Should Ireland recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel?

Larbre34

Doltanian wrote: »

The state of Israel, is the only country in the middle east which gives rights to Women, Christians, Gay people and the only democracy in the region.

We should be supporting and assisting Israel as much as possible, the Israeli Jewish people have a much older and deserving claim to the region than the Arabic Muslim Palestinians who are driven by anti-Semitism and also persecutes Christians.

Deserving claim? No more than any other faction that originated in Canaan. If you take it all the way back to ancient times, the semitic peoples / speakers from which Israelites branched, lived across what is now Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. There is total historic disagreement about the preminence of one group over another on what is modern Israel between the 15th and 8th centuries BC.

What we do know is that the Torah / Old Testament narrative of the Kingdom of David, The Exodus and all that has been dismissed by the archaeology for the propaganda myth it was, and is.

As for recorded history, the longest settled peace in the region was under the Turkish Ottoman Empire, for over 400 years up to the beginning of the 20th century.

Israel holds itself up as, among other things, a bastion of enlightened modern values and freedoms on the threshold of the lions den. On the face of it thats true. But consider two examples, the second of which is burned in mind since i heard it first a long time ago.

A) A Knesset (parliament) member was forced to resign his seat just last September under pressure from orthodox rabbis, the charge, desecration of Gods name. His crime? Attending the same sex union of his gay nephew, in order to make his family happy. Just. For. Being.There.

After Israel declared independence, in the early 1950s Jews from all over flocked to new Jewish state to build new lives and contribute to bolstering the fledging nation. However, when Jews that had originated in the deeper middle east and north Africa arrived, they were treated as second class to european Jews, by the european Jews themselves who ran the show, pushing them out of housing and off land previously allocated to them. More than a little reminiscent of the Nazis wouldnt you agree? Divisions over that little gem persist to this day.

BuilderPlumber

Doltanian wrote: »

Yes we should recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Palestine is a terror state and we should not recognise it. It was a great political decision by President Trump.

The state of Israel, is the only country in the middle east which gives rights to Women, Christians, Gay people and the only democracy in the region.

We should be supporting and assisting Israel as much as possible, the Israeli Jewish people have a much older and deserving claim to the region than the Arabic Muslim Palestinians who are driven by anti-Semitism and also persecutes Christians. There is a huge similarity between the Israelis and the Irish, Northern Ireland is occupied by the British and Israel has to share the West Bank and Gaza with the Palestinians.

Israel has its good points surely BUT NOT if you are a Palestinian. Yes, Palestine deserves better than either what amounts for Apartheid or the Spectre of Al Qaeda/ISIS style 'Islam'. Sadly, that is the ONLY choice they have and there are vested interests.

Whoever the hell controls America (Trump is merely the front) do NOT care about Israelis or Palestinians and either does this hidden tyrant's pal Netanyahu. They both serve greed and war suits their agendas.

Sure, Israel has its good points but let's expand those to ALL its people. Israel has had its good leaders and Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert are its two poorest and most recent ones. America's current leader is so POOR he or she cannot even reveal himself/herself.

Israel may be preferable to other Middle East states but each of them has been manipulated by Israel, America or others in proxy wars and has been kept down. Two wrongs don't make a right. But may make 2 rightwing fanatic regimes called Western imperialism and Islamism.

recedite

Tayschren wrote: »

You should base opinions on facts otherwise your opinions as you call them are lies made up in your head to barely conceal a total lack of knowledge of a subject, you just look stupid lad



Jewish woman, maybe and only European Jewish woman at that, all others are subservient to religious and xenophobic laws

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/30/forced-contraception-jewish-ethopian-women

Really, this is womans rights?

Your "facts" here are a bit dubious. Depo-Provera is a contraceptive that works for 12 weeks. It is not sterilisation, and nobody got the injection against their will.
If an asylum seeker in a transit camp has not got enough education to understand what contraception is, or "how babies are made", then IMO it is reasonable to ask them to take the injection while they are in the camp.

If they became pregnant in the camp, you would be saying their rights were violated or they weren't looked after properly.

Tayschren wrote: »

The habit of spitting on Christian priests is being thaught in schools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9529123/Vatican-official-says-Israel-fostering-intolerance-of-Christianity.html

As it says in the article....

Although the Israeli government has strongly condemned attacks on Christians, Fr Pizzaballa criticised the authorities for not taking the plight of the community seriously enough.

So what would this Vatican official like to do to these small boys? Whip them? I'm sure he'd enjoy that alright.

Kermit.de.frog

No. The stolen land (the settlements) should be returned to their rightful owners.

I care not what Israel does - I do care when they play the Nazi card and then do unto others what something reminiscent was done unto Jews.

Not acceptable. They should return the stolen land.

recedite

Larbre34 wrote: »

There is total historic disagreement about the preminence of one group over another on what is modern Israel between the 15th and 8th centuries BC.

What we do know is that the Torah / Old Testament narrative of the Kingdom of David, The Exodus and all that has been dismissed by the archaeology for the propaganda myth it was, and is.

As for recorded history, the longest settled peace in the region was under the Turkish Ottoman Empire, for over 400 years up to the beginning of the 20th century.

What you have done there is to cherry pick a few facts, while totally disregarding the two main considerations;

1. In ancient times, Jerusalem was always the capital of the Jewish/Hebrew people and the place where they built their main temple.
Even though it was captured and occupied by foreign forces many times, it was always recaptured eventually. They never gave up.

2. In modern times, it is still their capital and it is where the modern state of Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions. If they say it is their capital, and it functions as their capital, then it is their capital.
Whether Ireland or some Arab country "recognises" that does not alter these facts.

Here's a basic overview of the city;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem

ancapailldorcha

Tayschren wrote: »

Deleted post.

Do not post on this thread again.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

What you have done there is to cherry pick a few facts, while totally disregarding the two (................)[/url]

Posting the Israeli claim to the city and presenting that as the totality of the facts is a rather shallow argument.

Larbre34

Odhinn wrote: »

Posting the Israeli claim to the city and presenting that as the totality of the facts is a rather shallow argument.

And a cherry picking of the facts....

Snickers Man

recedite wrote: »

"The Two State Solution" is a mantra that is constantly trotted out by UN bureaucrats.

In fact the very existence of Israel as an independent state is thanks to a United Nations resolution. (Google UN General Assembly Resolution 181 for details)

I think Israel and its supporters should as a matter of course give thanks to the UN as their progenitor every time they mention them. A bit of Kow Towing and humility would do them a power of good, in my humble opinion.

Snickers Man

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yeah they are probably right about the amount of anti-Semitic crap that goes on here. Sure they just have to look at all the hate towards it on boards as a good example.

Do you even know what Anti Semitism is?

pitifulgod

Manic Moran wrote: »

So did the UN slap Guatemala for saying they would move their embassy to Jerusalem, or is that a US only thing?

The US is a substantial power that has influence when it makes a substantial decision. Guatemala, not so much. Exact same would happen if the UK, Germany or France decided to make such a decision on its own. The fact that the US is engaging in bufoonery on international stage is something that should very much so be called out.

Snickers Man

Doltanian wrote: »

Its called having an opinion, you can call it lies, propaganda or whatever you like but that reflects badly on you and not me.

"palestine is a terror state" is an opinion? Maybe. Based on fact and objective observable reality? I don't think so

recedite

Snickers Man wrote: »

In fact the very existence of Israel as an independent state is thanks to a United Nations resolution. (Google UN General Assembly Resolution 181 for details)

I think Israel and its supporters should as a matter of course give thanks to the UN as their progenitor every time they mention them. A bit of Kow Towing and humility would do them a power of good, in my humble opinion.

You are overestimating the importance of that one event. If Israelis had lost subsequent wars against the Arabs, Israel would not exist. If the area had not been their ancient homeland, and Jerusalem their ancient capital, then that UN resolution would never have been made.
Israel exists because the Israelis made it exist.

mulbot

recedite wrote: »

You are overestimating the importance of that one event. If Israelis had lost subsequent wars against the Arabs, Israel would not exist. If the area had not been their ancient homeland, and Jerusalem their ancient capital, then that UN resolution would never have been made.
Israel exists because the Israelis made it exist.

Did they not steal the land from the Jebusite peoples?

recedite

mulbot wrote: »

Did they not steal the land from the Jebusite peoples?

Maybe. The Jebusites may take their case to the UN, and if they get a UN resolution to set up their state, they can fight the Israelis. And if they win that, they will have their country back.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Maybe. The Jebusites may take their case to the UN, and if they get a UN resolution to set up their state, they can fight the Israelis. And if they win that, they will have their country back.

Were they a real people with a case they would find themselves subject to the US veto the same as the palestinians, therefore your scenario is impossible.

StringerBell

No Jerusalem should not be recognised as the captial of Israel, for very obvious reasons but since they are apparently not obvious to everyone -

After the Second World War, the State of Israel was established and gradually recognized ‘de jure’ — or lawfully — by most of the world’s countries. However, although the U.N. recognized the state of Israel in 1948, allowing it to become a member state, it placed the whole city of Jerusalem under international control (a ‘corpus separatum’) on Dec. 13 1949. Despite this, most governmental offices moved to the city.

But in 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel captured the eastern section of Jerusalem, which Jordan presided over, and declared Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration would be applied to the whole city. Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem has been considered illegal under international law and was condemned by the U.N., as well as other states.

In 1980, the Knesset declared that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel,” but this law was declared null by the U.N., which called for the removal of the remaining embassies in the city. A statement from Israel’s Foreign Ministry called the resolution “unjust” and “additional proof that the U.N. organization has been converted into an instrument in the hands of Israel’s enemies in their war against her existence and independence.”

Countries continued to locate their foreign embassies in Tel Aviv, Israel’s second largest city, situated on the Mediterranean coast, and the refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli territory has become a near-universal policy among Western nations.

The U.N. still maintains its position on Jerusalem. In October 2009, the U.N.’s Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine—living side-by-side in peace and security, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all—for peace in the Middle East to be achieved. “This is the road to the fulfilment of both the vision of [U.N.] Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative, and the yearning for peace of people from all over the world,” he said.

Pretty clear

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Were they a real people with a case they would find themselves subject to the US veto the same as the palestinians, therefore your scenario is impossible.

Maybe, but I'm not the one harping on about the importance of UN resolutions.
The British evacuated Palestine in 1948 and left jews and arabs to fight it out for territory. In much as the same way as they evacuated India and left the hindus and muslims to fight it out. Current borders in all these places are a result of who won that and subsequent fighting, not because of the UN.

Snickers Man

recedite wrote: »

You are overestimating the importance of that one event. If Israelis had lost subsequent wars against the Arabs, Israel would not exist. If the area had not been their ancient homeland, and Jerusalem their ancient capital, then that UN resolution would never have been made.
Israel exists because the Israelis made it exist.

The legal basis for Israel's existence is the Partition of Palestine as decided by the United Nation's General Assembly in 1948. That built on a previous statement called the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which the Israelis always claim was a legal promise by one great power of the time, Britain, that the Jewish people could have a national homeland in "Palestine".

Even given the dubious morality of Britain being able to make a gift of somebody else's territory to a third party, the Balfour Declaration never delimited the area of the Jewish state. In fact its rider that Israel/Jewish National Homeland could only exist provided that NOTHING be done to affect the rights of "pre-existing non Jewish communities" in the region implies that a Palestinian state has an equal right to exist alongside a Jewish one.

I am not so naive as to believe that all the affairs of the world are settled by United Nations votes but if, as you say, Israel's existence is based solely on its ability to win wars then the corollary is that somebody else has a similar right if they win the next war. You are merely condemning Israel and its neighbours to a permanent war of attrition with no hope of resolution at all.

Some friend.

recedite

Snickers Man wrote: »

if, as you say, Israel's existence is based solely on its ability to win wars

Yes, that is the fact of the matter.

Snickers Man wrote: »

...then the corollary is that somebody else has a similar right if they win the next war. You are merely condemning Israel and its neighbours to a permanent war of attrition with no hope of resolution at all.

If the last few decades had panned out differently, the arab states and Iran could have joined forces to defeat Israel instead of fighting each other. But I'm not saying that would be their "right". Facts on the ground are one thing, theoretical rights are another.

IMO Jordan should now reclaim its west bank territories (by agreement) but they would have to forget about east Jerusalem.
Gaza should be incorporated into Israel and its people offered the choice of Israeli, Jordanian or Egyptian passports.
UN could help in a practical way by offering to administer the holy sites within Israel.
Remove the reasons for permanent war, and it will end.

Ash.J.Williams

At this stage there is no chance of a two state anything. Israel is here to stay and they are not budging in fact they will take more land.

Ash.J.Williams

StringerBell wrote: »

No Jerusalem should not be recognised as the captial of Israel, for very obvious reasons but since they are apparently not obvious to everyone -




Pretty clear

I see the opposite. Fair enough it was decided Jerusalem was dual rule however if I captured a city during a war it's now my city.

recedite

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

if I captured a city during a war it's now my city.

Especially when Jordan, which half owned the city, was the aggressor. They attacked Israel and not the other way round.
If the arabs had won, there would be no more Israel, and no talk of dividing up Jerusalem into two parts.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

IMO Jordan should now reclaim its west bank territories (by agreement) but they would have to forget about east Jerusalem.
Gaza should be incorporated into Israel and its people offered the choice of Israeli, Jordanian or Egyptian passports.
UN could help in a practical way by offering to administer the holy sites within Israel.
Remove the reasons for permanent war, and it will end.

Jordan have ceded all rights to the territories to the Palestinians. Gaza is of no interest to Israel as its population proved too expensive to control. Regardless of that population would never be offered Israeli passports because every major Israeli party has as part of its platform that it will nothing to 'threaten the majority' ie annex land and the palestinian population on it.

The reasons for permanent war are primarily the illegal settlements/colonies and israeli occupation. It's a one sided affair for the most part.

Ash.J.Williams

recedite wrote: »

Especially when Jordan, which half owned the city, was the aggressor. They attacked Israel and not the other way round.
If the arabs had won, there would be no more Israel, and no talk of dividing up Jerusalem into two parts.

So essentially Israel don't have do anything. They are in charge and it looks naive to suggest they will offer a multi cultural multi passport society in the future. I would envision Israel getting even tougher in the future and expanding.

myshirt

No, absolutely not.

We wouldn't even recognise Israel at all if right was right. Practising target shooting on fleeing Palestinian children while the world watches on, it's truly shameful of us all. I wouldn't even contemplate giving Israel legitimacy, never mind recognising Jerusalem as the capital.

BuilderPlumber

recedite wrote: »

Yes, that is the fact of the matter.
If the last few decades had panned out differently, the arab states and Iran could have joined forces to defeat Israel instead of fighting each other

I'd say MOSSAD are the most powerful secret service in the Middle East and have had Arab and Iranian politicians working for them many at the VERY HIGHEST level to STOP just that. I'd say the whole Saudi royals, most of Egypt and Jordan, Khomeini/Khamenei/Rafsanjani/Ahmadinejad were all Mossad.

BuilderPlumber

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the ONLY Iranian leader to speak out against Israel by not quoting Saddam Hussein or Nasser. All the post-1979 ones were just repeating Nasser or Saddam stuff. Why would any Iranian quote their main foe or an irrelevant North African leader? Mossad. Ahmadinejad and the others were told to quote Saddam and did so. Ahmadinejad failed in his career because he was found out as an agent. Pahlavi spoke out intelligently about negative Israeli policy without name calling and he was gone in a few years. Not the same happened to other name callers of Israel like Ahmadinejad, Nasser or the Saudis.

BalcombeSt4

realitykeeper wrote: »

Jerusalem is the historic Capital of Israel and should Ireland therefore recognize this fact and it`s present day reality just like the USA. After all, Israel`s parliament, the Knesset and other main government offices are in the city. Lest we forget, God gave Israel to the Jews so should this not be acknowledged by respecting the right of the Israeli people to choose their own capital?

How would the Dubs like it if every country in the world were to recognize Cork`s rightful status as the real Capital of Ireland?

The Palestinian desire for a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem could perhaps be entertained by the State of Israel if the international community were to recognize Jerusalem as Israel`s capital.

My own view is that the world in general and Ireland in particular should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but the Palestinians really ought to refrain from the appalling behavior they displayed following President Trump`s decision on the matter. These things need to be talked out and there is no excuse for burning flags and rioting because of it.

No 1. I think we should respect international law and help enforce the UN resolutions which want Israel to withdrawl from the occupied parts of Palestine & end their brutal blockade of Gaza. Until then we shouldn't even recognize one iota of an Israeli state.

No.2 As a Dub I couldn't care were the Irish capital is.

No.3. The Palestinians should have been given a state 70 years ago not sometime in the future & resting on fixed pre-conditions. We should send arms to Palestinian guerrillas to protect themselves from Israeli fascist aggression.

Odhinn

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

So essentially Israel don't have do anything. They are in charge and it looks naive to suggest they will offer a multi cultural multi passport society in the future. I would envision Israel getting even tougher in the future and expanding.

As time passes, it will more and more resemble apartheid era south africa.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Jordan have ceded all rights to the territories to the Palestinians.

Very convenient. But the key to understanding any ultimate solution is to realise that Jordan is Palestine, or what is left of it after it was split up between jews and arabs. The king of Jordan has a nice little gig going there on the east bank of the Jordan river, having abandoned the west bank. Time to consolidate all the people again, even if it makes the east bank Palestinians/Jordanians poorer.

Odhinn wrote: »

Gaza is of no interest to Israel as its population proved too expensive to control. Regardless of that population would never be offered Israeli passports because every major Israeli party has as part of its platform that it will nothing to 'threaten the majority' ie annex land and the palestinian population on it.

Gaza strip is a tiny area of major security interest to Israel because of its location. Israelis cannot allow it to be part of a hostile power, because of the way it juts into Israel. On the other hand the population are hostile.
The long term solution is to incorporate the territory into Israel proper.
The population would be harder to incorporate, but it should be possible. Especially if the hard core element opted to sell up their land and take up Egyptian or Jordanian citizenship. The remainder would improve Israeli society by balancing against the ultra orthodox jews.
Ultra orthodox jews might not like it, but IMO most Israelis would choose the influx of arabs for the sake of peace.

Odhinn wrote: »

The reasons for permanent war are primarily the illegal settlements/colonies and israeli occupation. It's a one sided affair for the most part.

Israelis have no choice but to keep consolidating territory for security, until they have a reasonably compact geographic area, enclosed with defensible borders. For that they also need settlers.

Arabs living inside Israel proper tend to be very prosperous compared to those in the occupied territories. If you can't beat them, join them.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Very convenient. But the key to understanding any ultimate solution is to realise that Jordan is Palestine, or what is left of it after it was split up between jews and arabs. The king of Jordan has a nice little gig going there on the east bank of the Jordan river, having abandoned the west bank. Time to consolidate all the people again, even if it makes the east bank Palestinians/Jordanians poorer..

You seem to view "Arabs" as some amorphous mass. This is not the case, and Palestinian and Jordanians are two seperate peoples.

recedite wrote: »

Gaza strip is a tiny area of major security interest to Israel because of its location. Israelis cannot allow it to be part of a hostile power, because of the way it juts into Israel. On the other hand the population are hostile.
The long term solution is to incorporate the territory into Israel proper.
The population would be harder to incorporate, but it should be possible. Especially if the hard core element opted to sell up their land and take up Egyptian or Jordanian citizenship. The remainder would improve Israeli society by balancing against the ultra orthodox jews.
Ultra orthodox jews might not like it, but IMO most Israelis would choose the influx of arabs for the sake of peace.

You seem to have no thought or consideration to anything, save the whims of the Israeli state. You also seem to have no idea of the political splits in the israeli population. "ultra orthodox jews" are a minority and the hardliners are from both religous and secular camps.

recedite wrote: »

Israelis have no choice but to keep consolidating territory for security, until they have a reasonably compact geographic area, enclosed with defensible borders. For that they also need settlers..

Exchanging "israelis" in that paragraph for Germans, Russians etc gives it the proper perspective. Again, you take the line that Israel needs, does, and is justified. It's a non sequitur.

recedite wrote: »

Arabs living inside Israel proper tend to be very prosperous compared to those in the occupied territories. If you can't beat them, join them.

Palestinians. They are treated abysmally, though not as bad as their occupied fellows.
https://imeu.org/article/discrimination-against-palestinian-citizens-of-israel

oscarBravo

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

...if I captured a city during a war it's now my city.

What you've just described is explicitly a war crime.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

You seem to view "Arabs" as some amorphous mass. This is not the case, and Palestinian and Jordanians are two seperate peoples.

Most arab kingdoms are based on tribal identities, but there is also the pan arab nationalist identity as espoused by Baathists. This led Syria to voluntarily merge with Eqypt at one point, and the same mentality led Saddam Hussein to think it would be OK to merge Iraq with Kuwait, which played out badly for him. Borders are more fluid in that part of the world than we in the west are accustomed to thinking. Borders that exist now are based mostly on arbitrary lines in the sand drawn by British and French administrators.
ISIL considered their state in "the Levant" to include the Sunni tribal areas spanning parts of both Syria and Iraq. That is in fact a logical area for "a country".

As for "Palestine", the historical area included the habitable area each side of the Jordan river, bounded by the sea in the west and the arabian deserts in the east.
Currently Israel takes up the western part of this area, then there are the occupied west bank territories. The east bank territories have been incorporated into Jordan along with some of the arabian deserts.
If there is such thing as "the jordanian people" then it is a modern construct, and the borders have been as fluid as Israel's.

Odhinn wrote: »

Exchanging "israelis" in that paragraph for Germans, Russians etc gives it the proper perspective. Again, you take the line that Israel needs, does, and is justified. It's a non sequitur.

What is the alternative, should they just lie down and die? Several times they were invaded by armies from neighbouring countries trying to annihilate them.
Iran is constantly threatening to "wipe Israel off the map". In the face of such open hostility they have no choice; be tough or die.[/QUOTE]

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

What you've just described is explicitly a war crime.

Plenty of cities like that. Cologne/Koln regularly switched from being French to German and back again. I don't think either side ever tried to operate it as a divided city though.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

If there is such thing as "the jordanian people" then it is a modern construct, and the borders have been as fluid as Israel's.

Again, the dismissive amorphous mass concept. Israel as now constituted is a modern construct.

recedite wrote: »

What is the alternative, should they just lie down and die? Several times they were invaded by armies from neighbouring countries trying to annihilate them.
Iran is constantly threatening to........

By which lights we allow Germany to be dissolved by France, Belgium etc. Russia to be dissolved by the baltic states, poland and whoever and so on.

Certainly by that argument Lebanon should be allowed large swathes of Israel.

Nothing excuses colonialism. Absolutely nothing. It's not acceptable in this day and age, shouldn't have been in any other and "Israel is"/"Israel wants"/"Israel needs" is not an argument.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Again, the dismissive amorphous mass concept. Israel as now constituted is a modern construct.

Of course modern Israel is a modern construct.
I thought I had gone into enough detail about the complexities of "the arabs" to dissuade you from continuing with this "amorphous mass" nonsense, but obviously not.

Odhinn wrote: »

By which lights we allow Germany to be dissolved by France, Belgium etc.

You missed the point; its not what "we allow" at all. Its what a nation does to defend itself, and how successful that effort is that counts. IMO Israel will consolidate itself into a defensible territory, and will cease to expand at that point.
If the arabs had left them alone in 1948, they would still be within their original borders. It was a smaller land area then, with a long convoluted border, and no buffer zones.
And as it turned out, not at all practical for a nation under a constant external threat.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

You missed the point; its not what "we allow" at all. Its what a nation does to defend itself, and how successful that effort is that counts. IMO Israel will consolidate itself into a defensible territory, and will cease to expand at that point.

"Israel will..." again. You seem to grant the state some god given right to do as it will. Israels "success" is predicated on US support. Apartheid South Africa lasted a few decades longer than it could otherwise have for much the same reason.

recedite wrote: »

If the arabs had left them alone in 1948, they would still be within their original borders. It was a smaller land area then, with a long convoluted border, and no buffer zones.
And as it turned out, not at all practical for a nation under a constant external threat.

Yet the period of greatest settlement expansion has been in the last two to three decades.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Plenty of cities like that. Cologne/Koln regularly switched from being French to German and back again.

How many times has that happened since the Geneva Conventions were adopted?

buzzerxx

In international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that Israel unilaterally annexed to its district of Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers to alter the lifeways of civilians who are occupied, and forbid the settling of people from the occupiers’ country in the occupied territory. Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, its usurpation of Palestinian property there, and its settling of Israelis on Palestinian land are all gross violations of international law.

buzzerxx

Israeli claims that they are not occupying Palestinians because the Palestinians have no state are cruel and tautological. Israeli claims that they are building on empty territory are laughable. My back yard is empty, but that does not give Netanyahu the right to put up an apartment complex on it.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many times has that happened since the Geneva Conventions were adopted?

Since 1949? The number is the same as usual; it is equal to the number of wars between the French and Germans.

buzzerxx wrote: »

In international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that Israel unilaterally annexed to its district of Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers...

I have to admit to being a bit cynical regarding the rules of war. If rules always worked, there would be no wars. War is what happens when laws cannot provide the answer.
Once war starts, the only objective is to win. Rules don't matter any more.

That is the fundamental problem with the UN. It makes rules and resolutions, but it does not make war. Hence it is pointless.
Rules and laws are only useful if they can be enforced.

mulbot

recedite wrote: »

Since 1949? The number is the same as usual; it is equal to the number of wars between the French and Germans.

I have to admit to being a bit cynical regarding the rules of war. If rules always worked, there would be no wars. War is what happens when laws cannot provide the answer.
Once war starts, the only objective is to win. Rules don't matter any more.

That is the fundamental problem with the UN. It makes rules and resolutions, but it does not make war. Hence it is pointless.
Rules and laws are only useful if they can be enforced.

So are you saying that war crimes etc are acceptable?

whisky_galore

Nope.

No point in looking for trouble.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

Since 1949? The number is the same as usual; it is equal to the number of wars between the French and Germans.

I have to admit to being a bit cynical regarding the rules of war. If rules always worked, there would be no wars. War is what happens when laws cannot provide the answer.
Once war starts, the only objective is to win. Rules don't matter any more.

That is the fundamental problem with the UN. It makes rules and resolutions, but it does not make war. Hence it is pointless.
Rules and laws are only useful if they can be enforced.

So you would be ok with a country using chemical/biological weapons against the civilian population of another country it is at war with?

tayto lover

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you would be ok with a country using chemical/biological weapons against the civilian population of another country it is at war with?

Or blowing the shyte out of children's hospitals and schools.
When have children caused wars?

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Since 1949? The number is the same as usual; it is equal to the number of wars between the French and Germans.

..........

An evasion.

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you would be ok with a country using chemical/biological weapons against the civilian population of another country it is at war with?

I'm pretty sure all the major world powers have stockpiles of these, which they would use if they had to.

Bot lets take for example all the thousands of people that have died in the last year or two in cities like Raqqa and Mosul. Mostly by coalition air strikes and artillery fire, burned alive inside buildings or suffocating slowly under a pile of rubble. Do you think they were thankful in their final moments that they had been killed in compliance with the international rules of war?
Maybe they were thinking in those last moments (or hours or days if they were unlucky) "yeah this is pretty bad, but at least I haven't been killed by a poisonous gas".

Odhinn

Lest anyone think that Israeli rule of jerusalem is just exchanging one ruler for another with few consequences for the population, I might provide the following reading. Essentially whats going on there is slow drip ethnic cleansing
http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Lest anyone think that Israeli rule of jerusalem is just exchanging one ruler for another with few consequences for the population, I might provide the following reading. Essentially whats going on there is slow drip ethnic cleansing
http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem

The document seems to be a fair assessment. I notice it is produced by Israelis, and it does not mention "ethnic cleansing". Full ethnic cleansing did happen in 1948 when whole villages were cleared out, but this is a bit different. It involves restricting the expansion of arab settlements, while encouraging the expansion of jewish ones. As the demographics gradually change, a more stable situation is created. That is social engineering.
Obviously the ideal solution would be a secular state now with equal rights for all citizens, but unfortunately the muslims are a lot less secular than the jews.

Israel is likely to become a secular state eventually IMO, but first it has to secure its final borders and its capital. Israel cannot tolerate having a fifth column acting from within, when it already has so many external threats.