|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2017 7:22:10 GMT -5
I will not Godwin a thread about Israel, I will not Godwin a thread about Israel... it would just be so wrong. I'll just note that those who conquer territory tend to be in absolute control of it. I'm not so sure "well, gee, they conquered it and now they're controlling it, so I guess that settles it" is or should be the way these things are settled, at least not when the conquest in question is as recent as this one, and was contested the entire time. (Probably a bit late for Mexico to take back Texas and all. ) Godwin away. Because it's people in Hamas, the PLO, and in other Middle-eastern states who want to destroy Israel and the kill all of the Jews. Israel is in control of all of Jerusalem because such people made that attempt in 1967 and lost. And as Michael noted, Trump didn't specifically make this about all of Jerusalem. You were wrong on that point. So again, simple reality: the capital of Israel IS Jerusalem. That remains functionally true and the only argument for why this shouldn't be accepted seems to be "because it will make some people mad." And a good chunk of those people would do Hitler proud, if they could. So again, Godwin away.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 14, 2017 7:46:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I think there is a lot to take issue with in Israel's dealings with the Palestinians, but to say that they "conquered" Palestine the way Germany conquered Poland and are now sitting on occupied land is a rather one-sided narrative. That's the Palestinians' version of the story, for sure, but it's not very accurate.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Dec 14, 2017 9:12:31 GMT -5
Because it's people in Hamas, the PLO, and in other Middle-eastern states who want to destroy Israel and the kill all of the Jews. The PLO does not want that. As part of the peace process since 1988, the PLO recognised the State of Israel. The whole peace process since then has been founded on the PLO recognising Israel's right to exist. When will Israel recognise Palestine, as they promised to do? As this article in the Israeli press asks, how many times must the PLO recognise Israel for it to count? www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2017 9:25:02 GMT -5
The PLO can say what it wants to say, it can present a peace-seeking public face if it so desires (because that's best way to keep raising money, after all), but it wasn't until 1995--coincidentally (?) the same year Congress recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital--that the destruction of Israel was taken out of the PLO's charter. And I, for one, don't believe most of the leadership has really changed their minds in this regard at all. Certainly, they draw a ton of support from people who openly seek the destruction of Israel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 10:19:09 GMT -5
I don't disagree that "conquer" isn't the right word, and I fully agree that it's not equivalent to Hitler and Poland. The Godwin thing was a joke (a grisly one, in admittedly horrible taste, which is why I said I wasn't actually seriously making it).
But I stand by my point, which is this: the fact a nation "controls" territory doesn't make them right. All the time, throughout history, nations have controlled territory that was not rightfully theirs. It should not be "oh, they control the area so that's that, they can do whatever they want, including making it their capital." I think it's quite legitimate to ask "should they be controlling that territory?"
And come on, you think Trump or Israel is supportive of Jerusalem being split? That's just Trump (or, I would bet Jared and his advisors) stepping around that issue the way past presidents stepped around Israel calling Jerusalem its capital.
Except that it won't mollify anyone because Israel controls all of Jeruselum and obviously intends to continue to do so. Trump just as obviously intends to fully back them.
ETA:
And the real question is, as Max and Amadan say below, whether Trump stepping in and doing this actually made things worse instead of better, whether it accomplished anything worthwhile, and whether it was in fact aimed to do anything other than pleasing pro-Israel voters in the U.S. (as Amadan put it, a form of virtue signaling).
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 14, 2017 10:28:23 GMT -5
I don't trust the PLO or their leaders either. That being said, a lot of the peace process has been predicated on the understanding that you have to establish a framework for peace first, even knowing that a lot of hardliners (on both sides, but especially the Palestinians) are not on board with it and will try to undermine it. So you're basically making "peace" and hoping that eventually the status quo will improve enough that the hardliners get pushed farther to the fringes ("Hey, we have jobs now, and an economy, and a growing GDP - stop blowing shit up!") Even while bombs are still going off.
And that's the delicate, nuanced, and thorny problem of trying to make peace between two parties who want peace in theory but really hate and mistrust each other and will for a long time that Trump stomped into with a unilateral "Fuck you." It wasn't useful. It was basically a form of virtue-signaling. Provoking the Palestinians just to provoke them isn't going to push them towards accepting peace. If your objective is to provoke them so you can get up on a moral high horse about how easily provoked they are, mission accomplished. I agree, they should stop breaking things every time they get upset. But it isn't useful. It's like having a coworker you know is thin-skinned and prone to tantrums. She shouldn't be that way, but if you go pushing her buttons just to get a rise out of her, you can wag your finger about her temper tantrums, but you pushed her buttons just to prove how easy her buttons were to push - that kind of makes you a jerk too.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Dec 14, 2017 11:06:21 GMT -5
The PLO can say what it wants to say, it can present a peace-seeking public face if it so desires (because that's best way to keep raising money, after all), but it wasn't until 1995--coincidentally (?) the same year Congress recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital--that the destruction of Israel was taken out of the PLO's charter. And I, for one, don't believe most of the leadership has really changed their minds in this regard at all. Certainly, they draw a ton of support from people who openly seek the destruction of Israel. And I get back to my main point in this thread. It is neither the Europeans' or the yanks business to decide that. You don't have to trust them. You don't have to like them. What you do have to do is to cooperate with whatever way they chose to move toward the main goal. When the reason for intervening has nothing to do with anyone remotely associated with the area, it's just stupid. Our only job here is to shut up while they work things out between themselves, and then help these people inch their way toward being able to live with each other without blowing each other up all the time.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2017 12:56:03 GMT -5
Great. But Israel is a fully functioning nation-state that has membership in the UN. Imo, "our job" includes accepting actual realities such as Jerusalem being Israel's capital. Refusing to accept this reality is not shutting up at all; it's purposefully making a political statement as a means of supporting the Palestinians and/or sticking it to the Israelis.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 14, 2017 13:56:27 GMT -5
The PLO can say what it wants to say, it can present a peace-seeking public face if it so desires (because that's best way to keep raising money, after all), but it wasn't until 1995--coincidentally (?) the same year Congress recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital--that the destruction of Israel was taken out of the PLO's charter. And I, for one, don't believe most of the leadership has really changed their minds in this regard at all. Certainly, they draw a ton of support from people who openly seek the destruction of Israel. Rob, can you prove that the destruction of Israel was, in fact, taken out of the PLO charter? Because if you can, you might earn a million dollars. Of which I would get some percentage by tipping you off on this opportunity.www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21365www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11719
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 14:03:32 GMT -5
The PLO can say what it wants to say, it can present a peace-seeking public face if it so desires (because that's best way to keep raising money, after all), but it wasn't until 1995--coincidentally (?) the same year Congress recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital--that the destruction of Israel was taken out of the PLO's charter. And I, for one, don't believe most of the leadership has really changed their minds in this regard at all. Certainly, they draw a ton of support from people who openly seek the destruction of Israel. And I get back to my main point in this thread. It is neither the Europeans' or the yanks business to decide that. You don't have to trust them. You don't have to like them. What you do have to do is to cooperate with whatever way they chose to move toward the main goal. When the reason for intervening has nothing to do with anyone remotely associated with the area, it's just stupid. Our only job here is to shut up while they work things out between themselves, and then help these people inch their way toward being able to live with each other without blowing each other up all the time. Agree completely. My general baseline feeling on the U.S. sticking its foot into international matters is whether or not our doing so is necessary to prevent heinousness or to further a vital goal. By and large, if it doesn't do one of those things, I tend to think we should keep our nose out of it. Sometimes I think it's important for us to weigh in, either for our own interests or to prevent some group/nation from being steamrolled. Other times, it's better to let them sort it out themselves and just keep out of it to the extent possible. I think this falls squarely into the latter camp. Not only do I think it was unnecessary, I think it almost certainly will make things worse between the two sides, and they were quite bad enough already.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2017 16:55:28 GMT -5
People thinking that it will make it worse doesn't make this so. So far, not much has come of it, other than some big talk from insignificant players, along with a lot of hand-wringing angst from people in the US and Europe who really have no stake in the matter, to begin with.
But I'm still waiting for the argument as to why it makes sense to ignore a reality. When European heads of state and US heads of state meet with Israeli counterparts, where do they do it? Jerusalem. When the Knesset meets to pass laws, where do they do it? Jerusalem. Why should this reality be ignored, why should people outside of Israel pretend it's not the case, not accept what is a fact, by any objective standard? How is telling Israeli that they can't have their capital where they want to have it, in a city under their control, not sticking one's nose in Israel's business? Israel says Jerusalem is their capital, we should accept it. Who are we to tsk-tsk the Israelis and say "no it's not."
You guys are going on and on about things not being "our" business, but you're a defending a position that demands we make it our business.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2017 17:06:50 GMT -5
Rob, can you prove that the destruction of Israel was, in fact, taken out of the PLO charter? Because if you can, you might earn a million dollars. Of which I would get some percentage by tipping you off on this opportunity.You're correct: the PLO charter hasn't really changed. My bad. But there has at least been some efforts in this regard; Arafat did promise the changes and I think it would be fair to allow that most of the PLO isn't openly calling for the destruction of Israel these days. Which I guess still goes to my point: the PLO doesn't really want a solution, apart from one where Israel no longer exists, imo. But they play up that angle (again, mostly to keep the money pouring in). Here's the original charter, btw: avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 17:12:38 GMT -5
Whereas I'm sitting around wondering about you going on and on about it being a "reality" and one that is "our business."
China claims sovereignty over Taiwan. What reality should we recognize there?
East Germany claimed East Berlin as its capital, which was recognized by the entire Soviet bloc. The United States and most of the rest of the world didn't recognized this reality, though certainly East Germany controlled East Berlin. A mistake on our part?
My take is that when it comes to Israel, a lot of people in the U.S. aggressively hunt to find reasons to support the Israeli position.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2017 17:37:19 GMT -5
Whereas I'm sitting around wondering about you going on and on about it being a "reality" and one that is "our business." China claims sovereignty over Taiwan. What reality should we recognize there? East Germany claimed East Berlin as its capital, which was recognized by the entire Soviet bloc. The United States and most of the rest of the world didn't recognized this reality, though certainly East Germany controlled East Berlin. A mistake on our part? My take is that when it comes to Israel, a lot of people in the U.S. aggressively hunt to find reasons to support the Israeli position. 1) It IS a reality. Jerusalem is the functioning capital of Israel. You've offered nothing that contradicts this. The US, Europe, et al have been thumbing their noses at Israel for decades in this regard. And Israel--who apparently has a set of big boy pants--has taken it for decades. 2) You've brought up China and Taiwan several times now, but it's not on point. China isn't in control of Taiwan. China could claim it's capital is now Taipei if it so desired, but that wouldn't be functionally true, at all, which is exactly opposite the situation with Israel and Jerusalem. 3) East Berlin WAS the capital of East Germany. And the US--along with other nations--eventually had embassies in East Berlin and treated it as the capital of East Germany, which was allowed to join the UN at the same time as West Germany. I think we--the Allies--fucked up royally after WWII, but that's a pretty extensive discussion. But given what we allowed to happen to Germany, yeah I think not formally recognizing East Berlin as East Germany's capital was a pointless and silly bit of theater. Doing this accomplished absolutely nothing. But I don't remember if what you're saying is correct here, ala "the rest of the world." I know the Allies never formally recognized East Berlin as the capital, but that's just the US, England, and France. Got a source that shows everyone else? I can't find one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:15:46 GMT -5
You've offered nothing for why the U.S. needs to do this, other than as virtue signaling to the pro-Israel faction in the U.S. You claim it doesn't create any problems. I don't agree, since I think pissing off the Muslim world is a problem, but taking that aside, what exactly is gained?
I think my examples are on point not because they're identical (they are obviously not, and I never said they were) but because they are examples of when the U.S. and the international community has done some diplomatic dancing with regard to disputed territory rather than simply accepting "reality" (e.g., the "reality" in East Berlin) or fully supporting claims of sovereignty (e.g., China's over Taiwan) -- we don't always just, as in this case, stomp our feet and say "this is the REALITY!" and "they have SOVEREIGNTY!" It's just not that simple, especially when it comes to Jerusalem. The kind of thing you and Trump are calling "reality" and diplomacy do not necessarily square perfectly, and there is often a reason for that.
I think international diplomacy is a delicate dance, not a showdown in the OK Corral. And especially when it comes to the middle east.
I doubt we'll come any closer to agreement on this, and I'm not sure I have anything to add.
|
|