Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should Ireland recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel?

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,580 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    demfad wrote: »
    You said Nazi Germany would not use gas even if it had too. This is demonstrably wrong. They did have gas, they did use it.
    The Yanks also used Agent Orange against the Vietnamese and Atom Bombs against the Japanese.

    "Agent Orange was a powerful herbicide used by U.S. military forces during the Vietnam War to eliminate forest cover and crops for North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. The U.S. program, codenamed Operation Ranch Hand, sprayed more than 20 million gallons of various herbicides over Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from 1961 to 1971. Agent Orange, which contained the deadly chemical dioxin, was the most commonly used herbicide. It was later proven to cause serious health issues—including cancer, birth defects, rashes and severe psychological and neurological problems—among the Vietnamese people as well as among returning U.S. servicemen and their families".


  • Options
    #123
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Zyklon B wasn't produced as a weapon for use against people. It was an industrial agent designed to combat lice and the spread of disease and crystalised so that it would safe for humans to operate.

    It would actually be useless as a battlefield weapon (like mustard gas) or for use against civilian areas.

    Just because the Germans "weaponised" it for use against what they considered "human lice" in very confined and controlled conditions, it doesn't mean it was purpose made for that, nor that it could have been deployed in the same manner as the stocks of gas they had that was designed for homicidal purposes, like Sarin and Tabun, that they chose not to use even at the lowest point of the war.

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


  • Options
    #124
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    recedite wrote: »
    What do you know about it?
    Both Churchill and Hitler had been in combat situations. Hitler personally inhaled gas on the battlefield.
    But you're the expert.

    The reasons I cited were the reasons for establishing....


  • Options
    #125
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    tayto lover wrote: »
    The Yanks also used Agent Orange against the Vietnamese and Atom Bombs against the Japanese.

    "Agent Orange was a powerful herbicide used by U.S. military forces during the Vietnam War to eliminate forest cover and crops for North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. The U.S. program, codenamed Operation Ranch Hand, sprayed more than 20 million gallons of various herbicides over Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from 1961 to 1971. Agent Orange, which contained the deadly chemical dioxin, was the most commonly used herbicide. It was later proven to cause serious health issues—including cancer, birth defects, rashes and severe psychological and neurological problems—among the Vietnamese people as well as among returning U.S. servicemen and their families".

    True. I accept the scale of these atrocities: the dropping of atomic bombs was a particularly horrendous crime. (Neither comparable to targeted genocide).

    Trump has said in the past what was the point of having nukes if they were not used? This tells me that the Jerusalem development has the potential to see nukes used in a true war to end all wars.


  • Options
    #126
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    demfad wrote: »
    True. I accept the scale of these atrocities: the dropping of atomic bombs was a particularly horrendous crime. (Neither comparable to targeted genocide).

    Trump has said in the past what was the point of having nukes if they were not used? This tells me that the Jerusalem development has the potential to see nukes used in a true war to end all wars.

    At least the war to end all wars won't be a matter of debate or deciding if it's the 'true' war to end all wars. The proof will be in the lack of pudding or anyone to eat it. I can see the cachet and political strong-arming in, 'A [insert region] conflict causing nuclear war would be bad, but an Israeli one would be the 'true' war to end all wars'. If you ever find yourself measuring which nuclear war would be worse, for political point scoring purposes, you sir, just might be in Trump country. The man is a dangerous greedy mess. Any interest in the region is only profit based. His administration are opportunistic racists. It must be tough to justify support for the Israeli state to their grass roots. A case of the enemy with the deepest pockets of my enemy is my friend, as with Russia.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    demfad wrote: »
    Trump has said in the past what was the point of having nukes if they were not used? This tells me that the Jerusalem development has the potential to see nukes used in a true war to end all wars.
    Trump has simply recognised the reality of the situation in Israel.
    He has not declared nuclear war.
    He has not given Jerusalem to the Israelis. They already had it.


  • Options
    #128
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    recedite wrote: »
    Trump has simply recognised the reality of the situation in Israel.
    He has not declared nuclear war.
    He has not given Jerusalem to the Israelis. They already had it.

    A first world power supporting Israeli barbarism will far from settle the region.


  • Options
    #129
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    A first world power supporting Israeli barbarism will far from settle the region.
    Given the choice of living in a jewish state or an islamic state, I'd choose the former. There is a strong correlation to be seen around the world between the level of barbarism shown at state level and the degree to which that state is controlled directly according to sharia laws. Islamic State itself was the most barbarous of all.

    But the palestinian question is not about good versus evil. Its about recognising reality.The blinkered la la land of false hopes and expectations is the illusion that many prefer to hang onto, but that only gets in the way of peace, and the prospect of any real solution. That's why the problem has dragged on for so long.

    Trump has done the world a favour by being the first to take the blinkers off. Many others will eventually follow suit.
    Ireland will do it whenever we get the nod from Germany.


  • Options
    #130
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,580 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Thread needs a poll.


  • Options
    #131
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    At least the war to end all wars won't be a matter of debate or deciding if it's the 'true' war to end all wars. The proof will be in the lack of pudding or anyone to eat it. I can see the cachet and political strong-arming in, 'A [insert region] conflict causing nuclear war would be bad, but an Israeli one would be the 'true' war to end all wars'. If you ever find yourself measuring which nuclear war would be worse, for political point scoring purposes, you sir, just might be in Trump country. The man is a dangerous greedy mess. Any interest in the region is only profit based. His administration are opportunistic racists. It must be tough to justify support for the Israeli state to their grass roots. A case of the enemy with the deepest pockets of my enemy is my friend, as with Russia.

    Just to clarify. The war to bring about the end of days is a biblical prophesy.
    Don't know where/how etc. I just know that a barrier to this war is cleared (in the minds of evangelicals anyway) by the Jerusalem capital thing.

    Without doubt Trump and his son in law fellow kleptocrat Kushner are profiting from this and the shenanigans with Saudi. There are many dangers and worries now. Trump needs to go, but we don't need a replacement who pines for a civilisational ending war.
    Trump courted the Council for National Policy (via Bannon) and they hold the evangelical vote (24% US adults). Bannon, Pence, DeVos, KA Conway are amongst the more well known members but they are deep in Trumps administration.
    IMO the Jerusalem stuff was a promise to them. THe Trump conspiracy is one that cannot be approached from a damage limiting perspective when the cleanup happens. The role of religeous Statists must be exposed and they must be disgraced, along with fellow racists/sheisters in GOP and administration.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    demfad wrote: »
    Just to clarify....
    So Kuschner and the jews are the racists here?


  • Options
    #133
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    recedite wrote: »
    So Kuschner and the jews are the racists here?

    I was referring to the Trump administration, the CNP, and GOP enablers.


  • Options
    #134
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    Anyway, getting back on topic.... The solution will involve Jordanian Palestine regaining control of the west bank, defined by areas east of an Israeli wall. If Jordan can guarantee peace and security there, then Israel will not need to keep it as a buffer zone.
    Meanwhile Israel will consolidate its position on its side of the wall, and Jerusalem will prosper as a free and unified city.

    The sooner they get going on these negotiations, the better. The UN could help by accepting the reality and encouraging these negotiations. By giving false hope to the arabs that they will some day have half of Jerusalem as the capital of a third state covering numerous and disparate small patches of land, they are just making things worse.

    Is it that hard to type palestinian?


  • Options
    #135
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    recedite wrote: »
    Given the choice of living in a jewish state or an islamic state, I'd choose the former. There is a strong correlation to be seen around the world between the level of barbarism shown at state level and the degree to which that state is controlled directly according to sharia laws. Islamic State itself was the most barbarous of all.

    Nazi Germany? British/other Empires?
    But the palestinian question is not about good versus evil. Its about recognising reality.The blinkered la la land of false hopes and expectations is the illusion that many prefer to hang onto, but that only gets in the way of peace, and the prospect of any real solution. That's why the problem has dragged on for so long.

    Absolutism has dragged the situation out polarising both sides.
    Any peace has been attained through compromise.
    Trump has done the world a favour by being the first to take the blinkers off. Many others will eventually follow suit.
    Ireland will do it whenever we get the nod from Germany.

    Trump is only doing this because he promised it to his evangelical base and he can enrich himself and his cohort by doing so. His Kleptocratic blinkers are always on.


  • Options
    #136
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    Given the choice of living in a jewish state or an islamic state, I'd choose the former. There is a strong correlation to be seen around the world between the level of barbarism shown at state level and the degree to which that state is controlled directly according to sharia laws. Islamic State itself was the most barbarous of all..

    Nothing to do with the current question.
    recedite wrote: »
    But the palestinian question is not about good versus evil. Its about recognising reality.The blinkered la la land of false hopes and expectations is the illusion that many prefer to hang onto, but that only gets in the way of peace, and the prospect of any real solution. That's why the problem has dragged on for so long.
    .

    In many ways it most certainly is. The notion that a Palestinian roll over would end in peace is rather mad, tbh.


  • Options
    #137
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    Trump has simply recognised the reality of the situation in Israel.
    [...]
    He has not given Jerusalem to the Israelis. They already had it.

    Which, as I've said, is a war crime. This led to a tangent wherein you have busily defended other war crimes in order to justify defending this war crime.

    We get it: you don't care that a war crime has been committed. I'm guessing that if the victims of the war crime weren't Muslims you might care more, but if the best defence of a war crime you can muster is that you personally don't care about war crimes, it's fairly clear that you've lost the argument.


  • Options
    #138
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    recedite wrote: »
    Given the choice of living in a jewish state or an islamic state, I'd choose the former. There is a strong correlation to be seen around the world between the level of barbarism shown at state level and the degree to which that state is controlled directly according to sharia laws. Islamic State itself was the most barbarous of all.

    But the palestinian question is not about good versus evil. Its about recognising reality.The blinkered la la land of false hopes and expectations is the illusion that many prefer to hang onto, but that only gets in the way of peace, and the prospect of any real solution. That's why the problem has dragged on for so long.

    Trump has done the world a favour by being the first to take the blinkers off. Many others will eventually follow suit.
    Ireland will do it whenever we get the nod from Germany.

    As the saying goes, 'follow the money'.
    Striving for peace and an end to the tyranny perpetrated by the Israeli state on the people of the region is about decency. We should strive for decency, even if there's no money in it for us. Thinking Trump is merely doing the logical thing is beyond naive.
    We might as well send North Korea a bowl of Shamrock next Paddy's day, in light of the reality being what it is. Show the rest of the world they are ignoring the facts and should invite bowl cut around for canapes.


  • Options
    #139
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Is it that hard to type palestinian?
    Historically there were also palestinian jews, christians druze...
    I try not to pander to the narrative that arabs are the only true natives of palestine.


  • Options
    #140
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    Historically there were also palestinian jews, christians druze...
    I try not to pander to the narrative that arabs are the only true natives of palestine.

    .....by typing arabs instead of palestinians on a regular basis? That makes no sense whatsoever.


  • Options
    #141
    Boardnashea
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Boardnashea


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Lest we forget, God gave Israel to the Jews

    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?

    But did the tooth-fairy not say that Westport was the capital of Ireland? Of course that was before the Easter bunny uprising!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Which, as I've said, is a war crime. This led to a tangent wherein you have busily defended other war crimes in order to justify defending this war crime.

    We get it: you don't care that a war crime has been committed. I'm guessing that if the victims of the war crime weren't Muslims you might care more, but if the best defence of a war crime you can muster is that you personally don't care about war crimes, it's fairly clear that you've lost the argument.
    I do have sympathy for the losers in war, but the reality is they just have to suck it up. I don't understand your obsession with the legality of war. Law is law. War is war. Two separate things.
    You're saying capturing a city has been a war crime since 1949. We know Jerusalem was the ancient capital of the jews. When the Ottoman Turks took control of it, was that a war crime? Muslims undoubtably prospered more than jews and christians under Turkish rule because of the jizya tax.
    Later when the British captured it, arabs still prospered because they had done a deal with the British to stab the Turks in the back.

    What about all the houses and property in Europe formerly owned by jews before WW2, do their relatives get that back? No, whats gone is gone. Accept the reality and move on.


  • Options
    #143
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    I do have sympathy for the losers in war, but the reality is they just have to suck it up. I don't understand your obsession with the legality of war. Law is law. War is war. Two separate things.

    You're incorrect.
    recedite wrote: »
    You're saying capturing a city has been a war crime since 1949. We know Jerusalem was the ancient capital of the jews. When the Ottoman Turks took control of it, was that a war crime? Muslims undoubtably prospered more than jews and christians under Turkish rule because of the jizya tax.
    Later when the British captured it, arabs still prospered because they had done a deal with the British to stab the Turks in the back.

    I'm confused at this stage, in that I'm unsure whether you completely ignore the rights of Palestinians due to a hatred of Arabs, or a hatred of muslims.
    recedite wrote: »
    What about all the houses and property in Europe formerly owned by jews before WW2, do their relatives get that back? No, whats gone is gone. Accept the reality and move on.

    A crime happened in the past with no recompense, thus all are condemned to suffer similar for all time - in spite of laws to the contrary - because.


  • Options
    #144
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Odhinn wrote: »
    I'm confused at this stage, in that I'm unsure whether you completely ignore the rights of Palestinians due to a hatred of Arabs, or a hatred of muslims.
    Now you're starting to use different descriptive terms yourself, which is progress :)


  • Options
    #145
    buzzerxx
    Registered Users Posts: 908 ✭✭✭buzzerxx


    recedite wrote: »
    I do have sympathy for the losers in war, but the reality is they just have to suck it up.


    Once again, What's happening in Palestine is not war, Its Genocide. The Palestinians are a peaceful people and are unarmed. Children bombed while playing football on the beach is a criminal act, one of many countless ones and a lot of them from recent years are caught on video, like taking sniper shots at kids playing and high fiving each other for hitting them.


  • Options
    #146
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    More Trumpian diplomacy on the issue.

    "Palestinian officials have dismissed as "blackmail" Donald Trump's threat to cut US aid over what he called their unwillingness to negotiate with Israel.

    A spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas insisted Jerusalem was "not for sale" - a reference to Mr Trump's recognition of the city as the capital of Israel.

    Mr Abbas was not against negotiations, he said, but they had to be based on "international laws and resolutions".
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42553507

    There's a tweet in there thats bizarre in the extreme.


  • Options
    #147
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Odhinn wrote: »
    More Trumpian diplomacy on the issue.

    "Palestinian officials have dismissed as "blackmail" Donald Trump's threat to cut US aid over what he called their unwillingness to negotiate with Israel.

    A spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas insisted Jerusalem was "not for sale" - a reference to Mr Trump's recognition of the city as the capital of Israel.

    Mr Abbas was not against negotiations, he said, but they had to be based on "international laws and resolutions".
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42553507

    There's a tweet in there thats bizarre in the extreme.

    The man is a brat. Still hurting from losing the vote.


  • Options
    #148
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    The man is a brat. Still hurting from losing the vote.

    It seems he thinks the Palestinians should be grateful that he's taken Jerusalem "off the table", which is bizarre, and contradicts his statement that the decision to recognise it as the israeli capital wouldn't prejudice the final negotiation (somehow).


  • Options
    #149
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,495 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    No, Ireland should keep its head down and follow the crowd on this issue. Trump and the US might be able to afford to offend others on this issue (though I accept where they put their embassy is their decision to make) but Ireland cannot. Its absolutely not in Ireland's interests to break ranks. There is no benefit and a lot of downsides. Stay with the herd on this one I think.


  • Options
    #150
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Sand wrote: »
    No, Ireland should keep its head down and follow the crowd on this issue. Trump and the US might be able to afford to offend others on this issue (though I accept where they put their embassy is their decision to make) but Ireland cannot. Its absolutely not in Ireland's interests to break ranks. There is no benefit and a lot of downsides. Stay with the herd on this one I think.

    Decency should over ride political protectionism. I would like to believe Ireland did it out of common decency.
    The idea that Trump was acting in any altruistic way is bull. To follow him would be to promote unfairness, support one side over another and cower to bullying. I would suggest, for what ever reason, Ireland can hold it's head high.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    BalcombeSt4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭BalcombeSt4


    recedite wrote: »
    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.

    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]

    Well that's a blatant lie.
    The 1948 war was started by Zionist terror groups like the ones who bombed the King David Hotel, flogged British officers, hanged 2 British servicemen by the neck with sting, then booby-trapped their lifeless bodies, the Haifa train massacre which killed 30 British soldiers, & carried out the Deir Yassin massacre, and other Zionist terror groups who forced 700,000 Palestinians to flee their homeland in terror (it's 70 years ago this year since the Nakba).
    These are the sort of extreme right-wing nutjobs the Palestinians have been dealing with since the day Israel came into being.

    The so called "retribution" operations during the 50's & early 60's were started by Israel, conducting raids into the West Bank before they controlled it proper, one of the most famous incidents was the Qibya massacre lead by Ariel "The Butcher" Sharon in which 69 villagers were killed during the operation. In addition to that, 45 houses, a school, and a mosque were destroyed, this was starting to lay the ground work for the illegal settelments. The last of these operations was the Samu incident in which the IDF destroyed 120 houses in West Bank controlled Jordan.

    In 1956 Israel invaded Egypt, then they invaded them again during the so called Six Day War, which lasted about six minutes, the IDF knocked out the Egyptian airforce with one strike & that was pretty much the war over, the only reason it lasted six days was because Israel wanted to expand their territory into the Gaza strip, the Sinai, the Golan Heights & West Bank. A further 300,000 Palestinians fled their homeland & 100,000 Syrins fled the Golan.

    The Yom Kippur war was a poor attempt by Egypt & Syria to ty and win back the captured Palestinian territories along with the Golan & Sinai.

    In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon on the pretext of trying to shift the PLO from Lebanon but they wanted to Lebanon to be an Israeli influenced country not a Syrian influenced one which was what it was. And even it was to shift the PLO, can you imagine the horror & outrage if in 1982 the British Army invaded the the 26 county Irish state to try & remove the IRA & INLA?
    And of course the IDF set up the situation so the Lebanon Phalange Fascists could carry out the massacre of 3,500 innocent old men, women, children and babies in the Palestinian Sabra & Shatilia refugee camps. And Ireland's own Sean MacBride the assistant to the UN Secretary General and President of United Nations General Assembly at the time, concluded that Israel as the camp's occupying power, bore responsibility for the violence. The commission also concluded that the massacre was a form of genocide.

    Then the first Intifada in 1987 started as a peacful uprisng against Israeli occupation of the West bank & Gaza, a little like the NICRA here in the late 60's, but of course the IDF ended up killing 2,000 Palestinians & injuring thousands more.

    And then of course the South Lebanon conflict from 1985 - 2000 in which Hezbollah finally succeded in inflicting Israel's first defeat on them & pushing them out of South Lebanon, a really stunning victory which sadly came at a very high price for the Lebonese as the IDF just started destroying everything when they realized they were going to loose the war.

    And since then Israel has carried the 2008-09, 2012 & 2014 massacres on Gaza & it looks like another might be around the corner.

    So Israel has never been invaded. But Israel has invaded just about everyone who shares a border with them & then some.

    And like David Norris said America has a shameful role to play in this tragedy, as the Israeli's could not get away with their war crimes if it wasn't for America. And I disagree with Norris on a lot of things, he's a Liberal, I'm a left-wing Socialist, but he's dead right on this point.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement