|
Post by michaelw on Dec 7, 2017 18:44:46 GMT -5
When Israel was created in 1948, Jerusalem was not supposed to be its capital. In recognition of its supreme importance to three religions (not just Judaism), it was supposed to be under international control. Tell the rest of the story, though. Israel was willing to accept the UN partition plan, were they not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 18:54:40 GMT -5
When Israel was created in 1948, Jerusalem was not supposed to be its capital. In recognition of its supreme importance to three religions (not just Judaism), it was supposed to be under international control. Tell the rest of the story, though. Israel was willing to accept the UN partition plan, were they not? I take your point -- a lot has happened, and there's plenty of blame to share around with Israel's neighbors. I agree, and agree that certain nations' propensity to want to push Israel into the sea (or lake, as the case may be) is bad, that the U.S. should stand by Israel and see that they don't do it, and that Israel has the right to defend itself. You will get no argument from me on any of that. Still. Rob is talking as though since 1948, it was undisputed that Jerusalem was Israel's capital. That is simply not the case. Especially given all the history, there's a delicate balance here. And the last thing it needs is the Candy Corn Godzilla stomping in, flailing his stubby arms and crunching stuff under his ungainly feet. ETA: I worry very much in general about us getting provoking or involved in hostilities needlessly. This being Pearl Harbor day, it's a good time to acknowledge that sometimes one must take a stand and one must fight certain battles. But I do think our leaders should consider their actions carefully before doing things that could have much larger repercussions. My worry here is that I believe this was a stand that, as Max says, was taken primarily to please a certain portion of the GOP base, rather than one that was carefully weighed. You can maybe get away with that with tweets and certain domestic speeches and such with no real harm done. But international diplomatic issues are another story.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 7, 2017 19:30:34 GMT -5
Still. Rob is talking as though since 1948, it was undisputed that Jerusalem was Israel's capital. That is simply not the case. Of course it's not undisputed. It's also not undisputed that Tel Aviv is part of Israel. Same goes for every other city in Israel. As I said before, unless one thinks Israel has no legitimate claim on any part of Jerusalem, there's no reason to indulge people who think that proposition *is* in fact the case. Acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel shouldn't have to wait until every one in the Middle East agrees about Jerusalem. Because again, there are certain realities that need to be accepted (by both parties) before any real peace process can happen. One of those realities is that Jerusalem is always going to be the capital of Israel, just like Israel is going to have to accept that they'll need to make concessions in the West Bank. Pretending that such is not the case has not truly benefitted anyone, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 19:45:39 GMT -5
Who disputes that Tel Aviv is part of Israel? Most nations grant Israel's right to exist. Tel Aviv and most of Israel is not at all in the same category as Jerusalem (or the West Bank).
Even if you grant that Israel has a right to West Jerusalem, is Israel claiming just West Jerusalem as its capital, or the whole thing, including East Jerusalem? And why on earth does Israel need to have Jerusalem or any part of it as its capital instead of Tel Aviv? Seriously. Why?
Given how important that area is to three religions, the international control idea for the city made sense. Anyone (including Israel) claiming it as their capital -- less sense, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 7, 2017 19:58:08 GMT -5
Who disputes that Tel Aviv is part of Israel? Most nations grant Israel's right to exist. I think that second sentence answers your own question, does it not? Obviously if there are some who don't recognize Israel as a legitimate state, they're not going to recognize specific cities as belonging to Israel. They believe Israel is essentially occupying all of Israel proper. This is exactly the attitude that Rob was (correctly, IMO) criticizing. You could ask the same question about any capital (but it's pretty much only ever asked with regard to Israel). Why does China want Beijing as their capital? I guess Shanghai isn't good enough for them? If Jerusalem shouldn't belong to Israel, then fine, one can argue for that position. If Israel has a legitimate claim, they can choose where to put their capital. They don't owe anyone a reason. It should be the same standard for every sovereign country, IMO. Maybe so. I guess everyone should have embraced that idea when it was feasible.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 7, 2017 19:58:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 20:33:45 GMT -5
Who disputes that Tel Aviv is part of Israel? Most nations grant Israel's right to exist. I think that second sentence answers your own question, does it not? Obviously if there are some who don't recognize Israel as a legitimate state, they're not going to recognize specific cities as belonging to Israel. They believe Israel is essentially occupying all of Israel proper. This is exactly the attitude that Rob was (correctly, IMO) criticizing. You could ask the same question about any capital (but it's pretty much only ever asked with regard to Israel). Why does China want Beijing as their capital? I guess Shanghai isn't good enough for them? If Jerusalem shouldn't belong to Israel, then fine, one can argue for that position. If Israel has a legitimate claim, they can choose where to put their capital. They don't owe anyone a reason. It should be the same standard for every sovereign country, IMO. Maybe so. I guess everyone should have embraced that idea when it was feasible. China claims sovereignty over Taiwan. That being the case, any problem with China claiming Taipei as its new capital?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 7, 2017 20:40:30 GMT -5
China claims sovereignty over Taiwan. That being the case, any problem with China claiming Taipei as its new capital? It seems to me that the question would hinge on whether the claim of sovereignty is legitimate or not. Do you think that's an unreasonable way of looking at it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 20:48:55 GMT -5
Who determines whether the claim of sovereignty is legitimate or not?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 7, 2017 21:23:16 GMT -5
Who determines whether the claim of sovereignty is legitimate or not? The reality is, each country has to decide their own policy with regard to these kinds of disputes. Some countries recognize Kosovo as an independent state, some don't. Some countries recognize Crimea as part of Russia, while many don't. The US has to make its own determination on its policy, with regard to Jerusalem. They *could* take the position that Jerusalem simply isn't part of Israel, and therefore it shouldn't be recognized as the capital, even though the US recognizes Israel as a sovereign state. There's no doubt that's a logically coherent position. It's no different from saying that Cairo is not part of Israel, and therefore cannot be recognized as the capital. But if that's the position the US should take, then I'd like to see more of a case made. Why shouldn't Israel be able to have legitimate sovereignty over at least part of Jerusalem?
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Dec 8, 2017 1:41:26 GMT -5
So I should now make threats of violence?
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 8, 2017 1:59:38 GMT -5
No more than any other day, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 8:48:02 GMT -5
Still. Rob is talking as though since 1948, it was undisputed that Jerusalem was Israel's capital. That is simply not the case. It is undisputed by the only parties that really matters: the government and the people of Israel. Where is the office of the Israeli President? Of the Israeli Prime Minister? Where does the Knesset meet to pass laws? WTF is this nonsense, telling a country what can and cannot be its capital? Israel isn't occupied by some other country that can enforce such nonsense. The UN lacks such enforcement capabilities, as well. Jerusalem IS Israel's capital. Pretending that isn't the case in order to pacify a crowd of violent, destructive anti-semites is--imo--a far worse thing to do than to simply acknowledge reality (as Trump has done) in order to score some brownie points with evangelicals in the US. As to the 3000 years ago argument, I haven't said word one about that and won't, aside from noting that it's bullshit. I'm dealing with the reality of the here and now. And that reality is what it is. The fact that Trump's rather inconsequential announcement--again, Congress weighed in on this officially in 1995, and again, Trump has done exactly what the Presidents before him have done: opted out of moving the embassy (as required by law) to Jerusalem for security reasons--is being taken as a provocation that may lead to violence and even war by some people indicates, I think, what those people are really all about: any excuse to blow someone up, preferably a jewish someone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 8:56:23 GMT -5
Your take is that the Palestians don't matter -- that it's all about the Israelis.
When it comes to Jerusalem, I don't agree and neither does most of the world. I do NOT consider Jerusalem an undisputed part of Israeli (and I am in good company), and as such, I don't think Israel has any business claiming it as it's capital.
And for damn sure, the U.S. shouldn't be stomping in and backing them up.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 8:57:19 GMT -5
Especially given all the history, there's a delicate balance here. And the last thing it needs is the Candy Corn Godzilla stomping in, flailing his stubby arms and crunching stuff under his ungainly feet. And you know what, there are--or were--delicate balances all over the world because of histories. Why is is that this one particular situation deserves orders of magnitude more attention than all of the others, combined? Moreover, your point of view seems to be based on exactly what you were saying wasn't a sound basis: ancient history.
|
|