Jerusalem as Capitol

[Kateri89]

I can’t help but feel that this is all a bit hypocritical.  Muslims have claim over Mecca and Catholics have the Vatican.  Jews can’t declare Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel?  Netanyahu personally extended an olive branch to Christian pilgrims wanting to tour the Holy Land next Christmas by offering to personally accompany them and show them the historic sites.  There are practicing Muslims in Jerusalem as well so declaring Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel doesn’t change the religious diversity of the city.

[Era Might]

On 1/5/2018 at 5:31 PM, Kateri89 said:

I can’t help but feel that this is all a bit hypocritical.  Muslims have claim over Mecca and Catholics have the Vatican.  Jews can’t declare Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel?  Netanyahu personally extended an olive branch to Christian pilgrims wanting to tour the Holy Land next Christmas by offering to personally accompany them and show them the historic sites.  There are practicing Muslims in Jerusalem as well so declaring Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel doesn’t change the religious diversity of the city.

Not entirely accurate. Saudi Arabia controls Mecca and the Holy See controls the Vatican. They are states, not religions. In the case of the Vatican, it was a concession from the new unified Italy. It was also a recognition that the church had no more claim over Italian territory (Papal States). In the case of Mecca, there are Muslims from all over the world, but Mecca is part of Saudi Arabia. The Catholic church didn't get the Vatican with also conceding territory...maybe a lesson for Israel. Or maybe not, because the church was the one in a weaker position with the Italian state, whereas the Palestinians are in a position similar to the church, a people surrounded by a state that has claimed its land as its own.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Era Might

[little2add]

 

 

On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. adopted a proposal establishing Jerusalem, as marked by the red line, as "a corpus separatum under a special international regime." But the war of 1948 left the city divided between Israeli (blue) and Jordanian (beige) control. 

 

 

 

[Kateri89]

13 hours ago, Era Might said:

Not entirely accurate. Saudi Arabia controls Mecca and the Holy See controls the Vatican. They are states, not religions. In the case of the Vatican, it was a concession from the new unified Italy. It was also a recognition that the church had no more claim over Italian territory (Papal States). In the case of Mecca, there are Muslims from all over the world, but Mecca is part of Saudi Arabia. The Catholic church didn't get the Vatican with also conceding territory...maybe a lesson for Israel. Or maybe not, because the church was the one in a weaker position with the Italian state, whereas the Palestinians are in a position similar to the church, a people surrounded by a state that has claimed its land as its own.

I also feel the need to add something of significance to this, though.  When I speak of the Jews governing Jerusalem, my point is that Israel is a Jewish-majority state and Israel should have full governance of Jerusalem as its capitol.  Not that the Jewish religion should govern it, but that the Jewish-majority state of Israel should.  It’s also worth mentioning that Mecca is barred to all non-Muslims and that any of us who breach that ban face the risk of punishment up to and including death.  If more people are angry about the religiously diverse city of Jerusalem being declared the capitol of Israel than they are about the ban of non-Muslims from Mecca, that speaks volumes.  I would never assert that Israel is perfect but the constant attempts to malign it are inconsiderate of the far greater grievances of other embattled nations.  I’m not accusing you specifically of doing this but it’s everywhere.

[Era Might]

10 hours ago, Kateri89 said:

I also feel the need to add something of significance to this, though.  When I speak of the Jews governing Jerusalem, my point is that Israel is a Jewish-majority state and Israel should have full governance of Jerusalem as its capitol.  Not that the Jewish religion should govern it, but that the Jewish-majority state of Israel should.  It’s also worth mentioning that Mecca is barred to all non-Muslims and that any of us who breach that ban face the risk of punishment up to and including death.  If more people are angry about the religiously diverse city of Jerusalem being declared the capitol of Israel than they are about the ban of non-Muslims from Mecca, that speaks volumes.  I would never assert that Israel is perfect but the constant attempts to malign it are inconsiderate of the far greater grievances of other embattled nations.  I’m not accusing you specifically of doing this but it’s everywhere.

I honestly know nothing about Israel. I'm only interested on this from the angle of US policy (and geopolitics in general). The problem I have, as an outsider looking in, is that there is an inequality at play here. Israel is a state. The Palestinians have no state. So, regardless of how much it's maligned, it still has a state. It has the internationally recognized authority of life and death, and all the other powers that go with being a sovereign state. If the Palestinians fight for themselves, they are necessarily terrorists and rebels, because they don't have a state. How can you have two sides come together equally when one is a state and the other is just a people? It's like the US government negotiating with the Indians, one of the sad events of human history.

I'm only guessing, but I imagine the Palestinians would rather have a state with part of Jerusalem as its capitol, than have a "religiously diverse" city where they are welcomed by concession and largesse rather than by international right. If Israel wants to be a modern Western state, then it should be held to the same standards that we hold the US (well, not that we hold the US to many standards in reality, but at least in theory...Saudi Arabia is a US ally).

If we are judging the situation in the Middle East by who "belongs" there then I think it's pretty clear that both Jews and Palestinians "belong" there. A two-state solution seems the obvious way forward. Am I wrong?

Edited January 8, 2018 by Era Might

[Kateri89]

7 hours ago, Era Might said:

I honestly know nothing about Israel. I'm only interested on this from the angle of US policy (and geopolitics in general). The problem I have, as an outsider looking in, is that there is an inequality at play here. Israel is a state. The Palestinians have no state. So, regardless of how much it's maligned, it still has a state. It has the internationally recognized authority of life and death, and all the other powers that go with being a sovereign state. If the Palestinians fight for themselves, they are necessarily terrorists and rebels, because they don't have a state. How can you have two sides come together equally when one is a state and the other is just a people? It's like the US government negotiating with the Indians, one of the sad events of human history.

I'm only guessing, but I imagine the Palestinians would rather have a state with part of Jerusalem as its capitol, than have a "religiously diverse" city where they are welcomed by concession and largesse rather than by international right. If Israel wants to be a modern Western state, then it should be held to the same standards that we hold the US (well, not that we hold the US to many standards in reality, but at least in theory...Saudi Arabia is a US ally).

If we are judging the situation in the Middle East by who "belongs" there then I think it's pretty clear that both Jews and Palestinians "belong" there. A two-state solution seems the obvious way forward. Am I wrong?

The thing is, Israel has made offers to Palestine on at least 5 separate occasions, most notably back in 2000 when Ehud Barak made an extremely generous offer that even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia advised Yasser Arafat to accept and he didn’t.  He didn’t even propose a counter offer.  He simply said no and left.  Besides that, there are people who believe that Israel doesn’t even have the right to exist including the terrorist group Hamas and even in the Palestinian charter it literally denies that Israel has a right to exist.  Israel has been pretty careful not to launch offensive attacks on other middle eastern nations because if it did, it could be annihilated by them since it is surrounded by enemy countries.  For the most part, any attacks by Israel against Palestine are executed as counteroffensive attacks.  What has protected Israel for so long is their strong military and nuclear arsenal, not a respect for it as a sovereign state.  The fact that Jerusalem ended up in Israeli control is because of a surprise attack launched on Israel in which the IDF were victorious and captured the city.  Had they not been attacked as they were, Jerusalem may never have fallen to them to begin with.  If a two state solution is what Palestinians want (which some don’t seem to), then they have had plenty of opportunities for it and rejected them all.

[Era Might]

21 hours ago, Kateri89 said:

The thing is, Israel has made offers to Palestine on at least 5 separate occasions, most notably back in 2000 when Ehud Barak made an extremely generous offer that even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia advised Yasser Arafat to accept and he didn’t.  He didn’t even propose a counter offer.  He simply said no and left.  Besides that, there are people who believe that Israel doesn’t even have the right to exist including the terrorist group Hamas and even in the Palestinian charter it literally denies that Israel has a right to exist.  Israel has been pretty careful not to launch offensive attacks on other middle eastern nations because if it did, it could be annihilated by them since it is surrounded by enemy countries.  For the most part, any attacks by Israel against Palestine are executed as counteroffensive attacks.  What has protected Israel for so long is their strong military and nuclear arsenal, not a respect for it as a sovereign state.  The fact that Jerusalem ended up in Israeli control is because of a surprise attack launched on Israel in which the IDF were victorious and captured the city.  Had they not been attacked as they were, Jerusalem may never have fallen to them to begin with.  If a two state solution is what Palestinians want (which some don’t seem to), then they have had plenty of opportunities for it and rejected them all.

A lot of that is probably politics. Like China letting Taiwan remain autonomous but insisting that, sooner or later, it has to be reintegrated back into China. Maybe the Palestinians aren't ready for a state (again, only guessing)...the world changes, people die, new situations arise. I'm against nationalism, so I think nothing will improve if we create a fixed situation in our minds and say "this is the way it is." When the North won the Civil War in the US, the South had to go through Reconstruction...but eventually, it had to end. You couldn't live with a situation forever where the South was occupied by the North. But, when Reconstruction ended, it was good for the white South, but bad for blacks...now they had to survive in an autonomous white South, and they were quickly enslaved again through Jim Crow, etc. Some blacks wanted to repatriate back to Africa. Some wanted their promised 40 acres and a mule. Some became civil rights organizers, some became black panthers and black muslims. All this to note, that the USA was wise to place its capitol outside of any state, in a special capitol district. When you're dealing with explosive histories, it's hard to imagine any kind of future change. So, I guess my approach to this whole situation is I'm interested in the people, not in the governments. I don't trust Israel anymore than I trust the USA or Russia. But, when you're dealing with international relations, that is the language: force, pressure, etc. Seems to me the international community has been wise to leave Jerusalem an open question. But, at the end of the day, I'm not Israeli or Palestinian...I imagine they have a historical reckoning coming, and they'll have to figure it out themselves or else someone else will figure it out for them, probably without a good end. I believe in solidarity based on humanity, not on national identities. I'll never understand why a working class man in Iowa should see the illegal immigrant as his enemy, but that's how they keep us divided. If a Palestinian state just hardens the national identities and separation, then it's a failure.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Era Might

[Seven77]

22 hours ago, Kateri89 said:

The thing is, Israel has made offers to Palestine on at least 5 separate occasions, most notably back in 2000 when Ehud Barak made an extremely generous offer that even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia advised Yasser Arafat to accept and he didn’t.  He didn’t even propose a counter offer.  He simply said no and left.  Besides that, there are people who believe that Israel doesn’t even have the right to exist including the terrorist group Hamas and even in the Palestinian charter it literally denies that Israel has a right to exist.  Israel has been pretty careful not to launch offensive attacks on other middle eastern nations because if it did, it could be annihilated by them since it is surrounded by enemy countries.  For the most part, any attacks by Israel against Palestine are executed as counteroffensive attacks.  What has protected Israel for so long is their strong military and nuclear arsenal, not a respect for it as a sovereign state.  The fact that Jerusalem ended up in Israeli control is because of a surprise attack launched on Israel in which the IDF were victorious and captured the city.  Had they not been attacked as they were, Jerusalem may never have fallen to them to begin with.  If a two state solution is what Palestinians want (which some don’t seem to), then they have had plenty of opportunities for it and rejected them all.

4

https://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/

[little2add]

21 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 The fact that Jerusalem ended up in Israeli control is because of a surprise attack launched on Israel in which the IDF were victorious and captured the city.  Had they not been attacked as they were, Jerusalem may never have fallen to them to begin with.

The Six-Day War, 06/04/67 to 06/10/67

war between Israel and its Arab neighbors ends with a United Nations-brokered cease-fire. The outnumbered Israel Defense Forces achieved a swift and decisive victory in the brief war, rolling over the Arab coalition that threatened the Jewish state and more than doubling the amount of territory under Israel’s control. The greatest fruit of victory lay in seizing the Old City of Jerusalem from Jordan

BTW: Egypt and Jordan later gave up their respective claims to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to the Palestinians, who beginning in the 1990s opened “land for peace” talks with Israel. The East Bank territory has since been returned to Jordan (In 2005).

Edited January 10, 2018 by little2add