even george bush refused to accept jerusalem as the capital of israel

[punked]

I think Ron Paul said it best: “If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that. How would we like it if some other nation said, ‘We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there’?”

And Ron Paul isn't exactly a staunch supporter of Israel.

And really, this is the bottom line:

In the meantime, with or without “international approval,” the city that King David designated as the capital of Israel and the Jewish people is 45 years unified, 3,000-plus years Jewish, and still going strong.

Link

I think that argument glosses over the problem people have. I mean if Israel said it's capital was Ottawa I would have a problem with that.

[bleeding heart]

I think that argument glosses over the problem people have. I mean if Israel said it's capital was Ottawa I would have a problem with that.

Yeah. It's not even that the Israelis don't have an argument. It's that non-Israelis do, too.

[bud]

I think Ron Paul said it best: “If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that. How would we like it if some other nation said, ‘We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there’?”

And Ron Paul isn't exactly a staunch supporter of Israel.

And really, this is the bottom line:

In the meantime, with or without “international approval,” the city that King David designated as the capital of Israel and the Jewish people is 45 years unified, 3,000-plus years Jewish, and still going strong.

Link

neither you or the link from unitedwithisrael.org mentions anything about east jerusalem not being part of israel.

if israel wants to make west jerusalem their capital, why not? but the illegal annexation of east jerusalem is something you just can't pretend is not a huge issue.

Edited September 10, 2012 by bud

[Guest American Woman]

I think that argument glosses over the problem people have. I mean if Israel said it's capital was Ottawa I would have a problem with that.

You're taking his statement too generally; it has to be taken within the context of which it was said. Obviously Israel isn't going to pick a city out of the air and claim it as its capital, which I'm sure Paul recognized. Jerusalem, unlike Ottawa, is home to all three branches of Israel's government, so it is Israel's acting capital, whether the world recognizes it as such or not.

Edited September 10, 2012 by American Woman

[punked]

You're taking his statement too generally; it has to be taken within the context of which it was said. Obviously Israel isn't going to pick a city out of the air and claim it as its capital, which I'm sure Paul recognized. Jerusalem, unlike Ottawa, is home to all three branches of Israel's government, so it is Israel's acting capital, whether the world recognizes it as such or not.

I agree they have a claim but so does someone else.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree they have a claim but so does someone else.

I understand that, but some would say Palestine lost it's claim through Arab aggression.

But as I said, it is Israel's capital, and our refusal to have our embassy there doesn't change anything. It seems rather strange to be such strong supporters of the country and then refuse to have our embassy in what Israel claims as its capital. If other nations were to declare NYC our capital, it wouldn't change anything - Washington, D.C. would still be our capital.

[dre]

I understand that, but some would say Palestine lost it's claim through Arab aggression.

People who dont understand international law, and cant read you mean?

[bud]

I understand that, but some would say Palestine lost it's claim through Arab aggression.

only israel says this. every other country including united states and canada do not recognize israel's annexation of east jerusalem. why? because under international law, east jerusalem is considered palestinian land.

for those who are interested in the legal status of east jerusalem:

Israel seized East Jerusalem during the 1967 war, in which it completed its occupation of all Palestinian land. Israel unilaterally expanded the boundaries of Jerusalem by annexing some 70 sq kms to the municipal boundaries of the West Bank area and evicting over 6,000 Palestinians from the Old City’s Mughrabi Quarter in order to create a plaza in front of Al-Buraq (the Western Wall). Israel then declared Jerusalem its capital.

East Jerusalem was annexed shortly after the war in a move that has not been recognised by the international community or the Palestinians.

more

[BC_chick]

I understand that, but some would say Palestine lost it's claim through Arab aggression.

And 'some' say that's hogwash. Meanwhile, all governments abroad have stated that Palestinians and Israelis should be the two parties who negotiate the border dispute of the city of Jerusalem.

So it's one thing to say "Jerusalem" is the capitol of Israel, but until Jerusalem's borders are defined it's a whole other issue to pick up and move embassies to a city that is not considered to fully belong to Israel according to international law.

[dre]

And 'some' say that's hogwash. Meanwhile, all governments abroad have stated that Palestinians and Israelis should be the two parties who negotiate the border dispute of the city of Jerusalem.

So it's one thing to say "Jerusalem" is the capitol of Israel, but until Jerusalem's borders are defined it's a whole other issue to pick up and move embassies to a city that is not considered to fully belong to Israel according to international law.

Yes its pretty clear that most countries are not going to be very interested in moving their embassies into an occupied territory.

Its unlikely it will ever be recognized as Israel unless theres some kind of agreement between Israelies and Palestinians.

[Bonam]

Yes its pretty clear that most countries are not going to be very interested in moving their embassies into an occupied territory.

Most of the city of Jerusalem IS recognized internationally as part of Israel. No one is asking or proposing that embassies be placed in the disputed sections of East Jerusalem. No one expects Israel to give away West Jerusalem, no one (legitimate) claims that West Jerusalem is an occupied territory, so why can't the embassy be there?

[Guest American Woman]

And 'some' say that's hogwash.

Yes, "some" do say that. Which is generally the way of it when there's a conflict - ie: two sides say differently. My point is, there is a conflict - ie: two conflicting points of view, and some say that Palestine lost its claim due to Arab aggression. It's been pointed out ad nauseum that other countries who lost land, and land that our countries have gained, is not 'going back to the aggressor' or in our countries' cases, to those we were aggressive towards, so I have no desire to argue the issue. Just wanted to point out the reality.

Meanwhile, all governments abroad have stated that Palestinians and Israelis should be the two parties who negotiate the border dispute of the city of Jerusalem.

Which, in effect, is saying that no country actually "accepts" anything regarding Jerusalem, which sort of contradicts bud's claims.

So it's one thing to say "Jerusalem" is the capitol of Israel, but until Jerusalem's borders are defined it's a whole other issue to pick up and move embassies to a city that is not considered to fully belong to Israel according to international law.

Part of Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since it was declared the capital in 1949. No one to my knowledge is suggesting that the embassies be moved to any disputed areas of Jerusalem.

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

Most of the city of Jerusalem IS recognized internationally as part of Israel. No one is asking or proposing that embassies be placed in the disputed sections of East Jerusalem. No one expects Israel to give away West Jerusalem, no one (legitimate) claims that West Jerusalem is an occupied territory, so why can't the embassy be there?

Fair point. I guess it's the only leverage the world has on Israel to settle the issue of the occupied territories.

ETA - by occupied territories I'm not talking about anything but Jerusalem. Israel has declared a *united* Jersualem as its capital city and the world is basically saying that they will not recognise this declaration until the borders are defined.

Edited September 11, 2012 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Part of Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since it was declared the capital in 1949. No one to my knowledge is suggesting that the embassies be moved to any disputed areas of Jerusalem.

Well, as you said, 'some' think the land grab was fair and square. They're the ones with embassies in Jerusalem.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, as you said, 'some' think the land grab was fair and square. They're the ones with embassies in Jerusalem.

Shows how much you know about it.

I recognize that while some "land grabs" are applauded, others aren't. Doesn't always make one more acceptable or justifiable than the other, so just pointing out the reality.

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

Shows how much you know about it.

I recognize that while some "land grabs" are applauded, others aren't. Doesn't always make one more acceptable or justifiable than the other, so just pointing out the reality.

You missed my point entirely. How many countries have embassies in Jerusalem? Right... exactly.

As for the rest of your post, why doesn't Israel just annex the land then? Provide Palestinians a right to vote along with taking on the responsibility of providing them with proper living conditions?

Therein lies the difference between the land grabs.

[Guest American Woman]

You missed my point entirely. How many countries have embassies in Jerusalem? Right... exactly.

I didn't miss your point at all. Whether or not a country has an embassy in Jerusalem isn't indicative of their stance as you yourself said that "all governments abroad have stated Palestinians and Israelis should be the two parties who negotiate the border dispute of the city of Jerusalem." So whether or not a country has their embassy there does not speak for their view regarding the Arab aggression I spoke of previously.

As for the rest of your post, why doesn't Israel just annex the land then? Provide Palestinians a right to vote along with taking on the responsibility of providing them with proper living conditions?

Therein lies the difference between the land grabs.

Why. Because Canada and the U.S. were so quick to give Native Americans/First Nations the right to vote? We did, however, provide them with oh-so-proper living conditions.

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv

When Israel declared Independence on 14 May 1948, the population of Tel Aviv was over 200,000.[2] Tel Aviv was the temporary government center of the State of Israel until the government moved to Jerusalem in December 1949. Due to the international dispute over the status of Jerusalem, most foreign embassies remained in or near Tel Aviv.[24] In the early 1980s, 13 embassies in Jerusalem moved to Tel Aviv as part of the UN's measures responding to Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law.[48] Today, all national embassies are in Tel Aviv or environs.[49]

I don't think anyone will be moving their embassies to Jerusalem anytime soon.

[BC_chick]

I didn't miss your point at all. Whether or not a country has an embassy in Jerusalem isn't indicative of their stance as you yourself said that "all governments abroad have stated Palestinians and Israelis should be the two parties who negotiate the border dispute of the city of Jerusalem." So whether or not a country has their embassy there does not speak for their view regarding the Arab aggression I spoke of previously.

Why. Because Canada and the U.S. were so quick to give Native Americans/First Nations the right to vote? We did, however, provide them with oh-so-proper living conditions.

Gotcha, so modern-day Israel approach to the Palestinian 'problem' is, according to AW, similar to 18th century European colonial mentality.

And lemme guess, it's anti-semitic to think otherwise.

ETA, and you can't come up with anything remotely similar in modern times to make a comparison. Even better!

Edited September 11, 2012 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Gotcha, so modern-day Israel approach to the Palestinian 'problem' is, according to AW, similar to 18th century European colonial mentality.

Nope, that's not what I was saying. When, for example, do you think Canada gave First Nations the right to vote in federal elections without losing their treaty status? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't in the 18th Century; it wasn't even prior to the Arab aggression/land annexation we are speaking of.

And lemme guess, it's anti-semitic to think otherwise.

I didn't say that, did I? Nor have I ever called you anti-semitic. But don't let that stop you from playing the part of the victim.

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

Nope, that's not what I was saying.

I didn't say that, did I? Nor have I ever called you anti-semitic. But don't let that stop you from playing the part of the victim.

You brought up the argument that people don't have an issue with some land grabs but they do with others. This is the most common argument used to point out that the underlying issue behind singling out Israel is anti-semitism. Numerous books are on the stands making exactly that point.

I pointed out that it's not just the land grab, but rather, the way the inhabitants have been treated.

You bring up North American First Nations as your ONLY argument and you deny that you were making a comparison?

Alright then, let's start again.

It's not just the land-grab that makes people critical of Israel, it's the way Israel has treated the people on that land.

Your turn... provide a similar example where, by your admission, nobody cares about the people of the land. Something in modern times would be a great start.

[Guest American Woman]

You brought up the argument that people don't have an issue with some land grabs but they do with others. This is the most common argument used to point out that the underlying issue behind singling out Israel is anti-semitism. Numerous books are on the stands making exactly that point.

I didn't say one word about anti-semitism, did I? I brought it up because it's true. I actually see it as hypocrisy.

I pointed out that it's not just the land grab, but rather, the way the inhabitants have been treated.

And I pointed out that others who have made land grabs haven't exactly treated the inhabitants well.

You bring up North American First Nations as your ONLY argument and you deny that you were making a comparison?

I felt the one example should make my point. Furthermore, as I said, I wasn't comparing it to 18th century European colonial mentality. As I pointed out, it was Canadian mentality just over 50 years ago that denied the First Nations people the right to vote without losing treaty status. And again. That was after the Arab aggression and "land grab" that we are speaking of.

Alright then, let's start again.

It's not just the land-grab that makes people critical of Israel, it's the way Israel has treated the people on that land.

Your turn... provide a similar example where, by your admission, nobody cares about the people of the land. Something in modern times would be a great start.

So an example from after "Israel's land grab" isn't good enough? - isn't quite modern enough for you? Canada's treatment of the First Nations people isn't recent enough?

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman

[bud]

Yes, "some" do say that. Which is generally the way of it when there's a conflict - ie: two sides say differently.

if by "some", you mean "only israel" and by "two sides" you mean "israel" and "the rest of the world", then i guess two sides say differently.

there is a reason why no country has an embassy in jerusalem. it's because they don't consider jerusalem as israel's capital and they do not accept israel's annexation of east jerusalem.

i love how honesty and balance is thrown out the door whenever you deal with israel and instead you turn into a hasbara bot.

Edited September 11, 2012 by bud

[BC_chick]

I didn't say one word about anti-semitism, did I? I brought it up because it's true. I actually see it as hypocrisy.

And I pointed out that others who have made land grabs haven't exactly treated the inhabitants well.

I felt the one example should make my point. Furthermore, as I said, I wasn't comparing it to 18th century European colonial mentality. As I pointed out, it was Canadian mentality just over 50 years ago that denied the First Nations people the right to vote without losing treaty status. And again. That was after the Arab aggression and "land grab" that we are speaking of.

So an example from after "Israel's land grab" isn't good enough? - isn't quite modern enough for you? Canada's treatment of the First Nations people isn't recent enough?

IOW, you can't name one modern-day example of a land-grab where the inhabitants are currently denied the right to vote.

As for the 'hypocrisy'... what hypocrisy? To be hypocritical on something like this would be to say Israel should grant Palestinians equal citizenship but Canada shouldn't do the same for FN's.

[Guest American Woman]

IOW, you can't name one modern-day example of a land-grab where the inhabitants are currently denied the right to vote.

Oh, I see. They have to currently be denied the right to vote. Israel has to live up to standards that it took Canada over a hundred years to achieve.

FYI, "the right to vote" isn't an all inclusive standard of how the "inhabitants are treated." As I said, the treatment/conditions of First Nations people in Canada is quite current.

As for the 'hypocrisy'... what hypocrisy?

What hypocrisy? You sit in judgement of Israel for not jumping to do what it took Canada years and years and years to do - as you sit in the land of the First Nations people, enjoying the good life because of what our nations' ancestors did. But that's not current. The First Nations people were given the right to vote in federal elections without losing treaty status just over fifty years ago, and of course 50 years ago was ancient history.

So answer me this: since the Arab aggression resulting in Israel's "land grab" happened before First Nations people got the vote, back in ancient times, why shouldn't Israel have been able to keep the land they annexed, since apparently we weren't into a "modern thinking" mindset waaaay back then?

To be hypocritical on something like this would be to say Israel should grant Palestinians equal citizenship but Canada shouldn't do the same for FN's.

To be hypocritical on this is to have a holier-than-thou attitude about Israel, as Canada's First Nations people are living with the consequences of what our ancestors did to them. And that includes not getting the vote until AFTER Israel made it's "land grab." So much for your "18th century European colonial mentality," eh?

We get to keep what we took, treating the inhabitants miserably for hundreds of years AND we get to judge Israel as oh-so-terrible for wanting to keep what it annexed as a result of aggression directed at them. To me that is very hypocritical, as you try to dismiss it all as "18th century European colonial mentality."

Ironically, when some criticize Muslims and Arab countries as violent and living in the dark ages, some of the Israel critics who say 'grabbing land is not what modern nations do' are the first to say that they have to be able to progress on their own timetable, and that is hypocritical too.

As I said, it's all quite hypocritical, and I'm sure not going to sit here polishing my halo as I criticize Israel.

When the Arab world consents to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, get back to me - especially in light of all the Islamic nations that the world recognizes.

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman