Should Ireland recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel?

Madagascan

armaghlad wrote: »

F**k Israel. I’m reluctant to recognise them as human beings, nevermind Jerusalem as their capital.

Hitler found!
Seriously that is the type of talk the Nazis used to justify killing.
Shame on you.

recedite

Well that's a blatant lie.
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.

You have forgotten the bit where Egypt had started the war by trying to blockade Israeli access to the Red Sea, and then massing Egyptian troops at the Israeli border in Sinai.
Also the bit where both Jordan and Syria, seeing that the Egyptians were losing, decided to join in and attack the Israelis from behind. And when they also lost, the Golan Heights of Syria and the west bank of Jordan came to be controlled by Israel as a security buffer zone.

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

There is no doubt in my mind that the intention of all these wars was to wipe out the jewish state of Israel and create an islamic state called Palestine, dominated by the arabs, in its place. Whether they were "poor attempts" or not is relevant to the outcome, but not to the intention. I would suggest that they were not all that incompetent; its just that the Israelis were smarter and better organised.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

You have forgo(................)I would suggest that they were not all that incompetent; its just that the Israelis were smarter and better organised.

All of which is historical, and can in no way justify the colonisation of today.

BalcombeSt4

recedite wrote: »

You have forgotten the bit where Egypt had started the war by trying to blockade Israeli access to the Red Sea, and then massing Egyptian troops at the Israeli border in Sinai.
Also the bit where both Jordan and Syria, seeing that the Egyptians were losing, decided to join in and attack the Israelis from behind. And when they also lost, the Golan Heights of Syria and the west bank of Jordan came to be controlled by Israel as a security buffer zone.



.

An amazing distortion of history there. The Irish government sent the Irish Army to the Irish border in 1969 did that start a war/

Israel wanted the Six Day war, the US had multiple intelligence agencies monitoring the situation between Israel and its Arab neighbors, probably close to a half dozen intelligence agencies and the US administration under LBJ was being kept updaed of everything that was happening there. The big question for Israel in 1967 was not whether they were going to win over the Arabs. They knew that was a done deal because they already had the dress rehearsal in 1956 when they conquered the Sinai in a few days, and this is just a decade later and they know they are going to easily prevail. Their big concern was, how would the US react? In 1957, that decade before, the US acted rather harshly from their POV. Dwight D. Eisenhower gave Israel an ultimatum: Get out or else. Meaning, get out of the Sinai or you’re going to face a strong reaction from the US Government. The Israelis were afraid there was going to be a repeat of ’57 in ’67.
So, the Israelis are sending over lots of people to feel out the US Administration, asking questions from people who had insight and who were connected to Johnson. Among the people they sent over was Major General Meir Amit, who was the head of Mossad. The US had reached two conclusions about 1967. Conclusion number one, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, he was not going to attack. There was no evidence he was going to attack. Conclusion number two, if, against all odds, he did attack, as Johnson said at the time, “You will whip hell out of them if he attacks. That’s what all our intelligence agencies say.” And the Israeli intelligence said pretty much the same as the US which means the Israelis also knew Nasser wasn’t going to attack and they also knew if he did attack, it was going to be, as Johnson said, “You’ll whip hell out of them.” When Israel launched its Blitzkrieg strike and flattened the Egyptian Air Force, which was still on the ground, then the ground troops had no air support. It was over. The only reason it lasted six days is because they wanted to grab territory. It was a land grab.

bilbot79

This is the whole f****in problem

God did not give Israel to the Jews. There is no such thing as god.

ancapailldorcha

bilbot79 wrote: »

There is no such thing as god.

Billions of people would disagree with you here and they tend to act on their beliefs.

tayto lover

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Billions of people would disagree with you here and they tend to act on their beliefs.

Maybe but i'd be looking to see the bill of sale or the contract too.
Some claim to be making in fairness. "God gave it to us".???

ancapailldorcha

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe but i'd be looking to see the bill of sale or the contract too.
Some claim to be making in fairness. "God gave it to us".???

I'm not defending the claim but Jerusalem is controversial because of these beliefs. It is sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians. Here's a good article from the BBC on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26934435

tayto lover

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not defending the claim but Jerusalem is controversial because of these beliefs. It is sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians. Here's a good article from the BBC on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26934435

Thanks. I'll look at that with interest.
A bit I found that I felt was humerous -

Israel is a Biblical given name. The patriarch Jacob was given the name Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Standard Yisraʾel Tiberian Yiśrāʾēl; "Triumphant with God", "who prevails with God") after he wrestled with an "angel" (Genesis 32:28 and 35:10).

recedite

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe but i'd be looking to see the bill of sale or the contract too.

Check with the builders, they may have some original documentation.

tayto lover

recedite wrote: »

Check with the builders, they may have some original documentation.

God might e-mail a copy to me.
Anyway we'll move on as it's a very serious topic.

James Brown

recedite wrote: »

...


There is no doubt in my mind that the intention of all these wars was to wipe out the jewish state of Israel and create an islamic state called Palestine, dominated by the arabs, in its place. Whether they were "poor attempts" or not is relevant to the outcome, but not to the intention. I would suggest that they were not all that incompetent; its just that the Israelis were smarter and better organised.

I guarantee you that if the Israeli's were predominately Lutheran Presbyterian we would have a very similar situation.
It's good propaganda to make it about Jewish persecution by nefarious Muslim powers, but it's about genocide and land stealing by the Israeli state.

Snickers Man

recedite wrote: »

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

To quote the great Otto von Bismark: "A generation that has taken a beating is followed by a generation that gives one"

To which the great Snickers Man would add the rider: "...or tries to"

And if your only argument, or at least your main one is: "well they won the fight. There's no need to make any concessions for peace" I would ask, why should anyone have ANY sympathy for them?

Without a fair resolution you are condemning Israelis to generations of war, mostly low intensity anti-insurgency stuff, with people within their own jurisdiction. And the occasional helping hand from outside.

Like I said before: some friend.

Snickers Man

Odhinn wrote: »

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

Now, now! That's the sort of unfair allusion that usually gets you branded as an "AntiSemite" by Israeli supporters. Typically, the sort who don't know the meaning of the word...But wait a minute.....

recedite wrote: »

The document (http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem) 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.

Looks like recedite is agreeing with you here. What, after all, are the hallmarks of "apartheid"?

1) Separation of residential areas between different groups. What the South Africans called the Group Areas Act.

Check!

Seems like the Israelis do something very similar. Look at the document. "No you can't come to live here. But Shlomo can. And if you have lived here for many years, no you can't extend your house. Can't have too more of your sort living in our nice areas."

Nothing so nasty as "ethnic cleansing" you understand. We like, or at least recedite likes, to call it "Social Engineering" :rolleyes:

2) Laws to prevent intermarriage between different communities.
Surely Israel would not be so crass as to have South African "sex laws" preventing intermarriage or "coitus" between the differing communities? Only nasty people do that sort of thing. Like Hitler with his "Law for the protection of German Blood and Honour" (one of the two laws collectively known as Nuremberg Laws). Or those awful rednecks in the Deep South US until the heroic Ruth Negga got them overturned.

Well kinda. Although they're a bit more subtle. Israeli Jews cannot get married to Israeli (or Palestinian or anybody for that matter) non Jews in Israel. UNLESS ONE OF THE PARTIES CONVERTS.

There is no civil marriage in Israel. You can only get married in a religious institution and as religious institutions have strict rules about membership this effectively means that intermarriage is impossible.

Ah but, you may say, if you know the situation. Foreign "intercommunity" marriages ARE recognised. So it IS possible.

Well, yes. A christian man can marry his beautiful Israeli jewish girlfriend if they take the boat to Cyprus for the ceremony. Does that remind you of anything familiar?

Call it "An Israeli solution to an Israeli problem"

3) Laws to deny representation in parliament to certain ethnic groups
To be fair, as I always scrupulously try to be, Israel does not have such blatant discriminatory laws as some of the more repugnant regimes described above had. But in practice, it is all very well allowing Palestinians into parliament if you can guarantee they will always be a tiny minority Which some of the other measures described here are intended to guarantee.

And what about those in the occupied territories? If you are a resident of a Jewish settlement in, say, Hebron are you allowed to vote in Knesset elections and take your seat there? What if you're an Arab?

I don't know the answer to that last one. Perhaps recedite will tell us.

Apartheid state? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

recedite

Snickers Man wrote: »

To quote the great Otto von Bismark: "A generation that has taken a beating is followed by a generation that gives one"

A very apt quote for the Israelis post WW2.

I don't dispute your list of woes above. In fact you were being over generous regarding political representation for the arabs; yes they can be elected to the parliament, but no they can't run for a political party that opposes the jewish state. Which makes it kinda pointless for them.

But..... you are judging Israel as if a western style democracy was the alternative. How do you think jews and christians would have fared in an islamic state if the arabs had won?

Lets see, how does a christian man currently marry an arab girl in Gaza? Well first you would have a problem finding any non-muslim except as part of the NGO/expat community because their society is so intolerant, but in the unlikely event that there was a palestinian christian there, he would have to take his bride on the same boat to Cyprus. The happy couple would be well advised not to return though, just in case some fundamentalist relative was a fan of "honour killings".

In the long term a secular republic is the ideal option, but as a stepping stone to that, a westernised jewish state is better than an arab islamic state.

James Brown

recedite wrote: »

A very apt quote for the Israelis post WW2.

I don't dispute your list of woes above. In fact you were being over generous regarding political representation for the arabs; yes they can be elected to the parliament, but no they can't run for a political party that opposes the jewish state. Which makes it kinda pointless for them.

But..... you are judging Israel as if a western style democracy was the alternative. How do you think jews and christians would have fared in an islamic state if the arabs had won?

Lets see, how does a christian man currently marry an arab girl in Gaza? Well first you would have a problem finding any non-muslim except as part of the NGO/expat community because their society is so intolerant, but in the unlikely event that there was a palestinian christian there, he would have to take his bride on the same boat to Cyprus. The happy couple would be well advised not to return though, just in case some fundamentalist relative was a fan of "honour killings".

In the long term a secular republic is the ideal option, but as a stepping stone to that, a westernised jewish state is better than an arab islamic state.

You need to look at more than religion. You keep comparing religious freedoms, or lack there of. What if you wanted to buy condoms in 80's Ireland, what if you wanted an abortion today? etc. we could go on.

Let's look at this:

How do you think jews and christians would have fared in an islamic state if the arabs had won?

How would the people who invaded the region, set up a faux democracy, stole and continue to steal the lands of others, have fared if the indigenous peoples had won? Very poorly I'd imagine.
There were jews and christians already in the region.

Your issues with Islam do nothing to justify Israeli actions.

Odhinn

Snickers Man wrote: »

Now, now! That's the sort of unfair allusion that usually gets you branded as an "AntiSemite" by Israeli supporters. Typically, the sort who don't know the meaning of the word...But wait a minute.....



Looks like recedite is agreeing with you here. What, after all, are the hallmarks of "apartheid"?

1) Separation of residential areas between different groups. What the South Africans called the Group Areas Act.

Check!

Seems like the Israelis do something very similar. Look at the document. "No you can't come to live here. But Shlomo can. And if you have lived here for many years, no you can't extend your house. Can't have too more of your sort living in our nice areas."

Nothing so nasty as "ethnic cleansing" you understand. We like, or at least recedite likes, to call it "Social Engineering" :rolleyes:

2) Laws to prevent intermarriage between different communities.
Surely Israel would not be so crass as to have South African "sex laws" preventing intermarriage or "coitus" between the differing communities? Only nasty people do that sort of thing. Like Hitler with his "Law for the protection of German Blood and Honour" (one of the two laws collectively known as Nuremberg Laws). Or those awful rednecks in the Deep South US until the heroic Ruth Negga got them overturned.

Well kinda. Although they're a bit more subtle. Israeli Jews cannot get married to Israeli (or Palestinian or anybody for that matter) non Jews in Israel. UNLESS ONE OF THE PARTIES CONVERTS.

There is no civil marriage in Israel. You can only get married in a religious institution and as religious institutions have strict rules about membership this effectively means that intermarriage is impossible.

Ah but, you may say, if you know the situation. Foreign "intercommunity" marriages ARE recognised. So it IS possible.

Well, yes. A christian man can marry his beautiful Israeli jewish girlfriend if they take the boat to Cyprus for the ceremony. Does that remind you of anything familiar?

Call it "An Israeli solution to an Israeli problem"

3) Laws to deny representation in parliament to certain ethnic groups
To be fair, as I always scrupulously try to be, Israel does not have such blatant discriminatory laws as some of the more repugnant regimes described above had. But in practice, it is all very well allowing Palestinians into parliament if you can guarantee they will always be a tiny minority Which some of the other measures described here are intended to guarantee.

And what about those in the occupied territories? If you are a resident of a Jewish settlement in, say, Hebron are you allowed to vote in Knesset elections and take your seat there? What if you're an Arab?

I don't know the answer to that last one. Perhaps recedite will tell us.

Apartheid state? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

And to that we might add the two-tier legal system in the occupied territories, where Palestinians are tried under Israeli martial law, and the Israeli settlers receive a full trial under Israeli civillian law. Plus settler only areas, roads, land seizures, allocation of resources etc.

Then theres settler impunity when attacking Palestinians, as well as state violence
https://www.yesh-din.org/en/category/accountability/

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

But..... you are judging Israel as if a western style democracy was the alternative. How do you think jews and christians would have fared in an islamic state if the arabs had won?

So its the muslims.

News to you - hypothetical outcomes cannot justify colonialism.

recedite wrote: »

Lets see, how does (............) relative was a fan of "honour killings".

Likewise.

recedite wrote: »

In the long term a secular republic is the ideal option, but as a stepping stone to that, a westernised jewish state is better than an arab islamic state.

And again, this is a nonsense that ignores the brutality and essentially colonial nature of israeli state expansionism. There is little good there. One sided, blinkered and hypocritical too.

recedite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There were jews and christians already in the region.

Yes, living together under British rule. But then the British decided to go home.

Lets look at what happened in India at about the same time when the British left. Gandhi wanted to set up single new Indian state, but the muslims would not tolerate it. They insisted on separate islamic states in muslim areas so that sharia law could be imposed.

By 1948, as the great migration drew to a close, more than fifteen million people had been uprooted, and between one and two million were dead. The comparison with the death camps is not so far-fetched as it may seem. Partition is central to modern identity in the Indian subcontinent, as the Holocaust is to identity among Jews, branded painfully onto the regional consciousness by memories of almost unimaginable violence.

The nature of islam is that it seeks to dominate any society that it takes root in, and as it grows it will ruthlessly suppress any other way of life.
We have seen in Israel, India, and Myanmar injustices and atrocities committed by muslims, and against muslims.
These various non-muslim societies have learned from bitter experience, unfortunately, that weakness results in their own gradual (or sudden) extinction.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Yes, living together under British rule. But then the British decided to go home.

Lets look at(............) (or sudden) extinction.

Outside of islamophobia, can you justify the colonisation of the occupied territories?

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Yes, living (..............) (or sudden) extinction.

Just for the record, as both are off topic, your list of massacres in myanmar proves that massacres have indeed occurred there, and that article on partition in India is misrepresented by your post, as anyone who takes the trouble to read it will see.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Outside of islamophobia, can you justify the colonisation of the occupied territories?

Arabs should negotiate an agreed border with Israel, otherwise they will continue losing territory. Israel does not want all the occupied territories. But it needs whatever is behind the wall, and that includes Jerusalem. It needs a compact defensible border for long term survival.

A phobia is an irrational fear of something. So claustrophobia is an irrational fear of small harmless spaces. But there is no such thing as lionophobia because it is perfectly rational to fear lions, especially when living in close proximity to them. That's why islamophobia is not a valid term.

Suppose a LGBT person of christian or atheist persuasion was moving abroad, which of these places should they choose;
India or Pakistan
Myanmar or Bangladesh
Israel or Gaza

Here's a clue; The wrong choice in any of these pairs of adjacent territories could result in a death by lynch mob. The right choice results in the person settling in among the locals in a fairly uneventful way.

I'm not LGBT but in all of those regions I tend to side with what is in the long term the more tolerant society, even though in the short term their actions are sometimes unjust. They have been forced to make tough choices in order to survive.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Arabs should negotiate an agreed border with Israel, otherwise they will continue losing territory. Israel does not want all the occupied territories. But it needs whatever is behind the wall, and that includes Jerusalem. It needs a compact defensible border for long term survival..

Palestinians.

"Israel needs" is irrelevant and not a cogent argument. Colonisation of occupied territory is a war crime under international law.

recedite wrote: »

A phobia is an irrational fear of something. So claustrophobia is an irrational fear of small harmless spaces. But there is no such thing as lionophobia because it is perfectly rational to fear lions, especially when living in close proximity to them. That's why islamophobia is not a valid term.

Will you please stop dragging islamophobic bigotry into the thread. It's rather disgusting your trying to justify it at this stage.

recedite wrote: »

Suppose a LGBT (.............)choices in order to survive.

Again, utterly irrelevant nonsense.

Snickers Man

recedite wrote: »

Lets see, how does a christian man currently marry an arab girl in Gaza?
Well first you would have a problem finding any non-muslim except as part of the NGO/expat community because their society is so intolerant, but in the unlikely event that there was a palestinian christian there, he would have to take his bride on the same boat to Cyprus. The happy couple would be well advised not to return though, just in case some fundamentalist relative was a fan of "honour killings".

"Arab" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive terms. Many of the Arabs within Israel itself, or who were expelled from there, were Christians. Like Mrs Arafat for example. Or Hanan Ashrawi. Or Edward Said. Or George Habash. Or Nayef Hawatmeh.

Many such people, including some of the above, were particularly demonised up until the 1970s or 1980s for being "communists" and "terrorists" and as such they have now been largely supplanted by fundamentalist Islam as the militant voice of Palestinian resistance.

Ronaldinho

Odhinn wrote: »

So its the muslims.

News to you - hypothetical outcomes cannot justify colonialism.

There was a thread in After Hours about Israeli deportation policy I noticed yesterday. Many of those seeking asylum are from Sudan and Eritrea, so I went and did a bit of reading on both.

Good article from der Spiegel here on Eritrea.http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eritrea-a-visit-to-africa-s-north-korea-a-1175664.html

And I just read the Wiki on recent Sudanese history.

Both countries went to hell in a handcart after regaining independence. I've been coming around to thinking that it would have been much better over the long term for much of Africa to remain under colonial rule until the rule of law and democracy became much better established.

One anecdote such as this doesn't count for much, but food for thought nonetheless:
"Our lives are dominated by the military," says Graciano, an elderly man sitting in the Impero bar in downtown Asmara. An image of an Italian armored cruiser from the 1930s, when Mussolini's fascists ruled Eritrea, hangs above the bar. Graciano raves about the period, saying that everything was better back then. "

Odhinn

Ronaldinho wrote: »

(....................)

Both countries went to hell in a handcart after regaining independence. I've been coming around to thinking that it would have been much better over the long term for much of Africa to remain under colonial rule until the rule of law and democracy became much better established.

This is all off-topic, however, in short, colonial rule did not equate to either the rule of law, or - I would have thought obviously - democracy, nor was it any way to establish either. Sudan, much like India, was subject to a "divide and conquer" policy for much of its occupation, and was administered as two seperate regions.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

News to you - hypothetical outcomes cannot justify colonialism.

Odhinn wrote: »

Again, utterly irrelevant nonsense.

Odhinn wrote: »

This is all off-topic, however, in short, colonial rule did not equate to either the rule of law, or - I would have thought obviously - democracy..

In your pursuit of the fairytale solution, you have lost sight of the realpolitik.
You don't like the current situation, and that's fair enough. But every alternative scenario is only a hypothetical, whether its your preferred one or not. Your mistake is in thinking that the alternatives proposed are possible and/or better.

The conventional line proposed by the arabs and adopted by the UN is that a third state in the region (separate to Israel and Jordan) called Palestine can be formed out of the disparate patches of land left over, and the inhabitants will share Jerusalem with the Israelis, and everyone will live happily ever after.

What the arabs would really like is to wipe Israel off the map, and replace it with a larger Islamic Republic of Palestine, taking in Israel + the occupied territories.

Most people find it much more comforting to focus on the failings of Israeli democracy than to contemplate the alternatives.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

In your pursuit(............)the alternatives.

You have nothing to offer except islamophobia and glib xenophobia, can't even bring yourself to type "palestinian" and seem to think that "Israel wants..." is some sort of international law. Thus far you've failed to bring a single coherent argument to bear.

david75

No.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

You have nothing to offer except islamophobia and glib xenophobia..

Is it because they are jews that you hate the Israelis, or is it because you regard them as foreigners there?