Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-23 at 7:31 PM, jbg said:

Should we have moved the U.S. Embassy from Bonn to Berlin in 1999? One can argue that the move was deeply provocative to Russia. Russia had, just nine and one-half years earlier had effective control over East Germany. We were taking a stand on a regional controversy.
 

I don't remember the Russians ever claiming Berlin as their capital.

Edited December 25, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-22 at 10:04 PM, Bonam said:

My impression was the issue of Palestinians returning to Israel was a big part of why Abbas chickened out at the last moment from making a deal with Olmert. He got a lot of criticism from various Palestinian factions, particularly those living abroad (not in the West Bank or Gaza but in Lebanon and Jordan and Europe), criticizing him for bargaining away their "right of return" to Israel, since they didn't feel like Abbas represents their interests. Even if the PA, in principle, agrees to not have any Palestinians return to Israel proper, I think Israel now fears that much of the international community will continue to apply pressure on Israel to accept Palestinians back from the camps that they have been kept in in Lebanon and elsewhere. And that is of course a dealbreaker for Israel. 

I agree that negotiations are, abstractly, the answer. But there are just so many different Palestinian factions now... the PA, Hamas, Palestinians living in Europe who now get their new home countries to pressure and criticize Israel, Palestinians living in camps in Lebanon who have their own leaders and interests, etc. All of these factions have different interests, and even if at times it seems like one might be reasonable enough to strike a plausible deal with Israel, others are at that point in time less amenable. I suspect this is part of the reason why the current Israeli government has had little interest in negotiations.. there is no one, really, to negotiate with. Palestinians first have to solve their internal divisions and come to an agreement about a single individual/group by whose terms all their factions will abide, before they can really negotiate with Israel again meaningfully. 

Dealing with a crazy person doesn't justify stealing. Israel is constantly adding to  'facts on the ground' that will insidiously create a permanent apartheid state on the West Bank. That might be OK with the Trumpian fascists here but many Israelis will be unconfortable with such such a grimly tribal reality separating them from the West. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-22 at 10:09 PM, Bonam said:

Right and wrong, reasonable and unreasonable, effective vs ineffective, etc, are almost never decided by the majority. The majority of people and certainly the majority of national governments are wrong about the majority of things. When it comes to condemning the US and/or Israel at the UN, the Arab league does this because it plays well with their population at home, who they largely keep from revolting through a combination of oil money welfare and keeping their population's ire focused at external enemies. And Europe mostly plays along due to social justice warriors and white guilt complex and the growing Muslim population in Europe. I don't see anything there that makes that a good thing or the right thing, just politics. 

Maybe Europe considers right and wrong here? They are certainly under less political pressure from one side than the hapless US Congress. 

Edited December 25, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-23 at 1:20 AM, Bonam said:

Sure, sounds good to me. 

Go ahead, amigo. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Haley's threat that she was taking names was so sad to hear, un-American really.  Is she taking the names of NATO members? Russia and China? Of course not. Only small, poor nations who can be bullied. What a pathetic end for the US. 

Edited December 25, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-16 at 4:14 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why is that a problem ?   The Palestinians are their own worst enemy...always have been.

It is a problem for the Palestinians as it was for most nations in North America, 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-17 at 7:16 PM, Bonam said:

Multiple sets of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians over the last several decades have resulted in Israel offering the Palestinians to have their own state on the vast majority of Gaza and the West Bank and parts of East Jerusalem on multiple occasions. In each case, the Palestinians refused, in some cases following up this refusal with waves of violence and terrorism. I suspect the current Israeli government may be less driven than some previous ones to find a negotiated settlement, but it is hard to blame them given that so many iterations of peace talks have been fruitless. At this point, it's up to the Palestinian leadership to prove to Israel that it is interested in peace and a negotiated settlement and come to the table with a reasonable proposal. 

Does that justify making a Palestinian state impossible? I find it easy to blame the Israelis for that. The Palestinians have been asked to adjust to a great deal already. 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If it's okay to give away somebody else's land, I would think that a generous people like the Americans would be happy to give a little bit of their own.

Why is it in the ME?

Peace is highly underrated. That is what tomorrow is all about. Isn't He the Prince of Peace?

 

The whole point for the State of Israel is for it to be where it is, and vigorously defended ("Zionism")...not in Oregon.

The "generous" Americans have already spent hundreds of BILLION$ assuring this reality.

The Prince of Peace has done a bad job for the past 70 years in the ME.

 

 

[jbg]

9 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don't remember the Russians ever claiming Berlin as their capital.

It was effectively the USSR's colonial office in East Germany.

[jbg]

On 12/22/2017 at 8:34 PM, Bonam said:

9 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Dealing with a crazy person doesn't justify stealing. Israel is constantly adding to  'facts on the ground' that will insidiously create a permanent apartheid state on the West Bank. That might be OK with the Trumpian fascists here but many Israelis will be unconfortable with such such a grimly tribal reality separating them from the West. 

My impression was the issue of Palestinians returning to Israel was a big part of why Abbas chickened out at the last moment from making a deal with Olmert. He got a lot of criticism from various Palestinian factions, particularly those living abroad (not in the West Bank or Gaza but in Lebanon and Jordan and Europe), criticizing him for bargaining away their "right of return" to Israel, since they didn't feel like Abbas represents their interests. Even if the PA, in principle, agrees to not have any Palestinians return to Israel proper, I think Israel now fears that much of the international community will continue to apply pressure on Israel to accept Palestinians back from the camps that they have been kept in in Lebanon and elsewhere. And that is of course a dealbreaker for Israel. 

I agree that negotiations are, abstractly, the answer. But there are just so many different Palestinian factions now... the PA, Hamas, Palestinians living in Europe who now get their new home countries to pressure and criticize Israel, Palestinians living in camps in Lebanon who have their own leaders and interests, etc. All of these factions have different interests, and even if at times it seems like one might be reasonable enough to strike a plausible deal with Israel, others are at that point in time less amenable. I suspect this is part of the reason why the current Israeli government has had little interest in negotiations.. there is no one, really, to negotiate with. Palestinians first have to solve their internal divisions and come to an agreement about a single individual/group by whose terms all their factions will abide, before they can really negotiate with Israel again meaningfully. 

The Palestinians lost the subject real estate in 1967. They've had plenty of time to come to terms with it.

When the Jews were unable to return to their ancestral villages in Europe after the Shoach the didn't stay in the DP camps and foment terror or war. They moved elsewhere. The Arabs refused to absorb those who fled in 1949 or 1967. Why is that Israel's problem?

I sense a double standard here.

 

[-TSS-]

This is really ridiculous but when the Middle-East is concerned things get easily out of all proportion. If any country declared that they regard Toronto as the capital of Canada and move their embassy there the reaction would probably be something like suit yourselves.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, jbg said:

The Palestinians lost the subject real estate in 1967. They've had plenty of time to come to terms with it.

When the Jews were unable to return to their ancestral villages in Europe after the Shoach the didn't stay in the DP camps and foment terror or war. They moved elsewhere. The Arabs refused to absorb those who fled in 1949 or 1967. Why is that Israel's problem?

I sense a double standard here.

 

Come to terms with it? How about coming to terms that Jews were kicked out centuries ago? And now that Israel is essentially annexing land, it looks a lot more like WWII Nazi Germany (let me clarify before some of you looses your shit : it's similar in the notion of annexing lands that were claimed to be theirs a very long time ago). than a democratic nation.

[jbg]

8 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Come to terms with it? How about coming to terms that Jews were kicked out centuries ago? And now that Israel is essentially annexing land, it looks a lot more like WWII Nazi Germany (let me clarify before some of you looses your shit : it's similar in the notion of annexing lands that were claimed to be theirs a very long time ago). than a democratic nation.

It was thinly populated. Zionist development attracted people who wanted to work there.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-25 at 1:42 PM, jbg said:

The Palestinians lost the subject real estate in 1967. They've had plenty of time to come to terms with it.

When the Jews were unable to return to their ancestral villages in Europe after the Shoach the didn't stay in the DP camps and foment terror or war. They moved elsewhere. The Arabs refused to absorb those who fled in 1949 or 1967. Why is that Israel's problem?

I sense a double standard here.

 

Two wrongs and all that. Post WWII we no longer endorse the might is right concept for changing borders. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

17 hours ago, jbg said:

It was thinly populated. Zionist development attracted people who wanted to work there.

This has been the argument of every colonizer. The land was nearly empty and underused, and we deserved it more than the lazy, ungrateful and treacherous natives.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-25 at 1:36 PM, jbg said:

It was effectively the USSR's colonial office in East Germany.

Even the Russkies didn't claim all of Berlin. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Two wrongs and all that. Post WWII we no longer endorse the might is right concept for changing borders. 

 

Oh yes "we" do....see East Timor or the "former" Yugoslavia.

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Oh yes "we" do....see East Timor or the "former" Yugoslavia.

Justice was eventually served in East Timor. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

There is an argument for abstention on such issues. It's a whole lot of trouble in a faraway part of the world which we have no influence on anyway. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There is an argument for abstention on such issues. It's a whole lot of trouble in a faraway part of the world which we have no influence on anyway. 

Maybe but our decision to get into a moral huff over Venezuela sure seems to undercut that argument.

That said, it's hard not to compare our decision to give Venezuela a hard time with CRA's focus on targeting the little guy while turning a blind eye to far more putrescently rich and powerful scofflaws - which is precisely what Israel is in comparison to Venezuela.

[jbg]

23 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Two wrongs and all that. Post WWII we no longer endorse the might is right concept for changing borders. 

That seems only to be true when the Joooos are the issue. Other situations not so much:

1. Russia took East Kuriles from Japan
2. North Vietnam took over South Vietnam
3. East Timor
4. Nigeria wouldn't let Biafra go, and instigated a famine in the process;
5. Argentina invaded Falklands
6. Iran subverts Yemen
7. What about the Kurds?

[GostHacked]

On 12/25/2017 at 10:09 PM, jbg said:

It was thinly populated. Zionist development attracted people who wanted to work there.

That fails to answer my question.

[Argus]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 3:47 PM, marcus said:

The Palestinian Jews you mean? All 5% of them? Who lived in peace with the 86% Palestinian Muslims and 9% Palestinian Christians. Because the European Jews have no real connection to the land. You know that, right?

I suppose it didn't occur to you that the reason there weren't all that many Jews and Christians there at the time of the Ottomans was because they had been driven out or murdered by Muslim invaders, did it?

How about the 800,000 Jews that lived in the middle east and were expelled by your beloved Arabs? I guess they had no right to go there either, huh?

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 4:06 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Sorry, the system would not let me put Argus' name there. Apologies to you both.

Had the European Jews been allowed to settle in a homeland in the US, there would have been no reason for the war, started by Arabs in response to the imposition of Israel. 

Had that woman not walked past me  I wouldn't have had to attack and rape her.

Same logic.

The land did not belong to the Egyptians or Syrians or Saudis or any of the others who attacked Israel. It never had. Suggesting Jews being on it was an intolerable affront to them in no way excuses their violence.

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 4:06 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

I support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, but there is no reason it should be in its present location where it is clearly not wanted. 

Except it's already there. What do you want to do, wave your magic wand and move it?  How come no one suggests Saudi Arabia is an illegitimate country, or Jordan, just because others created them?

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 4:06 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Again, I ask, what, in the 21st century is so special about Palestine to the Israelis. I can understand why the Palestinians want to be there. They have lived there for centuries. Is not Peace more important than the location o Israel?

What about Christians? They lived there for centuries until the Muslims invaded and killed or drove them out. Maybe all the Muslims should get their asses out of Turkey,  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine so Christians can move back in again.

[Argus]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 2:51 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Haley's threat that she was taking names was so sad to hear, un-American really.  Is she taking the names of NATO members? Russia and China? Of course not. Only small, poor nations who can be bullied. What a pathetic end for the US. 

I only somewhat agree. Russia and China are the implacable enemies of the West and thus of the US, so they can be expected to oppose everything the US does just for spite, unless they see it as being in their interests. Western Europe is free at the moment only because of American strength, and because while they play and enjoy idle lives the US taxpayer pays for a military which keeps them free. If the US were to disappear tomorrow Russia would be in charge within a year. The spineless and inept governments of western Europe would not lift a finger to stop them. Many of the other nations on Earth depend on American largesse to varying degrees. So I can see how the US would see it as a betrayal, for them to vote with their enemies on where the US embassy should be located (which is really no one's business but theirs anyway).