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

[Jayjay]

What's treason is for the Israeli government to treat Palestinians like humans with human rights.

Cite? I was using the term in the legal sense--Palestinian law makes an acceptable peace to be treason. It also makes trying to change the law treason.

Laws can be changed, or reinterpreted to fit the situation. Besides, do you think Palestinians have an independent judiciary that would ever go against their leadership and prosecute them for treason? Not going to happen.

As for legal ramifications, Israel has by law changed Jerusalem to its capital, so negotiating an acceptable peace just as treasonous.

 

[Derec]

As for legal ramifications, Israel has by law changed Jerusalem to its capital,

Wrong. Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel, as long as the modern state of Israel was in existence.
What the law you referring to did was declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel.

 

[untermensche]

What's treason is for the Israeli government to treat Palestinians like humans with human rights.

Cite? I was using the term in the legal sense--Palestinian law makes an acceptable peace to be treason. It also makes trying to change the law treason.

It hasn't been done since 1967.

From there begins the slow theft of more and more land.

Which any thinking person fully understands is proof of their nature and intentions.

If all you want is peace you don't continually steal land for decades.

The truth is not Israel or the Palestinians or the US should be involved in any settlement agreement.

That should be done by neutral parties. Nations from Africa and Asia and South America.

That is the only way anything will be done. This has gone on long enough.

Your eternal preaching proves nothing.

Your constant ignoring of morality shows you have none.

 

[Jayjay]

As for legal ramifications, Israel has by law changed Jerusalem to its capital,

Wrong. Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel, as long as the modern state of Israel was in existence.
What the law you referring to did was declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel.

Whatever. I was just pointing out that both sides have laws that prejudice the peace deal, and might need to be adjusted depending on the terms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's treason is for the Israeli government to treat Palestinians like humans with human rights.

Cite? I was using the term in the legal sense--Palestinian law makes an acceptable peace to be treason. It also makes trying to change the law treason.

Laws can be changed, or reinterpreted to fit the situation. Besides, do you think Palestinians have an independent judiciary that would ever go against their leadership and prosecute them for treason? Not going to happen.

As for legal ramifications, Israel has by law changed Jerusalem to its capital, so negotiating an acceptable peace just as treasonous.

I suggest you actually read the last sentence I wrote.

And the issue with the Palestinians is the law they have baked into their system is the right of return--that's not a matter of borders, that's a matter of Israel's very existence.

 

[Jayjay]

Laws can be changed, or reinterpreted to fit the situation. Besides, do you think Palestinians have an independent judiciary that would ever go against their leadership and prosecute them for treason? Not going to happen.

As for legal ramifications, Israel has by law changed Jerusalem to its capital, so negotiating an acceptable peace just as treasonous.

I suggest you actually read the last sentence I wrote.

And the issue with the Palestinians is the law they have baked into their system is the right of return--that's not a matter of borders, that's a matter of Israel's very existence.

And as I said, laws can be changed or ignored. It's trivial to interpret the meaning of "right of return" to mean some symbolic compensation or acknowledgement, without it being treason.

 

[Ford]

Laws can be changed, or reinterpreted to fit the situation. Besides, do you think Palestinians have an independent judiciary that would ever go against their leadership and prosecute them for treason? Not going to happen.

As for legal ramifications, Israel has by law changed Jerusalem to its capital, so negotiating an acceptable peace just as treasonous.

I suggest you actually read the last sentence I wrote.

And the issue with the Palestinians is the law they have baked into their system is the right of return--that's not a matter of borders, that's a matter of Israel's very existence.

And as I said, laws can be changed or ignored. It's trivial to interpret the meaning of "right of return" to mean some symbolic compensation or acknowledgement, without it being treason.

You have to understand that Loren believes Israel can do no wrong. As such, arguing with him over the Israeli/Palestinian issue is a lost cause. He will - like Israeli hardliners - never concede anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Laws can be changed, or reinterpreted to fit the situation. Besides, do you think Palestinians have an independent judiciary that would ever go against their leadership and prosecute them for treason? Not going to happen.

As for legal ramifications, Israel has by law changed Jerusalem to its capital, so negotiating an acceptable peace just as treasonous.

I suggest you actually read the last sentence I wrote.

And the issue with the Palestinians is the law they have baked into their system is the right of return--that's not a matter of borders, that's a matter of Israel's very existence.

And as I said, laws can be changed or ignored. It's trivial to interpret the meaning of "right of return" to mean some symbolic compensation or acknowledgement, without it being treason.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Trying to change the law is also treason.

 

[Jayjay]

And as I said, laws can be changed or ignored. It's trivial to interpret the meaning of "right of return" to mean some symbolic compensation or acknowledgement, without it being treason.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Trying to change the law is also treason.

And I have to repeat myself: where is the independent judiciary that would ever prosecute Palestinian leadership? This "law" is nothing but grandstanding, and is absolutely nothing compared to the obstacles that Israel has built into its legal system, not the least of which is allowing settlers into West Bank.

 

[untermensche]

And as I said, laws can be changed or ignored. It's trivial to interpret the meaning of "right of return" to mean some symbolic compensation or acknowledgement, without it being treason.

You have to understand that Loren believes Israel can do no wrong. As such, arguing with him over the Israeli/Palestinian issue is a lost cause. He will - like Israeli hardliners - never concede anything.

He justifies decades of brutal oppression.

He justifies decades of stealing land.

He justifies decades of an illegal blockade.

He justifies any action taken by Israel and questions NONE.

When somebody justifies every action by some modern nation you know beyond doubt they are lost in some delusion.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Turkey is announcing that it will move it's embassy to Eastern Jerusalem:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/17/turkey-hopes-open-embassy-east-jerusalem-erdogan

As an aside, is there any country in the world with such a hot/cold relationship with Israel than Turkey? Secondly, I find Turkey to be amazingly hypocritical regarding Israel. Their treatment of the Kurds is very similar or worse than the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And as I said, laws can be changed or ignored. It's trivial to interpret the meaning of "right of return" to mean some symbolic compensation or acknowledgement, without it being treason.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Trying to change the law is also treason.

And I have to repeat myself: where is the independent judiciary that would ever prosecute Palestinian leadership? This "law" is nothing but grandstanding, and is absolutely nothing compared to the obstacles that Israel has built into its legal system, not the least of which is allowing settlers into West Bank.

Unless they have complete control there would be some radicals that would prosecute.

 

[untermensche]

Turkey is announcing that it will move it's embassy to Eastern Jerusalem:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/17/turkey-hopes-open-embassy-east-jerusalem-erdogan

As an aside, is there any country in the world with such a hot/cold relationship with Israel than Turkey? Secondly, I find Turkey to be amazingly hypocritical regarding Israel. Their treatment of the Kurds is very similar or worse than the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel and Turkey are both US clients running apartheid states.

They have a lot in common.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Turkey is announcing that it will move it's embassy to Eastern Jerusalem:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/17/turkey-hopes-open-embassy-east-jerusalem-erdogan

As an aside, is there any country in the world with such a hot/cold relationship with Israel than Turkey? Secondly, I find Turkey to be amazingly hypocritical regarding Israel. Their treatment of the Kurds is very similar or worse than the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel and Turkey are both US clients running apartheid states.

They have a lot in common.

Turkey a US client?! What are you smoking?

 

[untermensche]

Is there anything you are not completely wrong about?

Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/us-arms-sales-worldwide/index.html

Israel gets the most but it is a gift. It doesn't buy.

 

[Vork]

Jerusalem is a sacred city to Muslims and Palestinians.

It is a much more important/sacred city to Jews/Israelis.
Muslims already have Mecca and Medina.

Religious delusions are not a sound method of determining land ownership.

Sure, but there is still a sense in which you can make judgements on these issues without actually believing that either religious side is a true religion.

The Jewish claim to the area as a holy site is a million times better than the Islamic claim. What do the Muslims have? Some claim about Muhammad travelling to heaven on a horse is it? Oh, and the fact that Muslims conqured the land and built on a Jewish holy site; and of course when they created their own religion there was some borrowing from the Jewish religion. Basically any Islamic claim, is just a derivative thing from Judaism. It's Judaism that has the real claim.

If someone invades Mecca, and builds a temple on a Muslim 'holy site', can we say that Mecca is "holy to different faiths" then? You think that Muslims will accept that?

Also, note that Muslim religious interest in the site may not be so much about it being a "holy site" at all. Maybe that's part of it. But a major part of their interest in keeping the land may be principles of jihad warfare. Muslim fundies don't just claim all of Israel, but they claim territories like Spain also which were once under Muslim control. Once Islam has stolen your land, the "infidels" aren't allowed to get control back.

Off the top of my head, all religious sides were supposed to get access to holy sites in Jerusalem as part of the Mandate for Palestine. Access is one thing. Is it really fair to give sovereign ownership over Judaism's holiest site to a Muslim nation? Jews should really accept that?

Also, while building on someone else's holy site may have been normal behaviour historically, shouldn't Muslims be fairly apologetic *today* for what happened? They aren't personally responsible of course for what happened historically. But why wouldn't they recognize the Jewish history and claim?

 

[lpetrich]

I once came across an argument by someone that the religious importance of Jerusalem in Islam is directly proportional to the city's political importance to Muslims. That someone pointed to a lot of history and claimed that there was a correlation.

 

[Arctish]

Religious delusions are not a sound method of determining land ownership.

Sure, but there is still a sense in which you can make judgements on these issues without actually believing that either religious side is a true religion.

The Jewish claim to the area as a holy site is a million times better than the Islamic claim. What do the Muslims have? Some claim about Muhammad travelling to heaven on a horse is it? Oh, and the fact that Muslims conqured the land and built on a Jewish holy site; and of course when they created their own religion there was some borrowing from the Jewish religion. Basically any Islamic claim, is just a derivative thing from Judaism. It's Judaism that has the real claim.

Islam is an Abrahamic faith, just like Christianity and Judaism. All three claim to be the One True faith of the God of Abraham.

Jews claim that God revealed his Holy Will to them and gave them His Laws, and God's Prophets received further instruction to pass along. Christians said yeah, the Jews received it, but they didn't understand it so God became Jesus to teach people directly and we wrote it down in the Gospels. Muslims say yeah, Jews received the word of God and Christians were instructed on how to interpret it by their prophet Jesus, but they all got it wrong so God sent another, final prophet, to set the record straight. Every current version of the Abrahamic faiths is derived from an earlier version of Jehovah worship. They all go back to the religious beliefs of their ancestors in Palestine.

Also, I think it's important to remember that much of the Jewish population of Palestine converted to Christianity and Islam over the centuries, but the people didn't go anywhere. Their descendants are the Palestinians who live there now. Treating them as some sort of foreign interlopers is unwarranted. They are the indigenous people of that region, 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.

 

[Vork]

I once came across an argument by someone that the religious importance of Jerusalem in Islam is directly proportional to the city's political importance to Muslims. That someone pointed to a lot of history and claimed that there was a correlation.

You may be thinking of Daniel Pipes. He did a piece like that I think.

 

[Vork]

Islam is an Abrahamic faith

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

Also, I think it's important to remember that much of the Jewish population of Palestine converted to Christianity and Islam over the centuries, but the people didn't go anywhere. Their descendants are the Palestinians who live there now. Treating them as some sort of foreign interlopers is unwarranted. They are the indigenous people of that region

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.