Jerusalem: to be recognized as the capitol of Israel

[_canpakes]

This idea that people "belong" anywhere is founded only by violence. For example, the so-called "native Americans" could argue that they belong in the Tennessee Valley, and perhaps during a time they did, but alas they lost that battle and to the victor belongs the spoils.
In other words, they now "belong" where we tell them they belong because we belong here now. Justice is might, plain and simple. This notion that "history" entitles a group of people to pitch a tent is more liberal propaganda and this sort of entitlement has never been, nor will ever be, manifest except by the sword.

Sounds like you don’t much care for any Biblical claim that the Israelis ever had on any patch of desert in the Middle East.

And given that the modern state of Israel exists not through conquest but because it was legislated into existence by outsiders from within the UN, then what would be the rationale to prevent the same body from legislating it out of existence, or legislating a partner Palestinian State to share the same land?

Nope, having the biggest gun in the room made that legislation. And biblical land claims of possession are manifest by violence... else they be resolved by the biggest gun in the room.

I'll take your failure to address the ancient Israelite claim specifically as agreement that it is just as useless and/or unsound as any other.

I'll take the rest of your comment to indicate that you would have no problem with the UN legislating Israel out of existence as easily as it legislated it into existence ... biggest guns willing. Would you pick your ally based on who'd be appearing to be winning the conflict at any particular moment?

[_Uncle Ed]

My point about the imagined future of Israel behind wire, with all self proclaimed "Palestinians" long since relocated, and Muslims severed from their concocted casus belli, is that the Jewish scriptural mandate is no longer of efficacy. Sub genius's "biggest gun in the room" is the reality. And they would no longer require any appeal to scripture. Muslims, having lost their precious "third most holy spot to Islam", would receive zero tolerance or patience from all of us if they kept trying the religious ploy of a claim to the land; since any such religious claim can be held up far further back into antiquity than Islam's claim. Oh, yes of course: that "Ishmael was the eldest, Isaac was the interloper", assertion flies just about as far, since it is all contending religious claims. The Arabic one did not receive any "press" until the creation of Islam, very late in the game. So, no racial/cultural/religious appeals to legitimacy need be given further consideration. Israel is a fact. The U.N. recognizing that fact does not change anything. And removing that recognition does not change anything. Israel (especially along with the U.S.) can handle all comers. They are playing nicely in order to not have to pull out the big guns, which would be their final necessity. In order to secure themselves, they must combine that threat with actual relief of the "Palestinians", including paying out to reestablish them. If they don't do this successfully (and currently they are not even trying, so it won't happen unless they change their policy), the "Palestinians" will simply out breed them inside a century.

[_canpakes]

My point about the imagined future of Israel behind wire, with all self proclaimed "Palestinians" long since relocated, and Muslims severed from their concocted casus belli, is that the Jewish scriptural mandate is no longer of efficacy.

You've sidestepped the questions. Should I conclude that you have no definitive moral justification for choosing to kick all remaining Palestinians out of the occupied territories, and that you favor Israel's position 'just because'?

[_Uncle Ed]

My point about the imagined future of Israel behind wire, with all self proclaimed "Palestinians" long since relocated, and Muslims severed from their concocted casus belli, is that the Jewish scriptural mandate is no longer of efficacy.

You've sidestepped the questions. Should I conclude that you have no definitive moral justification for choosing to kick all remaining Palestinians out of the occupied territories, and that you favor Israel's position 'just because'?

When have "Palestinians" ever been rounded up and exterminated? When has any "race" been hounded and killed as the Jews have? They have a right to live as a people, since they have always IDed as a "People". They are not alone nor the oldest "People": the Arabs have just as long a self IDing sociology. That they turned monotheistic (at least "officially") changes nothing. These people know each other as rival kinsmen for thousands of years.

Since it has been the pleasure of the "West" to recognize and admit the faults of our ancestors towards the Jews, and help them to "their homeland", it would be callous hypocrisy and genocidal indifference to consign the Jews to a two-state "solution", which only guarantees their eventual overthrow.

The plight of the Jews in the ME is a model for the plight of the world at large by the end of this century. We either wake up to that fact and prepare for it, and defend against it, or we suffer together as non Muslims. It's that simple. The modern day jihad doesn't look to be vanishing anytime soon.

Does that answer your somewhat rhetorical question?

[_canpakes]

You've sidestepped the questions. Should I conclude that you have no definitive moral justification for choosing to kick all remaining Palestinians out of the occupied territories, and that you favor Israel's position 'just because'?

When have "Palestinians" ever been rounded up and exterminated? When has any "race" been hounded and killed as the Jews have? They have a right to live as a people, since they have always IDed as a "People".

There's no argument with that, but this point does not address the question nor specifically mandate that another group of people be removed from where they were living for a millennia or two, in order to 'allow' members of the Jewish faith to live together as a people (interesting factoid: the Jewish community population within the US is greater than that within Israel).

Since it has been the pleasure of the "West" to recognize and admit the faults of our ancestors towards the Jews, and help them to "their homeland", it would be callous hypocrisy and genocidal indifference to consign the Jews to a two-state "solution", which only guarantees their eventual overthrow.

Actually, many folks believe that a single-state solution would be more detrimental, given that the Arabic/Muslim population would eventually outnumber - and outvote - the Jewish community, were Israel to remain a true democracy, anyway. Maybe you are tacitly acknowledging this when you suggest that all Arabs or Muslims be kicked out of the country and occupied territories? Otherwise, a two-state solution may be the better 'fix' for the situation.

Either way, like the previous point - this does not provide sufficient moral mandate that another group of people be removed from where they were living for a millennia or two, in order to 'allow' members of the Jewish faith to live together as a people.

The plight of the Jews in the ME is a model for the plight of the world at large by the end of this century. We either wake up to that fact and prepare for it, and defend against it, or we suffer together as non Muslims. It's that simple. The modern day jihad doesn't look to be vanishing anytime soon.

Interesting that much of the problem between the self-identified Palestinian population and Israel can be traced back directly to Israel being created out of thin air, with no assent from any non-Jewish resident on the ground at that time, right? In short, the numbers of Palestinians who agreed to be forcibly removed from lands where they were actually living - so that these lands could be turned over to folks who's ancestors had not inhabited the land for centuries - is probably somewhere close to zero.

Does that answer your somewhat rhetorical question?

Not really. You are providing some justification for wanting to find a homeland for the diaspora post-WWII, but you're not addressing or dealing with the obvious problem and moral issue with having displaced thousands of square miles of existing non-Jewish residents in doing so, including both your hand-waving away of the roots of conflict between the two groups being directly related to this episode of nation-building, and suggestion that any of them remaining be unceremoniously booted off of what's left and shuffled off to parts unknown.

[_Uncle Ed]

No Jewish instigated genocide has happened since YHWH "told" them to, way back "when". Not at any time in the Christian era have Jews gone around murdering other people just because they are not Jews. Just about everyone else, at one time or another (now) has done that to Jews. I think that some form of payback is in order. And a "simple" two-state "solution" is not enough. Since a one-state solution with non Jews living within it, who have sworn to destroy the Jews/Israel, is obviously no solution: and a two-state "solution" puts what's left of Israel into a geographically indefensible position, with "Palestinians" sworn to destroy Israel: it follows that there are only two viable choices if Jews intend to live and successfully defend themselves: take and hold enough territory, sans bellicose denizens within Israel's borders; or depart for friendly climes. Either choice ultimately faces jihad along with the rest of us non Muslims. So perhaps the entire question of "Israel" is moot if we are trying avert a confrontation.

by the way, "Palestinians" were moved out of the looming conflict back in '48. It was never the Jews that moved them out, but the Muslim armies; with a promise that they could return to their homes when the war was over/won. So blaming the Jews for winning and keeping what they had won is not consistent with the "rules of war". The "Palestinians" have no justification for demanding their "homes" back. They'll just have to do it the hard way and take them back.

Israel can allow any "Palestinians" to remain who swear allegiance to Israel. This does not in any way require that they renounce their religious beliefs. But, if bellicose, they risk being arrested for sedition and treason. This is the civilized way, but most "Palestinians" are not civilized in their spoken intentions toward the Jews. So they should be treated accordingly. The reason why they are not attacked is because the state of Israel is civilized and knows restraint.

[_canpakes]

No Jewish instigated genocide has happened since YHWH "told" them to, way back "when". Not at any time in the Christian era have Jews gone around murdering other people just because they are not Jews. Just about everyone else, at one time or another (now) has done that to Jews.

Correct; we haven't seen any total genocidal carnage (right on down to the livestock) deployed by the Israelites since the olden days, when it seemed to be their SOP against the Amalekites, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzite, Hivites and Jebusites. And probably some others; I can't keep track. But I don't think that anyone in this thread is suggesting that this is a modern-day Jewish phenomenon.

I think that some form of payback is in order.

Seems like Germany should probably set up some land for a Jewish State, then, considering that they were the best example of modern-day ethic cleansing against those of Jewish ancestry and faith. But perhaps you'll tell me why hollowing out Palestinian lands and communities around Jerusalem was most appropriate.

And a "simple" two-state "solution" is not enough. Since a one-state solution with non Jews living within it, who have sworn to destroy the Jews/Israel, is obviously no solution: and a two-state "solution" puts what's left of Israel into a geographically indefensible position, with "Palestinians" sworn to destroy Israel: it follows that there are only two viable choices if Jews intend to live and successfully defend themselves: take and hold enough territory, sans bellicose denizens within Israel's borders; or depart for friendly climes. Either choice ultimately faces jihad along with the rest of us non Muslims. So perhaps the entire question of "Israel" is moot if we are trying avert a confrontation.

Coupla points on this paragraph:

1. "What's" "with" "all" "of" "the" "quote" "marks" "all" "of" "a" "sudden"?

2. You're still avoiding the obvious historical issue of the land having been occupied by other folks aside from (very few) Jews, for many hundreds of years. In fact, if we go by subgenius' rule about ownership and occupation being delivered by the sword, then that land was held by Arab interests post their conquest as far back as the 7th century. Not that such a thing was the responsibility of any non-Jewish citizen in 1947. But that's the year that the UN decided to simply divvy the land up, in accordance with Resolution 181. Jewish settlers didn't even have to conquer anything in return to gain a homeland as it was accomplished with pen and paper... so they did not gain their new home 'by the sword'. Nor did Arab and Palestinian residents agree to the division. Nor was the UN in a position to actually decide such a thing; nation-creation is not within the scope of its charter. Nor did the British, supposedly the managers of the region with a professed goal to organize a Palestinian state, complete their obligation before becoming tired of international dalliances and punting the whole mess into the hands of an organization that had no true moral or legal power to 'resolve' it as it did.

So please, tell me what the moral rationale is for having gone down this path?

by the way, "Palestinians" were moved out of the looming conflict back in '48. It was never the Jews that moved them out, but the Muslim armies; with a promise that they could return to their homes when the war was over/won. So blaming the Jews for winning and keeping what they had won is not consistent with the "rules of war". The "Palestinians" have no justification for demanding their "homes" back. They'll just have to do it the hard way and take them back.

Not quite. Please do some reading about the Nakba. The idea that over a quarter million Arabs and Palestinians willingly decided to happily pack up for a brief voluntary stay outside of the borders of the only nation-state that they'd ever known is a bizarrely historically inaccurate and unbalanced idea.

Israel can allow any "Palestinians" to remain who swear allegiance to Israel. This does not in any way require that they renounce their religious beliefs. But, if bellicose, they risk being arrested for sedition and treason. This is the civilized way, but most "Palestinians" are not civilized in their spoken intentions toward the Jews. So they should be treated accordingly. The reason why they are not attacked is because the state of Israel is civilized and knows restraint.

So, the nascent country of Israel - through the help of arms shipments from folks like the Czechs, the Danes, and others - marches into land areas intended for Palestinians in violation of the UN resolution that created Israel in the first place, boots out most non-Jewish inhabitants and slaps their military allies silly when those armies try to retaliate. Then, years later, if a Palestinian wants to remain in the land of their birth, they need to swear allegiance to a country that was legislated into existence beside them and that then took over their portion of land - as agreed to by the Israelis at the time - effectively making Palestinians the new diaspora. Right?

Why was this necessary, again? Because who decided to take who's territory?

Ed, I have an appreciation for the difficult and cruel history faced by the Jewish people over many centuries prior to the modern day, but the solution created by Resolution 181 was hardly equitable to all, and lacks moral justification for uprooting or displacing Palestinian residents of that time. And the conflict that ensued was driven, in significant enough part, by the self-interests of Israel. It has never been completely innocent of all causes. Nor did it adhere to the original UN agreement that it signed on for, once it occupied lands intended for Palestinian residents. And you still haven't been able to tell me why those actions get a moral free pass from you aside from your assertion that "other people were bad to the Jews over time".

in my opinion, your reasoning is flimsy enough to be nothing more than simple relativism that doesn't even adhere to your own stated rules of the game.

[_Uncle Ed]

(Apologies for the "" marks: that is a habit I am trying to break: but when I "get going" - see what I mean? - I tend to not notice.)

The current problem was caused in the aftermath of WW2, with Jews flowing to Palestine to seize their scriptural mandate once and for all. A scrap of land wasn't going to suffice.

That Muslims have held that land for centuries is immaterial. Once the Jews had taken what they deemed theirs by ancient right the game was laid out. If the so-called Palestinians feel such an emotional bond to that land they can take it back in the same way that the Jews seized it. If we think that the world is so far advanced beyond conquest anymore then we are guilty of hubris.

But as I said already, the looming jihad is a worldwide one, not just a small localized ME thing. Israel's current battle is just a model for what is ahead. Muslims worldwide breed faster than any other demographic. The Christian dominated world will be a Muslim dominated world before the century is out.

So, look ahead and try to support plans for our mutual survival. Those plans do not advance by throwing Israel to the jihadists. We have a narrowing window of opportunity for correct action. It involves securing Israel, ministering philanthropically to the so-called Palestinians, laying down the law internationally to the Muslim terrorists (which sends a clear message about what defines "playing nicely" to all of Islam), and keeping high tech defensive capability as ours by right of self defense. We are not the aggressors or the ones doing the killing. If we want to keep that to a minimum we must maintain a military advantage that is decisive. If we don't implement measures to secure the above, we will be defeated inside a couple of centuries.

But going along with that preventive campaign, I see young people as the most direct path to success. Muslim youth are just as in love with life as all who want material prosperity and freedom to choose their own way. It is human nature to balk at authoritarianism. And the modern world is not a religiously fundamental one. It is eccumenical. Appealing to Muslim youth by upgrading their forms of government and opportunities to advance themselves - which includes freedom to travel - is the most sure way of seeing Islam settle into that eccumenical mindset. Once Islam ceases to call for Israel's destruction, then Palestinians will be Israelis too. Islam will be the largest religion on the planet. But it will be no more a threat to the world than Christianity has been for centuries. Religion will settle into a minor role. Only Islam's modern bellicosity has stirred the religious feelings of Muslims who insist that their religion is one of peace. Give them the chance to put religion into a minor role and they will take it. But it must be a fair chance, which means non Muslims accepting them as neighbors and not worrying about religion much if at all. Like it has been for most of US history, for example. Europe is even more eccumenical than the US.

There is no solution to Israel while Islam is on the warpath.

[_canpakes]

(Apologies for the "" marks: that is a habit I am trying to break: but when I "get going" - see what I mean? - I tend to not notice.)

No worries. I just had to smile when I saw it, given the history of this forum and a particular toxic denizen of it who relied on a distinct overuse of them.

That Muslims have held that land for centuries is immaterial. Once the Jews had taken what they deemed theirs by ancient right the game was laid out. If the so-called Palestinians feel such an emotional bond to that land they can take it back in the same way that the Jews seized it.

Technically, that would be via a UN resolution (rule of the pen, as opposed to sword), since that was what allowed the diaspora to claim the land and begin settling en masse. The question of the occupied territories is another part to this, but secondary to your scenario.

So what to do if select member parties within the UN decide to militarily press any of the existing UN resolutions (242, 252, 267, 298, 465, 476, 478, or 2334) demanding that Israel leave the occupied territories or cease hostilities towards persons within them? Given that the US has no formal mutual defense agreement with Israel - but that Iran and Syria share a mutual defense pact, and Iran and Russia have a military cooperation agreement - should Israel's responsibility be to defend itself without our intervention? That fits the rule of the sword idea that you're talking about, right?

So, look ahead and try to support plans for our mutual survival. Those plans do not advance by throwing Israel to the jihadists. We have a narrowing window of opportunity for correct action. It involves securing Israel, ministering philanthropically to the so-called Palestinians, laying down the law internationally to the Muslim terrorists (which sends a clear message about what defines "playing nicely" to all of Islam), and keeping high tech defensive capability as ours by right of self defense.

Should any part of Israel's strategy include abiding by the agreement that it signed on to when it was first created with neighboring Palestinian lands? This would be adhering to the rule of law, or at least speaks to honor.

I see young people as the most direct path to success. Muslim youth are just as in love with life as all who want material prosperity and freedom to choose their own way. It is human nature to balk at authoritarianism. And the modern world is not a religiously fundamental one. It is eccumenical. Appealing to Muslim youth by upgrading their forms of government and opportunities to advance themselves - which includes freedom to travel - is the most sure way of seeing Islam settle into that eccumenical mindset.

I once joked, over a decade ago, to a friend that the solution for a lasting Middle East peace could be catalyzed by massive air drops into Arab territories of chocolate, wine, X-boxes and porn. Although intentionally simplistic and flippant, the comment acknowledges forces that you are suggesting above.

I am no fan of fundamentalism, regardless of the religious flavor that it springs from. That goes for Christian fundamentalism, as well. The West has gone through our own enlightenment phase where a emergent freedom to question and challenge fundamentalist Christian belief also helped to launch a new age of expanded thought, scientific discovery and social improvement. Islam needs to go through this stage as well, and it won't be a moment too soon. But this will always be violently resisted by the power structure within Islamic religious hierarchy.

[_Uncle Ed]

Technically, that would be via a UN resolution (rule of the pen, as opposed to sword), since that was what allowed the diaspora to claim the land and begin settling en masse. The question of the occupied territories is another part to this, but secondary to your scenario.

So what to do if select member parties within the UN decide to militarily press any of the existing UN resolutions (242, 252, 267, 298, 465, 476, 478, or 2334) demanding that Israel leave the occupied territories or cease hostilities towards persons within them? Given that the US has no formal mutual defense agreement with Israel - but that Iran and Syria share a mutual defense pact, and Iran and Russia have a military cooperation agreement - should Israel's responsibility be to defend itself without our intervention? That fits the rule of the sword idea that you're talking about, right?

(I don't know anything about those numbered resolutions as per contents or context.)

Yes. Israel was forming long before the UN acquiesced. The diaspora was beginning even before WW2. There have always been Jews in Palestine. Always. They grew to a dominant proportion a step at a time. The UN was just being realistic. Now the whole world has Israel as the result. If the UN reneged on the accords recognizing Israel there would be hell to pay.
It would make Trump's admission that Jerusalem is Israel's capital pale to insignificance. How allies would respond to Israel's self defense would probably play out similarly to how WW1 got started.

Should any part of Israel's strategy include abiding by the agreement that it signed on to when it was first created with neighboring Palestinian lands? This would be adhering to the rule of law, or at least speaks to honor.

This is the tricky part: who went against the signed agreements first? It would be almost impossible to assign blame, since Israelis have expanded their infrastructure at the expense of Palestinians, but Palestinians actually broke the agreement by signing onto invasion with allies. The Israelis have not started any wars. The first war was one of self defense and that is their MO. They even give up most of what they win in each war forced on them.

I once joked, over a decade ago, to a friend that the solution for a lasting Middle East peace could be catalyzed by massive air drops into Arab territories of chocolate, wine, X-boxes and porn. Although intentionally simplistic and flippant, the comment acknowledges forces that you are suggesting above.

I am no fan of fundamentalism, regardless of the religious flavor that it springs from. That goes for Christian fundamentalism, as well. The West has gone through our own enlightenment phase where a emergent freedom to question and challenge fundamentalist Christian belief also helped to launch a new age of expanded thought, scientific discovery and social improvement. Islam needs to go through this stage as well, and it won't be a moment too soon. But this will always be violently resisted by the power structure within Islamic religious hierarchy.

"Always" is so malleable. We could point to power structures that violently resisted the Protestant Reformation. But as you point out, we Europeans got over ourselves. The Thirty Years War was the burial of the coffin containing the Religious Wars. England followed suit a mere generation later after the Protestants won their civil war, then got ousted from government by being too wedded to Protestant sumptuary edits. Since then religion in the UK and Europe has played little if any role in politics. And as you also point out, prosperity (comparatively) has broken out ever since. Wars have been started for other reasons than religious differences

Islam is medieval. Christianity no longer behaves medieval. Islam needs to finish its much longer religious reformation and religious war between Shia and Sunni (the smaller sects are of little account as far as disrupting human progress is concerned).

So the solution is to do your "joke": push material prosperity (without worrying about the good and bad contained within) and especially individual freedom on the rising generation of Muslims everywhere, and watch them topple their bigoted, crazy parents' generation from power. We want world peace, equality, prosperity and religious, cultural, racial tolerance. Anything less than an overthrow of radicalized Islam from within will ultimately fail to secure this, and by association, the survival of Israel.