Scott Mayers

If you are 'rich' already, there is nothing to stop you from paying someone with the credentials to any degree of desire you like to hire for health care. Nothing stops one from hiring a psychic if they desire to 'aid' them, whether this is a legitimate expertise in your health or not. So, given you have the money, you should be able to find some professional health carers (doctors, nurses, support staff) that would no doubt be willing to be your private health care providers. If this is too high a bar to expect given you don't have THAT much wealth, get a group of those with similar interest of the same wealth class as yourself. If you can find enough similar friends, you can collectively hire some such health care qualification 'private' workers. Let me just stick with this 'extreme' of wealth first to see how you might think of it. We can work our way down the 'wealth' degree if we at least find to what limit you agree to.

Altai, A "perpetual machine" can work; it does so if you think of the atomic-level factors. That is, given energy is 'conserved', where "energy" is itself CHANGE, this occurs. BUT, it only operates in a "closed" system whereby none of that energy is exchanged outside nor inside of this ideal container. If the contents of the container is also NOT of some universal solid-like thing (not real), the nature of it to remain unchanged is indifferent to the net energy exchange of its 'parts' to be no different than zero. If the contents of the container is like some pure 'empty' state, something we imagine to be pure 'fluid-like', all points in it "move" with respect to each other point. In this ideal imaginary place, such perfect fluid unique concept would ALSO be like the imaginary solid above. That is, the NET energy exchange within the system (container) is still zero, ...even though this imaginary condition is a perfect state of 'pure' energy (because all points we imagine to never remain the same). Because all things are of some degree between these imaginary extremes, the concept explained by "thermodynamics", defines any 'solid-like' parts as "ORDERED" when it remains in some unique contingent state. So imagine all parts (discrete solids) among the rest of it as 'space', ...AND that all of the solid particles START initially on one side. IF all the parts originally begin without movement, no change occurs and all the particles remain on its one side. BUT, if we now imagine ANY motion of even ONE particle, that acts as energy greater than zero. Any one particle must continue to move unless it hits some other particle. If the initial moving particle hits any other, it exchanges its momentum to the other particle in part or whole. The law of thermodynamics of concern then asserts that given time, while the odds allow all particles to possibly remain in the same position, the vast majority of every 'moment' in eternity will have the particles spread out evenly in the container. This is what the law means. That the average measure of distribution of those particles will spread out to the whole container. The net 'energy' per unit of space within will then also have an equal amount of 'activity' (energy exchanges). This means that while the container as a whole can have ANY possible measure of 'energy' (from absolutely nothing to absolutely infinite density of 'matter/energy'), the system will remain CONSTANT. This 'constant' remains true regardless of whether there IS or IS NOT energy being made 'perpetual' in that system. BUT, should we break open the imaginary wall of this container to allow information in or out, this will either increase or decrease the state in that system. The outside world can only take as much energy as that imaginary leak could represent as what is 'constant' in that container. So, even if any initial exchange might occur (like popping a balloon), the state outside and inside that container will re-balance to a 'constant' state. After that, no NEW energy can occur because the state of the container has just expanded to the world at large as a 'new' container. Once that container is given time, that relatively outer world will also 'balance' out ON-AVERAGE the energy 'per-unit-of-any-space'. So even if you could have a 'perpetual machine' inside a system, it cannot maintain perpetual if it must trade information either outside of its system OR inside. Obviously no exchange in or out is the same as zero anyways. Does this help clarify the logic? I could draw pictures too if you are having problems visualizing what I said or can't interpret my language clearly. Scott.

Thank you Altai, I'll be looking it over. I guess the post I have above with the data would count as some information for that thread. P.S. Those pictures are from the Wikipedia entry on "Demographic History of Palestine (region)", if you wanted to post that yourself. If not, I can later.

"Plus I just wanted to trap you with your own Godwin's Law moment." Hmmm....I should make a 'Law' too. The Law of Inoculation: When one tends to desire resistance to logical reflection on some idea that is common by some outside group or the general population, name the tendency of their most powerful arguments as conspiring to mislead you by triggered themes as a 'law'. This inoculates the insider from giving outsiders the platform known to brainwash you of something irrational that appears logical.

Begging facts is not proving them. Do you not recognize the borders prior to 1947?

So Hitler's Holocaust justifies the Jews to now have carte blanche victimhood rights to now BE the same? Where is the German Nationalists among Israel? Hitler (and/or the party as a whole) actually formulated an antithesis to the Jews by embracing the kind of National Socialist he saw worked effectively within the Jewish community. That is, their philosophy was based on embracing in reflection, a solidarity among the German aboriginals by fostering a 'history' and 'religious cult' that granted "Providence" (Nature and their 'god') to formulate a ZION exclusive of all other peoples. Any wrong by one time against people does not justify payback to the others unrelated to the cause of harm, NOR to the offspring of those children. Is your "Jerusalem" ALL of it (East and West)?

How?

"-Jersusalem is already the self-declared capital of Israel." Jerusalem is NOT a consolidated entity capable of self-declaration. But let me try too: Jerusalem is MY capital. So now I declared it, I give it to the world and no religious organ can impose laws that favor nor disfavor other groups. The people of my city now have no state but the world's. "-Other nations have recognized this." I'm not "other nations". ... I don't 'recognize' it. I wasn't even invited to the meeting to vote. I guess they forgot to invite potential dissenters. "-Several past US presidents and congress expressed their support for this, even through the passage of laws." And 'several' past AND present leaders also disagree and even passed these into their own laws. "- All countries have the right to self-determination, including the right to choose which city within their borders is the capital." "Country" requires the inhabitants to have the vote to allow some set of distinct owners of some cult to declare they don't have to follow the prior country's rule. If force is all the matters, than 'right' again only refers to 'might'. The 'borders' are the contention. "- Comparison of Israel with Pangea are not well founded. May I also add that Pangea existed 100's of millions of years ago, long before any humans existed to live on it." My comparison was to the arbitrary nature of claiming some 'truth' by merely labeling it when the meaning is not tied to its label. Asserting "X is Y" is a definition of Y by X that 'begs' without justification. If you use outside meanings to X and Y, you need to define what X is independently, what Y is, and how they are related. Thus, the statement, "Pangea is the name of the continent that existed billions of years ago", is definition begging because it only ties the label, "Pangea", to that entity. That entity, the continent that existed billions of years ago doesn't prove nor disprove whether anyone was there to assert it UNIQUELY as named Pangea. [like whether a sound of a falling tree 'exists' if it is defined by the act of hearing it.] Claiming that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is the same. It begs your personal definition of it by opinion but doesn't establish whether the city is NOT the capital of the Palestinians UNIQUELY. It just begs your preference without argument. "- Former Canadian governments have expressed similar support for this idea." This is an irrelevant appeal. Former Palestinian governments would express a different view.

"....reality is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital city." And,....the reality is that Jerusalem is Palestine's capital city. There! Did I now win because I say it last? Does it convince you differently? "might is right" is fine if you don't mind it imposed on you. This IS nature's default prior to "civilization". Just don't let me catch you complaining about any injustice and expect me not to throw this claim back at you elsewhere. The problem becomes one of a subset of people who are "indifferent" to conditions they don't perceive locally or even beneficial (as wars and disasters tend to foster economic gains for many). But the lowest common denominator of those who exist in defiance of some convention to a LOGIC solution only empower the EMOTIONAL ones and prevents civilization and peace that defaults to those who already view this preference. It makes those people the major factor that prevents even a potential 'majority' of favor for peace impossible. I think you need to rethink this one. I'll have to see how you argue on other issues you may find more compassion for to determine if this isn't just some touchy personal factor rather than some logical misfire.

You merely 'insulted' me by declaring some delusion above ('reality over fantasy') which is merely a non-sequitur given it doesn't ESTABLISH your 'reality' valid AND mine 'invalid'. Thus, you're just stating, not arguing. All that is "counter" to me is that you don't seem to have ANY reason other than a 'might is right' argument. "We" should be attentive to the FACTS that Israel is established on a Jewish-only state (with token support to those who allow them to) and threaten the world both there and here by the nature of the West to be 'agreeing' to their (Israel's) intolerance. If we 'shouldn't' be 'dictating', then not even the U.S. 'should be dictating' the 'support' as it CLEARLY asserts violation AGAINST not only the Palestinians but to ALL Muslims worldwide who view Jerusalem as their own. If both are 'wrong', which I contend the rest of the world stand by, we CAN resolve the issue by isolating the capital (both would agree its their own) and set up a 'republic' with the two states. The nature of Israel, IN THE POWER, to maintain this.....along with the support of us here, is extremely violent and justifies any retribution. Or does it not matter whether terroristic activities continue here or anywhere else in the world. If the Israelis ARE the 'supreme' elements of beings they think they are, then they would have intellectually derived this. I know they have. But then it indicates their OWN HATRED of Muslims WITH PROOF! And the complicity of the U.S. or any others of their support, the same is true. We support their EQUAL RIGHT TO USE FORCE AT ALL COSTS upon us in any way the WORKS. And THIS is what you have to try to prove of yourself as a member of our states here in North America. If YOU don't care, why should anyone care whether you get violated in kind. I might chance to 'look the other way' too. Is that what you appeal to?

I already 'got' her view. She just wasn't trying to add NEW information or figured that I didn't hear her (?) I PREFER disagreement with a better challenge, even if for arguments sake those who might agree with me.

I'm not 'silencing' you. You appear to be trying to do that to me, is more of what I was saying, because you are not actually arguing but restating a kind of "Bush"-like appeal. ...like when Bush asserted WMDs of Sadam or repeating his link to Al Qaeda. If you actually believe in nothing LESS than this kind of argument, I'm saying that your approach for ALL other arguments should be consistently to STATE your view without anything more to add. I don't believe this is so and why I doubt that you are sincerely arguing but emoting for some other personal interest you don't wish to share. I get it if that is the case. I just don't believe you're being serious.

What function does Trumps announcement serve to you one way or the other? Would it not be irrelevant to you whether Trump announced or not? If not, then you have no additional factor to add other than to try to distract anyone speaking against a country that you prefer others to hopefully not notice is doing wrong by those who DO think there is an issue.

What's your point Bush_Cheney? You just seem to be repeating yourself. If you don't think there is anything wrong, I already heard you on that. But you aren't adding any argument distinctly than a type of "it is what it is" kind of argument. I only guess from your namesake that you support a right-wing preferential and likely religious need to have Israel bring about the end-of-times? If present power is the only justice you have for Israel's 'right' to do anything, then do you agree with Hitlers' similar stance when he was in power for his atrocities against the Jews in the Holocaust? I mean....it was their 'law' of his present ownership by right of force....stronger "willpower"! I hope I don't find you being hypocritical to 'support' any other cause here or anywhere else in the world. If might is right, that is all that matters. Are you just admittedly biased for Israel for personal reasons? Do you not see an advantage of an American-style distinct capital as Washington D.C.? Should Ottawa not just become both the capital of Ontario AND Canada as a whole? Would that possibly not bias Ottawa to be bound biased to Ontario versus the rest of Canada (like it kinda is given they don't separately treat Ottawa as 'provinceless'?

I already clarified the other Presidents THOUGHT about doing this. Add to this ANY leader of the past, like Joe Clark. This is not news to me. ALL of these past leaders backed off or out of their prior positions when they took offices and participated in the actual politics in practice. "Canada" is presumably a "multicultural" country. While it is certainly limited in what 'cultures' they Constitutionally favor, Canada is still NOT a 'fascist' state. They don't claim to serve ONE Constitution that serves ONE religiously and genetically favored group. The Aboriginals, as a class, though is interpreted as this and to what WILL in our future be the problem as we permit supporting segregate 'national rights'. You missed the point before too that Washington D.C. is NOT of any 'state'. If this was done in Palestine, you'd have two distinct states with clear and agreed to boundaries that are fair, and have Jerusalem be of neither Israel nor Palestine, but, perhaps, a 'district' OWNED by ALL states of the Middle East. That's what the United States intended and successfully achieved. Let Israel have a distinct "State Capital" apart from the very Jerusalem that the is the problem. It worked for the U.S..

Guys, the statement by Trump was not to distinguish which of East or West was "Jerusalem" but to assign with official arrogant force that the U.S. supports the contested view of Israel to the WHOLE city as theirs with clear and direct bias with disdain, against the Muslims and the whole world of Muslims. Otherwise, Trumps words had no NEED to be spoken. Oftenwrong, the city was only taken by the Jewish supremacists in a war they instigated to 'justify' a retroactive theft in return. The 'settlements' too are clear indicators of their criminal behavior. The idea is to separate and ISOLATE (as abusers do) to the Muslims there. This was already being done in the past. Their discrimination is also indicated in the past by the fact that they took 'ownership' of particular properties and called it a Nation. This would be like Chinatown in Vancouver declaring that part of Vancouver as now "China's Zion" with its own segregate special laws, etc.

I've written on this before as my "theories" of religious origin elsewhere. I thought it might be nice to rewrite something on this as a help to understand much of the political issues. These may be better to call, "conjectures', but the validity of them can be rationally deduced if we take what we all know without biasing history with particular religious interpretations. Basically, my "Temple Theory" says that the origin of this was NOT as a religious place of worship for one or more gods. They were literal meeting places of tribes that act as the officiating place to contracts (treaties) and the accounting of 'ownership' to tribes who initially were still hunter-gatherers. "Sacrifice Theory" is an extension of this that holds that the act of sacrifices that evolve within temples are NOT to 'gods'. They were the ONLY means to assure that contracts were met and had to be literal and extreme initially. Temples Theory (conjecture) "Temple" (from 'temp-') is a term that hints at its original meaning as a 'temporary' place to meet. The origins began in agriculture but prior to universal settlement. When people began to notice they could capture and domesticate some of the animals they trapped AND the link of the food sources of grass by the herds of cattle to cycles of growth related to seeds, purposeful planting of seeds by some tribes during certain seasons made them realize they could set up plots of land by sowing seeds that they can return to upon their regular ROUTES of transient hunting and gathering. At first, many tribes simply gambled that their harvest would be their in time when they get there again in the fall. However, respect for which tribes put effort onto which plots would eventually break down to distrust when they would be unable to 'prove' which properties they worked on. As such, harvests might get stolen by others before the sowing tribes working hard on them returned. This would have lead to a need to meet and negotiate between distinct tribes to determine some ways to assure each tribe's plots were theirs. Because every tribe was unique with different backgrounds of history, they had to find a way to communicate 'proof' in a common way exclusive of any specific culture. An early idea was to have something uniquely identifying each tribe by what they are best known for. Writing would not be yet sufficient to agree to collectively. They also had no certain way with marks on wood that could easily rot. The first ways then were to BURY some unique identifier to each tribe, like a stone figurine, that the in-group recognizes as theirs and in a way that other tribes relates to the stereotypes about them uniquely. Artistic solids, like the "idols", would be easiest at first. You don't need to know symbols and everyone can relatively make them with identifying characteristics of their own group. But this would also be insufficient given one could possibly discover the idols hidden in the claimed lands and there was no certain way to be sure no other could counterfeit them. This is where the temple comes about. Each tribe agrees to initially create a structure that monumentalizes each tribes' signature images that coincide with idols that get buried on the claimed plots. Some used "pockets", which were clay molds of counting objects (sub-idols) that represented property concepts and eventually 'measures' where possible. So a count of ones sheep might be made using a conventional shape agreed to by the 'priests' at the temple who were each of a representative of the trust of each tribe. These counted idols of things would be placed in a clay 'envelope' and kilned (treated to harden by heat) with a 'signature' by the priest official to the group. (a ring or stamp could be used, for instance) When the tribes meet for harvest or sowing, if there is any conflict, each tribe in contention can find their hidden idols and map them to the signatures of the priest assigned to that signature at the temple. THIS was the main original function....a place that can PROVE original 'ownership' concepts of tribes. As such, these appear as "religious" only by the nature of each priest and the symbols that were needed to uniquely identify each group. This is only accidental, not essential as to take any particular group's opinion about reality as absolute. They likely took it lightly in a similar way to our North American counterparts. "Animism" is not even essentially believed. The language evolution also needs stories to help remember and spread the memes that coincidentally become the source for future religions, by accident. Sacrifice A second factor that the Temple evolved to do (possibly in distinct separate places and times), is to make TREATIES between tribes as well as the evolving independent individuals of growing settlements. This is best done by 'sacrifice'. But we treat the topic about the past as oddly supernatural crap. I believe this too is wrong. It works on the same principle as gangs in some of today's streets. To assure one is sufficiently trustworthy among initiating gangs, a crime is sometimes expected of the initiate because it assures a means to equally incriminate them in a way they can use against them should they prove to be insincere. The crime HAS to be random, a sincere 'sacrifice', and one such that NO ONE gains from the literal thing/person being sacrificed. I can't kill my mother, for instance, given this may simply benefit the other party (the gang one is signing in to); one might conceive the LOSS of a family member by another as a relative benefit by the nature of 'weakening' the power of the initiate unbalanced. The original 'sacrifices' had to be public and had to be (a) of VALUE to the party sacrificing, (b) of irrelevant or no VALUE to the party being sacrificed to, and (c) reciprocated in kind. The only best way to do this is to utterly destroy both parties objects publicly in a way that doesn't benefit anyone. The most obvious KIND of sacrifice would be to one's food sources. But this could possibly be a person too. If both tribes sacrifice a loved one, this can work. However, animal sacrifices would be most universal. The 'ceremony' is the MARRIAGE of the contract between the parties. This is what the Temples served. But these factors in time would have lost a posterity of citizens in a place that no longer remembers the initial causes. I believe that the "Pharoah" or "kings/moses" were initially ELECT tribes and their select leader who had to trade times to POLICE the Temple and its arising civilization. The tribes could have recognized this by trading off years where one tribe HAD to give up the hunting/gathering to serve the collective. But eventually, one tribe may have specialized more in the arts of 'policing' to such a degree they were trusted. The initial leaders, as those who built the pyramids, would thus likely NOT be a 'ruler' but a "sheriff" (shire reef- land-lord/caretaker). They didn't have to have the same beliefs about origins and nor did the people. But as this history would get forgotten and rulers evolved to be more abusive and controlling, some would declare a 'rightful' true group's origin to power along with their specific ancestral tribe's favored beliefs and language. This is what I think happened with Akhenaten. At first, many would have liked him without thinking he posed any threat. But his popularity also caused intolerance of and increasing segregation of different and a rebirth (with reinterpretation) of other's tribal ancestors. Akhenaten was likely the "moses" of the bible. But this may have happened a few times and so may not be specific to him. Note that Akhenaten was banned IN HIS RULE to stop destroying other Egyptian histories as he was doing. So they kicked him out to the desert, if he and his 'believers' should still choose to hold fast. This is the ruin "Amarna", I believe. This was likely the meaning of the Biblical story that has Moses in the desert for 40 years (a generation-length of people). The remnant obelisks, that represented the "laws" later likely became the 'covenant' in broken stones in 'Sinai'. The 'ark' was likely their 'sled/boat' that could carry these on both land and waters. I only intended to speak of the temple and sacrifice itself. But these help link it to present Israel. Israel was likely the last post of the reign of Assyrian (Asher- ian) leaders of the last Kingdoms, such as Akhenaten, Tut, and Rameses. When Egypt 'fell' by Alexandrian times, the home of the original links were divided (maybe as the origin of "David" etymologically) So, the temple in Jerusalem was likely an outpost of the Assyrian's Egyptian reign of which a future disgruntled peoples lost to their lands reclaimed the Temple as uniquely about Palestine [Judah and Israel] Note "Is-ra-el" as "I see Thee (god/gods)". Well, thankyou if you read and hope that you can contribute to this and possibly use this for other political issues we speak of here. Scott.

bush_cheney2004, Everyone 'agrees' that the present continents of North America, Africa, and Eurasia were all of one landmass, called "Pangea". [Absurd example of appealing to the meaning of "what the capital of Israel is". Who was there, for instance to name it. The technical nature of the MEANING is what is at issue, not some select opinion of fact.]

"Israel's capital is Jersusalem," is controversial. It is also irrelevant to simply dismiss in light of the actual problems existing because of this. Or do you think we are discussing some mystical place in some movie or novel? We CAN pressure Israel (by FORCE) to abandon this regardless of opinion and to remove bias, prevent ANY cult from claiming ownership. Washington D.C. was designed in light of this kind of approach. They created it to be untied to any state (thus being in unaffiliated "district" of neither Virginia nor Maryland to which it is bordered. This is what should be the case with "Israel" as it would certainly be most appealing to everyone in the world, including the rivaling religions. Its either that, or just let us all stop giving a shit about everyone else and opt for PURE FORCE. You know...give carte blanche to the extremes. There is no less injustice to assert anyone to maintain 'terrorism' your argument for anyone. Who cares about popular opinion if you're being forced to 'sacrifice' yourself for those who hate you by default, right?

Maybe someone already saw the latest South Park mocking this present problem with humor too. I don't see a link yet on the part, but it has Randy, the father of Stan, looking with a group of others seeking Trump who is a wild animal on the loose in the forest in this episode. They think they've found him in a camping tent deep in the woods. But when Randy opens the tent, he discovers that it is Principle [P.C. Principle] with the Vice Principle having sex. Randy immediately pukes then runs back to the group hunting for Trump. The group asks him if its Trump and he informs them in shock that it is much worse! He stumbles trying to break the news to them with hesitancy. He warns them that it is very traumatic and then tells them: "I don't know how to tell you, it was the PC Principle having relations with the Vice Principle!" Everyone at first doubts this horrible atrocity and run to see for themselves. When they realize its truth, they all start puking in horror.

I don't care what or which groups 'agreed' or not external to those not empowered to decide otherwise. I disagree with the treaties and any POSTERITY claims of some specific set of peoples based solely on one's genetic roots and ethical linking to the behaviors of those ancestors. I don't "own" my parents sins. I am also not hypocritical to think that ANY 'ownership' is justified to INHERIT (as "HERITAGE" is related here). So no, even the Algonquin, do not OWN the land any more than the aboriginal Jew nor Muslim of Palestine/Israel-area is justly privileged to some 'ownership security by some God/nature'. I too was BORN ON THIS EARTH. But I was born without any right to land even based on 'economic ownership' not inherited to me. The whole crap in this world is all about claims of land. Ottawa is not OWNED by 'whites' nor any specific 'religious link' (culture). While you ARE correct in terms of some, like Trudeau, they DO BELIEVE there is an 'INHERENT' privilege to favor "Catholic French" and "Anglican English" by the wealth establishments. This is the reason they are supporting an equal discriminatory union with the "First Nations". If our government accepted the actual universal NON_biased "ownership" to all Canadians, they'd require being SPECIFICALLY liable to the discrimination they OWN towards the very aboriginals their own ancestors created harm against. I do NOT believe our country is universally 'tolerant'. So you can't hold your comparison of my stance as hypocritical because I don't 'own' anything here by our Constitution. Canada is young in comparison to the Middle Eastern states. Given the significant history of the Middle East, like Palestine/Israel, the nature of their own problems indicates what WILL occur here too eventually, especially if we don't realize that our constitution was fraudulently created to foster the very division those creators are pretending to not be. The topic here is Israel and while I agree that we need to contrast to remain non-hypocritical with ourselves here, my stance is definitely not valid to compare to Canada where I didn't have the power to create. I'm in the extreme minority even here, especially in today's biased politics. Israel's support by us in North America is what I'm against, equally with any other intolerant states without or within.

Can you specifically name or link your topic? Yes, this may be. Israel/Palestine is not the only place of this issue. I believe that this occurs in all evolutions/revolutions of intellectual beings from a tribal (transient types) in conflict with settled lands. The "jews" (smallcase 'j', to indicate my interpretation of the wanderers, as similar to the word "jew-el" meant those that easily travel [see that 'el' above.]) were of no distinct group but were the remnant various peoples that acted as traders in transit going from place to place with no land claims. But as lands WERE being claimed, this conflict is similar to the North American tribes (not all) who lived in hunting gathering lifestyles with only TEMPORARY settlements. So the original "jews" that evolved were just a part of those 'aboriginals' of the Middle East. The original 'promised land' was Egypt, not Palestine; Palestine was a secondary afterthought and consolation after the fall of Akhenaten, Tut,.....[(last)Ramesses]. Akhenaten was the first kind of attempt to overthrow their in-day 'multicultural' society by demanding that their temples become ONLY of ONE specific tribe's origin priests (tribal reps). They, like the Jews later, and then Jesus also, re-interpreted temples as religious places rather than TEMPorary meeting places of the collective tribes of the past. Even then the history of their past was relatively 'ancient' and lost to certain agreement. As such, some believed their governing places should NOT be 'secular'. Thus, the first 'religions' of the monotheistic types were intolerant unsettled peoples who were angry at the losses of their freedom to travel as lands and places were being 'claimed' up. This 'conservative' set of peoples wanted to fight to take over the settlements to claim as their own just as modern natives in North America want to 'reclaim' what they felt they were tricked out of because of settlements in places they thought was 'un-ownable' and free to wander through without being trolled.

"Je-" and "Ye-" beginnings, which originate most related languages to this day, means both "I" and "The" (as in 'one'). "-ra", from our African/Egyptian roots, derived from the sound of lions that indicated power of force, and evolved into generally meaning any such FORCEFUL factor, specifically the "rays" of light from the sun [note lions, with the mane and its orange, sunlike appearance, relates. "-us-" could be from "Asher" ('A-Syria); but the "el" or "al", when placed at the END of words was a way to assert an ULTIMATE "thee" without defining, like a variable or article. For instance, when 'el'am', then likely refers to the "elohim" or, in general, "ALL ORIGINS_sources" (such as 'gods' collectively, or, even secularly, as ANY major cause of nature). So, "Jerusalem", likely meant, "I (or that which) sees ALL sources (or all the gods) , as the equivalent secular-and-religious shared meaning. A temple was NOT a place for a specific god, but the first stage of civil evolution as tribes settle down. Jerusalem also was an outpost of the time of Akhenaten (akin- to the [shaper]) [The sun's perfect circular shape was the ultimate container. "Adam" derives of this too, which means that which is shaped (has solid boundaries).] Compare other similar names: Joshua (je-zheu) [the Sis (the same)]...Aramaic; Jesus (Je-sus) ["the same as" == "the Zeus"]...Greek.

"Jerusalem" in ancient history was a 'capital' of ALL people, not merely the Jewish. Their claims even then were an intolerant interpretation of a 'Temple', just as Christianity and other irrational peoples of all times have redressed in similar vein. Note that a "Temple" was actually a civilization's 'temporary' meeting place of ALL peoples of different groups ('tribes' originally prior to settlements). The original "Jew" was ANY transient-oriented peoples who originally did NOT yet "settle" or were the collective (non-identifying) of rejects of settled peoples, not an actual 'religion'. The Jerusalem temple was a remnant outposting of the last dying Egyptian empire. Temples were literally a PUBLIC meeting place (not religious) that acted as an accounting, trading, and officiating court between various transient groups. But as others later became dumb to the actual origins, intolerant cults came along demanding SPECIAL claim to these centers as though they had some unique group's purpose. "Jews" transitioned into a more and more puritanical and intolerant group back then who did as many groups in all similar situations of that stage of development do: they steal the 'ownership' claim as 'landrights' of some older times. You don't have to agree to me here but note this 'belief' is as equally and more likely original type of reality that existed in ancient times that has a more 'neutral' interpretation that ALL the peoples of the original Jerusalem was NOT for ANY specific group, not Judaism, not Christianity, ...not Muslim. IF you take time in more recent 'claims' as at least more valid regardless of which history is 'true', the Muslims, NOT the Jews have better claim to them. IF this is NOT accepted, the ONLY rational solution is to assure the best peace is to remove ALL OWNERSHIP claims to ANY group. This would be the rational means of the external world to take when sincerely wanting to make peace there. This act, as with the present Israeli governments continued inflexibility and increasing intolerance, makes Trumps act, one of some intentional hypocritical respect for some ethnicity (-ies) over others AND with official status. It is a violent act that will no doubt only aid to foster war, something that the extreme right-wing politics favors.

Not really. The act is NOT one any rational President of the past has recognized even if they initially thought it was a good idea. The support for Israel by 'us' (Canada too as well, that is) is contrary to the supposed principles against behaviors of other countries we take human right issues with to even more trivial concerns (like our P.M.s concern against China). The act to grant Israel, a religiously-excused constitution ONLY-FOR historical Jewish-related peoples, is 'fascist' [belief in a specific coalition based on on unique ethnic identity]. This has bias against the rights of people STILL who are equally 'aboriginal' to that land. Furthermore, unlike injustices of past ancestral worlds of similar injustices of those centuries dead, the very people of those who still LIVE who are continuing to be intolerantly taken lands and rights from there. While the Israeli people treat those who specifically 'favor' their supremacy (over the Muslim-related natives), this bias for selective 'democracy' of only Israeli favored groups based on ethnic identity DEFINES WHAT "National Socialism" means. [A 'socialist' system that favors a specific Nationality.] I think we need to take a stand against BOTHof the Israeli and Muslim/Palestinian claims by requiring that whole city to be of NO special religious/ethnic/cultural ownership. This move by Trump (a single person) upon a situation of the whole world's security is like one who knows they are doomed and desire to as much irreversible damage as quick as possible before the ship sinks.