|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 9:12:47 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. My take is that the Palestinians need to act like adults, just as much as everyone else. That means not losing their shit over a few inconsequential words from a self-important blowhard halfway around the world. My take is also that many of the people in power who support the Palestinians are raging anti-semites, but they're given a pass on this by people who should know better, simply because of how Palestine has become a cause celebre. Seriously, in all of the decades since Israel was founded, look at all the cases where cultural groups have gotten the shit kicked out of them by one government or another*, while the UN slams Israel again and again and again, and people in western nations use the Palestinian situation to prove how caring and empathetic they are. * Examples? The Rohingya. The Chechens. The Kurds. The Copts. The Darfurians. The Uyghurs. And so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 9:24:01 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. pfft. my point of view is based on nothing of the kind. I was referring to history since 1948, in response to Michael's point. 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. My take is that the Palestinians need to act like adults, just as much as everyone else. That means not losing their shit over a few inconsequential words from a self-important blowhard halfway around the world. My take is also that many of the people in power who support the Palestinians are raging anti-semites, but they're given a pass on this by people who should know better, simply because of how Palestine has become a cause celebre. Seriously, in all of the decades since Israel was founded, look at all the cases where cultural groups have gotten the shit kicked out of them by one government or another*, while the UN slams Israel again and again and again, and people in western nations use the Palestinian situation to prove how caring and empathetic they are. * Examples? The Rohingya. The Chechens. The Kurds. The Copts. The Darfurians. The Uyghurs. And so on. We've had this discussion before. I do not always concur with the U.N.'s actions and inactions. But that doesn't make Israel in the right here. Let's say you and your neighbor had a boundary dispute, and you both feel strongly that you are in the right and that you in fact own a piece of land. The city council decided a while back that neither of you did, and that it would be a public park. Your neighbor nonetheless began building on it, chopping down trees, etc. All the other neighbors (except one) agree with you that he shouldn't be doing that, but he ignores you. Finally, he builds his house there and says "pfft, this is my home now." (He could, of course, have built his home on any of his undisputed land, but he chose that piece.) You protest, and he says "how dare you tell me where to put my home on MY land." That, to my mind, is what we have here.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Dec 8, 2017 9:45:51 GMT -5
We in Europe and you in the United States have a direct responsibility for the situation in the Middle East. It was the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire by the European powers in the 1910s-1920s that created every single state in the region, including Israel.
The creation of Israel was the last gasp of the cynical Sykes-Picot agreement and the equally cynical Balfour Declaration. Both of which were a disaster for many of the peoples in the area. That disaster was wholly adopted by the UN (through the 5 permanent members) as its own with the establishment of Israel in 1947. Since 1947 you in the US, as well as us, have held up Israel.
Now, everybody recognises the state of Israel. As they should. But for internal political reasons the concept of being pro-Israel has achieved an almost mythical status in the US and in the UK, so that for purely internal political reasons politicians say and do things which upends whatever balances have been achieved through a century of strife that started with the abominations that were Sykes-Picot, Balfour, and so on.
Trump's recognition is just that, the latest in that dance which is wholly concerned with internal US politics, and not at all about the situation on the ground. As I said, contemptible. Sometimes it is for the best if we just shut up about things which is of no concern to us.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 9:54:38 GMT -5
pfft. my point of view is based on nothing of the kind. I was referring to history since 1948, in response to Michael's point. Pardon, but you said this: "Given how important that area is to three religions, the international control idea for the city made sense." So your argument--wherein Jerusalem is some sort of international city and therefore can't be the capital of Israel--is grounded in ancient history, on religious history, on stuff that happened thousands of years ago. In contrast, I haven't said word one about the Jewish people having some sort of right to either Israel or Jerusalem, because they don't, imo. But what Israel does have is the ability to make its own choices within the territory it controls. And that ability was affirmed by the Six Day War when Egpyt, Jordan, and Syria rolled the dice (in an effort to destroy Israel) and lost. I think you're misremembering past discussions. Because the above looks like its built around criticism of Israeli settlements, which I agree are wrong on the part of Israel. But what we are talking about here is Jerusalem and whether or not it can be Israel's capital. And right now, it functionally is Israel's capital. It has been such since 1949, Six Day War or no Six Day War. And your comparison is really not on point at all, because: a) the UN is no city council, as it lack the power to enforce its decrees, and b) if it was a city council, it would be the worst one ever, since it only involves itself in cases where it can stick it to the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2017 9:58:14 GMT -5
We in Europe and you in the United States have a direct responsibility for the situation in the Middle East. It was the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire by the European powers in the 1910s-1920s that created every single state in the region, including Israel. By that logic, we have a direct responsibility for a ton of other situations, from Asia, to Africa, to the Americas. Yet none of those other situations gets anything close to the same sort of attention, much less the same sort of international funding. Why is that, do you suppose?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 8, 2017 12:19:37 GMT -5
Now, everybody recognises the state of Israel. As they should. But for internal political reasons the concept of being pro-Israel has achieved an almost mythical status in the US and in the UK, so that for purely internal political reasons politicians say and do things which upends whatever balances have been achieved through a century of strife that started with the abominations that were Sykes-Picot, Balfour, and so on. This is true, but for external political and social reasons, the concept of being pro-Palestine has achieved an almost mythical status in Europe (and among the US Left). Fact is, you guys don't care about the Palestinians any more than most of us care about Israel. Everyone is being cynical here. Trump is indeed a blustering buffoon, but the argument against recognizing Jerusalem as the capital still boils down to "Ohnoes, the Palestinians will get upset and start breaking things again!" I get it, they want to preserve the delusion that someday Israel will go away and they will get Jerusalem (and everything else) back, and sometimes preserving peace means pretending to cater to their delusions. But sooner or later someone was going to break that delusion one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 8, 2017 17:36:52 GMT -5
We've had this discussion before. I do not always concur with the U.N.'s actions and inactions. But that doesn't make Israel in the right here. Let's say you and your neighbor had a boundary dispute, and you both feel strongly that you are in the right and that you in fact own a piece of land. The city council decided a while back that neither of you did, and that it would be a public park. Your neighbor nonetheless began building on it, chopping down trees, etc. All the other neighbors (except one) agree with you that he shouldn't be doing that, but he ignores you. Finally, he builds his house there and says "pfft, this is my home now." (He could, of course, have built his home on any of his undisputed land, but he chose that piece.) You protest, and he says "how dare you tell me where to put my home on MY land." That, to my mind, is what we have here. To make the analogy more accurate, the neighbor in question would have accepted the plan for the public park when it was proposed, and the other neighbor would have decided they wanted not just the public park but all the other land as well, and they were going to take it by force. To zero in on a more specific aspect, you said, "He could, of course, have built his home on any of his undisputed land, but he chose that piece." And that's just not true. There was no undisputed land when Israel was created, because the Arabs weren't willing to accept the partition plan even when it denied Israel ownership over any part of Jerusalem. Yet somehow, the actual history doesn't much matter here. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 18:01:50 GMT -5
There is undisputed land now -- or at least, the faction that would dispute it is pretty minuscule. The vast majority of the world concurs that Israel has a right to exist and that the land given to it in 1948 belongs to it, but they recognize Tel Aviv as the capital. If Israel decided to move its capital to Haifa, the world would shrug. If the Palestinians protested, the world would give them a "pfffft" (but they wouldn't protest).
IMO, it doesn't make any sense to insist that Jerusalem is on exactly the same footing with Tel Aviv (or Haifa or Jaffa or any other Israeli city).
And with regard to your addition to my analogy, we'd have to also add that after the neighbor initially tried to take it by force, Rob then countered and took it himself by force. The neighbor's initial move wasn't right, but neither was Israel's.
And again, it's my understanding that Israel isn't merely claiming the Western portion of Jerusalem as its capital, but also is including Eastern Jerusalem. If, prior to the Wall coming down, Eastern Germany decided the whole of Berlin was its capital, including West Berlin, would that have been hunky-dory? Actually, if I'm not mistaken (I'll look it up when I'm done drafting this heinous agreement I'm working on and which has sucked up my life this last week or so), we had a problem with East Germany claiming even East Berlin as its capital because it was supposed to be territory controlled by the former Allied powers. (And I know Bonn was the capital of West Germany.)
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 8, 2017 18:22:17 GMT -5
There is undisputed land now -- or at least, the faction that would dispute it is pretty minuscule. Yes, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. And why should it? Why are the Palestinians entitled to a do-over because they couldn't accept an independent Israel and they couldn't accept Jerusalem as a corpus separatum? Especially given that even now the Palestinian leadership doesn't want a public park (going back to your analogy). If you want to focus on the here and now, I still see no reason to say Israel should move their capital to Tel Aviv (or another Israeli city), unless one can actually make a case that a future Palestinian state is entitled to all of Jerusalem.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 8, 2017 18:25:39 GMT -5
And with regard to your addition to my analogy, we'd have to also add that after the neighbor initially tried to take it by force, Rob then countered and took it himself by force. The neighbor's initial move wasn't right, but neither was Israel's. Wait, is Rob Israel in this analogy? Regardless, I don't see why Israel was in the wrong. The prospect of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum was off the table. What were they supposed to do?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 11, 2017 9:03:08 GMT -5
Well so far, apart from blowhards (in response to a blow hard), nothing much has really happened, has it?
The seat of power for the Israeli government continues to be in Jerusalem, as it has been for almost 70 years, and one guy's "controversial" action of acknowledging this readily apparent fact hasn't yet resulted in a new World War. Maybe for his next trick, he could acknowledge evolution...
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 11, 2017 14:00:43 GMT -5
I say good for Trump. Unlike those who hate the man so much they can only see bad in whatever he does, (or if the action isn't inherently bad then his motivation for it must be) I do think he is sincerely attempting to do the right thing by Israel. He promised that from day one in his campaign, and he's following through. And it WAS the right thing to do, not only for Israel our friend and ally, but for the peace process itself. It's time the Palestinians begin to learn that the world (or at least the U.S.) won't kowtow to them on this any longer. They have to meet in the middle somewhere, in order for this peace process to work, if it ever will work.
All the gnashing of teeth reminds me of the dramatic despair over Brexit...or of how the stock market would crash if Trump got elected...
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 11, 2017 14:35:54 GMT -5
I say good for Trump. Unlike those who hate the man so much they can only see bad in whatever he does, (or if the action isn't inherently bad then his motivation for it must be) I do think he is sincerely attempting to do the right thing by Israel. He promised that from day one in his campaign, and he's following through. And it WAS the right thing to do, not only for Israel our friend and ally, but for the peace process itself. It's time the Palestinians begin to learn that the world (or at least the U.S.) won't kowtow to them on this any longer. They have to meet in the middle somewhere, in order for this peace process to work, if it ever will work. All the gnashing of teeth reminds me of the dramatic despair over Brexit...or of how the stock market would crash if Trump got elected... This isn't exactly "meeting in the middle." It's telling the Palestinians "Fuck you." Maybe that's what you actually think Trump should be doing (I don't have a problem per se with telling the Palestinians to go pound sand, myself), but do not pretend this was some thoughtful and considered move towards a more stable peace. This was Trump showboating, ingratiating himself with Israel, and giving the Palestinians and their Arab supporters the middle finger. And you and everyone else pretending you luurrrrve Trump and will continue to pretend you were never asked your thoughts about being a pussy to grab by the POTUS are just pounding the table and hooting because you like the idea of giving Arabs the middle finger. I don't disapprove of what Trump did in itself. I disapprove of the fact that he did it without thought, introspection, or a plan. He just does whatever makes his dick hard at any given moment.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 11, 2017 18:01:34 GMT -5
This isn't exactly "meeting in the middle." It's telling the Palestinians "Fuck you." What do you think meeting in the middle would look like?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 11, 2017 19:11:54 GMT -5
This topic is the toughest one for me, which is I why I only ever read and never have anything to contribute.
Except now, I do! Which is: I do hope this new technique of utilizing a smaller font size continues, decreasing, until the pestering in question is no longer visible to the
|
|