Should Ireland recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel?

buzzerxx · 30-12-2017 10:26pm

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 · 30-12-2017 10:55pm

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 · 31-12-2017 10:04am

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 · 31-12-2017 10:15am

Nope.

No point in looking for trouble.

Timberrrrrrrr · 31-12-2017 10:16am

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 · 31-12-2017 11:35am

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 · 31-12-2017 3:13pm

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 · 31-12-2017 4:23pm

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 · 31-12-2017 4:28pm

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 · 31-12-2017 5:08pm

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.

Odhinn · 31-12-2017 5:32pm

recedite wrote: »

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.

No, it's slow drip ethnic cleansing.

Ahh yes the "muslims", the bothersome native "other". Always them thats the problem. Their religion, their culture, their ways - forget entirely the fact they're being driven out, subjugated and oppressed. It's the classic language of the imperialist, with its winks and nods to prejudice and intrinsic intellectual dishonesty.

recedite wrote: »

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.

That might as well have been a statement from a member of likud, save for the reference to a secular state.

pitifulgod · 31-12-2017 5:36pm

recedite wrote: »

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".

Conventional weapons are firstly predictable and not designed in such a way that can prolong pain. Eg a gas designed to cause maximum suffering before death. Gases and biological weapons are unpredictable, they can have dispersal ranges that are far more likely to cause largescale innocent casualties.

The final reason is that the long term effect of biological/chemical weapons etc can be far worse. Eg if a man survive a bomb strike and loses a limb, it's horrible but ultimately that injury ends with him. However a biological weapon or chemical can cause genetic damage for example. Resulting in offspring with serious deformities etc. That's a hell of a lot worse than a bomb going off in terms of long term impact.

Then you've got the fact that such weapons can be improved upon year on year and become far more horrible in terms of unpredictable impact.

mulbot · 31-12-2017 5:51pm

recedite wrote: »

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.

These borders end where? and when?

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 6:09pm

recedite wrote: »

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".

In summary: "war is bad, therefore war crimes are OK."

D-, try harder.

eire4 · 01-01-2018 12:41am

No we should not and I was glad to see we voted against the US in terms of the recent UN resolution that got their UN ambassador to make such petty threats against anyone who voted against them.

buzzerxx · 01-01-2018 4:55pm

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.

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.

Sam Russell · 01-01-2018 5:23pm

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?
.

Israel has only been in existence for 70 years which is a bit short for a 'historic capital', and much of the land claimed as Jerusalem is illegally occupied since 1967. Israel continues to create settlements in the occupied territories against UN resolutions. So, NO Jerusalem is disputed land and East Jerusalem is not part of Israel so it cannot be the capital.

Tel Aviv is accepted as the capital by all states bar Israel.

wes · 01-01-2018 11:08pm

No, we shouldn't recognize it. There is no good reason to throw oil on the fire so to speak. What Trump has done, is that he has simply finished off the 2 state solution, and made peace even more unlikely. The continued war mongering of those who support extremism like this never ceases to amaze me.

Also, people trying to invoke God is a bit rich. How exactly are these kind of people any different than ISIS? If people want us to take the Bible seriously, then its only fair the Koran, the Vedas and other Religious texts receive the same treatment.

Also, the people who seem to think that once you win a war, the land is your forever is laughable. If one group can take land by conquest, then other people can do so as well. Once you take such a position, then criticism against violence is worthless, as its pretty clear that you support such violence, when your guys does it.

Tony EH · 02-01-2018 2:38am

recedite wrote: »

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

Actually, in WWII, the Germans had huge stockpiles of sarin and tabun and chose not to use them, even when defeat was staring them in the face.

So...no...not "all the major world powers" - not even a power like nazi Germany - would "use (them) if they had to".

recedite · 02-01-2018 10:49am

pitifulgod wrote: »

Conventional weapons are firstly predictable and not designed in such a way that can prolong pain. Eg a gas designed to cause maximum suffering before death.

However a biological weapon or chemical can cause genetic damage for example. Resulting in offspring with serious deformities etc. That's a hell of a lot worse than a bomb going off in terms of long term impact.

You are misinformed. Neither conventional weapons nor gas are designed with pain in mind, only effectiveness. Gas has a disadvantage in that it is less controllable and more hazardous to friendly troops than conventional weapons.

The atomic bombs dropped by the USA on Japan caused lasting genetic damage. Can you provide examples of gas attacks which caused genetic damage?

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, in WWII, the Germans had huge stockpiles of sarin and tabun and chose not to use them, even when defeat was staring them in the face.
So...no...not "all the major world powers" - not even a power like nazi Germany - would "use (them) if they had to".

Yes, they invented Sarin gas. They also had the first assault rifles, the first jet fighters and the first rocket powered missiles.
They lost the war because they were a small european country fighting both the USA and the USSR at the same time, not because of their reluctance to use any particular weapon.

recedite · 02-01-2018 10:54am

Quotes attributed to Winston Churchill;

“I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas,” he wrote in a memo in 1919, when he was Britain’s secretary of war. “It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”

Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war.”

mulbot · 02-01-2018 11:01am

recedite wrote: »

Quotes attributed to Winston Churchill;

WTF did a politician from 100 years ago know about he effects of gas? What a stupidly ignorant way of trying to justify being in favour of committing war crimes. Gas is unpredictable in that in also spreads out over civilian areas.

recedite · 02-01-2018 11:18am

mulbot wrote: »

WTF did a politician from 100 years ago know about he effects of gas?

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.

mulbot · 02-01-2018 11:27am

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.

I know what our Scientists,Doctors etc tell us about it which are far more credible sources than the words of a Politician from 100 years ago.

You saw Hitler do this?

demfad · 02-01-2018 11:37am

A principle reason for Trump recognising Jerusalem is as a loud dog whistle to his evangelical base.
According to their beliefs the rapture will follow the rebuilding of the temple of Solomom and a great war involving all peoples of the Earth.
Full Jewish control of Jerusalem is necessary before the rebuilding can happen.
These evangelicals see the Earth as an evil place, a testing ground before eternity in heaven. Obviously a war as described would be nuclear and civilisation ending. They crave this war. Many in his base think Trump is the man to bring it.

I would be opposed to anything that brings the destruction of civilisation significantly closer.

demfad · 02-01-2018 11:40am

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, in WWII, the Germans had huge stockpiles of sarin and tabun and chose not to use them, even when defeat was staring them in the face.

So...no...not "all the major world powers" - not even a power like nazi Germany - would "use (them) if they had to".

What type of gas did they use on the millions of people they exterminated during the war? Doesn't this count?

recedite · 02-01-2018 11:40am

Anyway, getting back on topic....

mulbot wrote: »

These borders end where? and when?

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.

Tony EH · 02-01-2018 12:17pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, they invented Sarin gas. They also had the first assault rifles, the first jet fighters and the first rocket powered missiles.
They lost the war because they were a small european country fighting both the USA and the USSR at the same time, not because of their reluctance to use any particular weapon.

None of the above has anything to do with your original assertion...

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

...which is demonstrably wrong.

Tony EH · 02-01-2018 12:19pm

demfad wrote: »

What type of gas did they use on the millions of people they exterminated during the war? Doesn't this count?

Not as an answer to...

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

...no.

demfad · 02-01-2018 12:53pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Not as an answer to...

...no.

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.

Should Ireland recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel?

Comments