and take over, not live side by side with a Jewish state.

Why should Israel look for peace if the Palestinians don't want it?

Also, the West Bank may be "occupied" in a certain military sense, but it's *not* Palestinian land in terms of national sovereignty. A Palestinian state was never properly formed, because the Arab side wanted to exterminate Israel rather than peacefully set up two states. A Jewish settlement is not in "occupied Palestinian territory". It's in land designated for setting up a Jewish state by the international community. That process was messed up by Arab aggression, the same Arab aggression that the Palestinians still show today by refusing to live side by side with a Jewish state.

Isreal doesnt accept palestine either.
So why would palestine look for peace when the isreals dont want it?

Do you realize how dumb that reasoning is?

 

[Juma]

I'm not saying it's the same religion.

I'm saying it arose from the same Abrahamic rootstock in the same region among the same Semitic people who built and populated the cities of Jerusalem, Jericho, Hebron, Jenin, Ramallah, Gaza, etc.



Okay, so it's important to Jews in a religious way, and in your opinion the ruins of their old temple is way more important than the Muslim's well kept mosque. You are making an Appeal to emotion. It's a fallacy.



I understand that religious people take their religion seriously, and I understand that religious zealots are unreasonable and dangerous. But I think fair minded people recognize that human rights are independent of religious sentiments. It doesn't matter which version of Abraham's God people worship, or how truly, deeply, and madly they worship Him. The basic human rights of the people of Jerusalem to stay in their homes and have a say in the future of their city is held by all Jerusalemites regardless of their faiths. That future certainly shouldn't be decided by people like us who've never even lived there.

There are plenty of mosques in the world, regardless of how well kept one is. There is only one temple mount etc. You are ignoring the massive evidence for the Jewish connection to the site, in terms of it being the focus of their religion, and their thousands of years of history with the site.

Just throwing out the name of a fallacy, doesn't make someone actually guilty of a fallacy. You would need to actually spell out why it's wrong to take account of such things, when deciding fair ownership in this kind of case. (In the special situation that the land is disputed anyway and doesn't clearly belong to a particular side in terms of legal sovereignty.)

As for the inhabitants of Jerusalem deciding the future of the city, there was a poll not long ago where even the Arab residents would prefer to stay part of Israel if I remember correctly. Probably an economic thing rather than anything else. And Jerusalem has a Jewish majority so any kind of democratic vote...

We all came from africa. Do we have a right to live in africa? Create a new country?

There have been massive folk movements through history. Do the current descendents of those all have right to create countries from where they think they belong?

Palestine wasnt empty when Israel was created.

I dispise all etnonationalism! Be whom you may everywhere, but dont base nations/countries on it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for the inhabitants of Jerusalem deciding the future of the city, there was a poll not long ago where even the Arab residents would prefer to stay part of Israel if I remember correctly. Probably an economic thing rather than anything else. And Jerusalem has a Jewish majority so any kind of democratic vote...

Yeah, a hidden problem with the idea of 67 borders + swaps: The Arab areas that would be swapped say "Hell, no!"

- - - Updated - - -

Isreal doesnt accept palestine either.
So why would palestine look for peace when the isreals dont want it?

Do you realize how dumb that reasoning is?

Israel considers peace with the Palestinians impossible, not undesirable.

- - - Updated - - -

Palestine wasnt empty when Israel was created.

I dispise all etnonationalism! Be whom you may everywhere, but dont base nations/countries on it.

But the area that became Israel was majority-Jewish. Self determination applies to Muslims but not Jews??

 

[Vork]

Settlements have been removed in the past. If the Palestinians were willing to do a genuine peace deal and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, then they could work out defined borders. But the Palestinian side isn't interested in peace. Hamas are explicit about that; while Fatah is more diplomatic they get caught saying the same sort of things as Hamas-- they want to destroy Israel and take over, not live side by side with a Jewish state.

Why should Israel look for peace if the Palestinians don't want it?

Also, the West Bank may be "occupied" in a certain military sense, but it's *not* Palestinian land in terms of national sovereignty. A Palestinian state was never properly formed, because the Arab side wanted to exterminate Israel rather than peacefully set up two states. A Jewish settlement is not in "occupied Palestinian territory". It's in land designated for setting up a Jewish state by the international community. That process was messed up by Arab aggression, the same Arab aggression that the Palestinians still show today by refusing to live side by side with a Jewish state.

Isreal doesnt accept palestine either.
So why would palestine look for peace when the isreals dont want it?

Do you realize how dumb that reasoning is?

Let's assume your premise for the sake of argument. Why would it be "dumb" that it would change Palestinian behaviour in relation to Israel? Seems reasonable to me, that you aren't going to be worrying about making concessions to the other side to get a peace deal done, if you don't believe the other side genuinely wants peace anyway.

 

[Vork]

I'm not saying it's the same religion.

I'm saying it arose from the same Abrahamic rootstock in the same region among the same Semitic people who built and populated the cities of Jerusalem, Jericho, Hebron, Jenin, Ramallah, Gaza, etc.



Okay, so it's important to Jews in a religious way, and in your opinion the ruins of their old temple is way more important than the Muslim's well kept mosque. You are making an Appeal to emotion. It's a fallacy.



I understand that religious people take their religion seriously, and I understand that religious zealots are unreasonable and dangerous. But I think fair minded people recognize that human rights are independent of religious sentiments. It doesn't matter which version of Abraham's God people worship, or how truly, deeply, and madly they worship Him. The basic human rights of the people of Jerusalem to stay in their homes and have a say in the future of their city is held by all Jerusalemites regardless of their faiths. That future certainly shouldn't be decided by people like us who've never even lived there.

There are plenty of mosques in the world, regardless of how well kept one is. There is only one temple mount etc. You are ignoring the massive evidence for the Jewish connection to the site, in terms of it being the focus of their religion, and their thousands of years of history with the site.

Just throwing out the name of a fallacy, doesn't make someone actually guilty of a fallacy. You would need to actually spell out why it's wrong to take account of such things, when deciding fair ownership in this kind of case. (In the special situation that the land is disputed anyway and doesn't clearly belong to a particular side in terms of legal sovereignty.)

As for the inhabitants of Jerusalem deciding the future of the city, there was a poll not long ago where even the Arab residents would prefer to stay part of Israel if I remember correctly. Probably an economic thing rather than anything else. And Jerusalem has a Jewish majority so any kind of democratic vote...

We all came from africa. Do we have a right to live in africa? Create a new country?

There have been massive folk movements through history. Do the current descendents of those all have right to create countries from where they think they belong?

Palestine wasnt empty when Israel was created.

I dispise all etnonationalism! Be whom you may everywhere, but dont base nations/countries on it.

If you don't like Zionism ok. But Israel--a Jewish homeland--was set up by the process of international law, just like other Arab countries in the region, that have their borders recognized today. Or rather, Israel was being set up under international law, until Arab aggression somewhat messed up the process.

 

[Juma]

We all came from africa. Do we have a right to live in africa? Create a new country?

There have been massive folk movements through history. Do the current descendents of those all have right to create countries from where they think they belong?

Palestine wasnt empty when Israel was created.

I dispise all etnonationalism! Be whom you may everywhere, but dont base nations/countries on it.

If you don't like Zionism ok. But Israel--a Jewish homeland--was set up by the process of international law, just like other Arab countries in the region, that have their borders recognized today. Or rather, Israel was being set up under international law, until Arab aggression somewhat messed up the process.

So what? A lot of autrocies has been done within ”international law”.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We all came from africa. Do we have a right to live in africa? Create a new country?

There have been massive folk movements through history. Do the current descendents of those all have right to create countries from where they think they belong?

Palestine wasnt empty when Israel was created.

I dispise all etnonationalism! Be whom you may everywhere, but dont base nations/countries on it.

If you don't like Zionism ok. But Israel--a Jewish homeland--was set up by the process of international law, just like other Arab countries in the region, that have their borders recognized today. Or rather, Israel was being set up under international law, until Arab aggression somewhat messed up the process.

Fine. But where Israel fucked itself by creating and expanding their settlements in land designated for a future Palestinian state. The call will be to either create a state for Palestinians (which many don't want) or to give citizen rights to all inhabitants in the West Bank which will eventually put "Jews" in a minority position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fine. But where Israel fucked itself by creating and expanding their settlements in land designated for a future Palestinian state. The call will be to either create a state for Palestinians (which many don't want) or to give citizen rights to all inhabitants in the West Bank which will eventually put "Jews" in a minority position.

Except they didn't. All they did is change what was being argued about.

Before the 67 war the arguments were about the 48 borders. And there were still plenty of attacks.

 

[Vork]

Fine. But where Israel fucked itself by creating and expanding their settlements in land designated for a future Palestinian state. The call will be to either create a state for Palestinians (which many don't want) or to give citizen rights to all inhabitants in the West Bank which will eventually put "Jews" in a minority position.

Jerusalem wasn't designated for the Palestinians as you probably know. It was supposed to have some special international status.

And anyway, the "designation" was a non-binding suggested plan, which the Arab side rejected.

If you gamble on a war to try to exterminate the other side, and you lose that gamble, you maybe aren't going to get such a good deal as if you had done things peacefully. If you lose nothing by going to war, where is the deterrent? You can't say "we were supposed to get X" after you have failed to wipe out the other side. They were supposed to get X as part of a peaceful political process!

Anyway, I think Israel largely accepts the idea of a Palestinian state. Or if people reject a "state" it's out of security concerns. They aren't against the idea of self-rule for the Palestinians within certain boundaries.

I would personally hope that the Palestinians do get some sort of statehood recognized-- but demilitarized.

 

[repoman]

This is a good takedown of Jake Tapper propagandizing against the countries in the UN who voted against the move by Trump. What could be motivating Tapper, what hidden membership of a some group that Tapper belongs to besides being white? Any ideas? What group membership that would make the normally fair Tapper be a slimy bastard?