Discussions

The evangelical Christians that back Trump tend to believe in literal interpretation of the Bible. In order for Jesus to return, the Holy Land must first be in the hands of the Israelis, so they see backing Israel as a prerequisite if they want to have a shot at being on the planet when the most anticipated return in history takes place.  
By the way, reading the book Fantasyland gives some insight into this and other beliefs and conspiracy theories that are prevalent in the USA.

the difference is, our governments are not theocracies.  
 
I would be willing to bet that there are mullahs in several countries in the area that have much more leverage, than evangelical Christians in the southern states.  
 
I do kind of understand where you are going

belzebob said "the difference is, our governments are not theocracies.     I would be willing to bet that there are mullahs in several countries in the area that have much more leverage, than evangelical Christians in the southern states.     I do kind of understand where you are going "

Not sure I understand where you are going with that. No, we officially aren't a theocracy, however the US treads on the fringes of theocracy and some states ban legislators from being atheists. The religious right hold great sway with the Whitehouse now, and he is willing to pander to them to try to gain popularity.  
I find it frustratingly bizarre that political decisions are being made about a sensitive part of the world based on a centuries old text (that has been rewritten and reinterpreted many times) to try to bring about the Apocalypse.

I really do not know how to reply to this without the message being deleted.  
 
google anything i posted. american policy has been that jerusalem is the capital and the embassy would be moved there. other presidents chose not to do so.  
 
the waiver delayed the movement.  
 
to think this choice was made because of some religious prjudice is just.......  
 
the palestinians were never in a position to negotiate over the status of E jerusalem because of the peace treaty with jordan.  
 
and to try and avoid the fact about religious influence in war in the region is just ignoring facts

Why you think I am ignoring the role of religion in the conflict. It is at the core. However, the US is being wagged by the special interest groups that support Trump and the religious right are all over this.

what are you on about.  
 
the capital recognition has been on the books for decades, long before any current influence.  
 
previous presidents signed a waiver.  
 
would it not be prudent to have the sides know exactly what is on the negotiation table?  
 
or would you prefer the nonsense of the john kerry and obama regime?  
 
there are other things that are non-negotiable.  
 
israel will never return to the 67 borders, and unless things settle down in syria, the golan heights are out of the discussion.  
 
exactly how many pre-conditions do the arabs expect after losing 5 wars?

belzebob said "what are you on about.     the capital recognition has been on the books for decades, long before any current influence.     previous presidents signed a waiver.     would it not be prudent to have the sides know exactly what is on the negotiation table?     or would you prefer the nonsense of the john kerry and obama regime?     there are other things that are non-negotiable.     israel will never return to the 67 borders, and unless things settle down in syria, the golan heights are out of the discussion.     exactly how many pre-conditions do the arabs expect after losing 5 wars? "

"Prudent to have all sides know exactly what is on the negociating table", meaning that Jerusalem is no longer "negotiable". So taking Jerusalem off the table is going to further peace talks? Please elaborate how taking Jerusalem off the table makes the Palestinians warm and fuzzy about peace discussions with Israel. I am really curious as to how someone can possess such a train of thought. Since my time in the Golan and lbserving ghe struggles of the area, I've always thought that a two state was the solution with Jerusalem under international control. I think if Israel were willing to consider such a scenario that peace could be acheived and would have been acheived long ago. From what I see, it's the radical right wing group in Israel that have fuelled settlement expansion onto Palestinian lands and are elated at Trumps annoucement that the US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In order to obtain lasting peace, Israel would have to give up lands that they have now illigaly settled on and are unwilling to relenquish and so this part of the world continues to fight and some say, it'll blow over or now that Jerusalem is off the table we can move forward with a peace deal! Don't kid yourselves. Trumps anouncement just kicked the tensions into a higher gear and there's no love around the corner!

Look at history, Egypt was able to get the Sini back by actually coming to the table. The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel dosn't want terrorist attacks every day without being able to provide a reasonable amount of security. If the terrorist activities stop and the Palestinians actually come to the table for more than a month, they might get quite a bit of land too.  
 
Jerusalem ending up in UN hands is not going to happen. They might be able to work out a deal where Jerusalem ends up being a capital of 2 nations. But I doubt that that is going to happen either. First The Palestinians would actually have to come to the table and be serious about the Israelis security needs. Israel is not the problem, They are ready to come to the table tomorrow.

Title to this thread.  
I predict that the violence will continue between Israel and the Palestinians for a very long time, probably to the end of mankind. Israel canot pound the Palestinians into a peace agreement. They''''ve tried and it still hasn''''t happenned! It''''s much like the David and Goliath story where Israel is Goliath with the high tech military machinery provided by the West. Some Palestinian will launch a rocket into Israel and the IDF responds with several days of intense air strikes into Gaza and the West endorces Israel''''s actions and we wonder why the Palestinian''''s hate the West. One doesn''''t have to be Einstein to figure out that violence by itself doesn''''t bring peace. I''''m not saying that the Palestinians and Arab countries don''''t carry any of the blame for the violence and unrest in the area, but to say that Israel is not the problem is only looking at one side and not recognizing the entire situation. Israel carries minimum 50% responsibility for it''''s current unstable relationship with Palestine and I''''d go as far as 70% due to the expansive community development on Palestinian lands over the last 20+ years.  
 
Edited by 70`s guy, 2017-12-11 00:12:59

I believe we all miss one thing in so many of these issues that cause division, and it's not just about religion, but it is something that is in issues that confront us every day. In my comment I mentioned if you wanted to start a fight you questioned anything about a person or a group of people. There are two things that drive people, one being human phycology, the other seems to be fear. As humans, regardless of race, religion,ethnic origin,gender,or any other thing you want to add, we believe we have a right to be able to live as we see fit, and this idea is sort of universal as long as the path we choose does not take from other individuals to do the same. This is why societies to pass laws against things such as slavery. When it comes to fear, it is a situation that will those with the power respect the idea that an individual or a group of people have this right.  
Why would former presidents not have acted on the motion to accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, was it because they,as well as the world, could not guarantee that those of other beliefs might not be allowed access to their Holy sites, which are important in this area to three religions. What we seem to be all guilty of is making our decisions on what is best for me. What does me have to do with a decision in Jerusalem, if it sits favourably with me with my bias, then it is ok, and we all have our bias on just about everything.  
There are two important words when it comes to so many thing that relate to people. Those two words are small words that carry great weight, the first word is Me, that is applicable to an individual or group of individual. A simple example could be the citizens of a country, look at it as me, same as people of race, religion or what ever.  
The second word is just as short, and it is We. I accept the word we, as not a race,religion, citizen of a give country or area, member of an ethnic group, member of a certain gender, or any of the other things that divide people of this planet. We is all of us, and when decisions are made, we becomes very important for future peace. It is my belief that members of the Mid East understand this, and former presidents did as well.  
 
So what is the difference now? Take a look at who made this decision, and ask yourself if he is a me person, or a we person.

so let me see if I have this straight.  
 
Israel should give up their capital city, give up land necessary for state security and allow their country to be taken over by a muslim population. (right of return).  
 
all this to start a 2nd Palestinian state. the british mandate divided the region into a land for the jews and Jordan a land for the Palestinians.  
 
as for the U.N. trump ratifying existing U S law is a security council matter.  
 
hamas firing rockets at israeli residential areas is not only an act of war, but a war crime targetting civilians.  
 
what do we get from the U.N.......crickets.  
 
this may not end well, but i can gaurantee Israel will not be the losers

Bezlebob's comments don't make much sense. They fail to understand the situation, and seem more in line with religious beliefs and strong support for Israeli ideology. Most of the Jews abandoned this territory over 2,000 years ago and it has been the homeland by Palestine arabs for this period. England had no business meddling in the territories of foreign lands, and this is simply one more example to the destruction colonising policies left in its path.  
 
It's like becoming a 50 year old adult, and then deciding immaturely that you want the childhood home you had when you were 8 back, and even though you left it 42 years ago you still claim it as yours, and instead of buying it, you just smash in the door and move in, then threaten and assault the current homeowner when they decide you are not welcome, and they want you out. Only instead of a period of 42 years that has passed since you last lived there, it has been over 2,000 years, and the current homeowner has been there for all of that time. Then, you decide you want to kick the current homeowner out, and they are living in a tent in your backyard. Not a perfect analogy, but pretty damned close.  
 
Try to understand the situation from the perspective of the people that have occupied this land for this very long period of time. Try to understand that they have been mistreated, and continue to be mistreated. Try to understand that the only reason why Israel has been able to do what they do, is because they have the backing of some very powerful foreign forces. Then recognise that while the Jews have every right to complain about their treatment during the holocaust, that their treatment of the people of Palestine has not been much better.  
 
You can't claim someone else's territory simply because you have a religious attachment to somebody else's home. It's not right, and would never withstand the scrutiny of ethical behaviour.  
 
Yes, no doubt there is a possibility of a shared space, but if you want to share the home you just moved into, you need to get along with the current occupants, and get their support to help let you stay. It's just common sense. But if they don't want you there, then you need to leave and go back to the place you "recently" came from.

other than the accusation that my religious beliefs are clouding my representation is all you got?  
 
try refuting what I posted.  
 
how about that fact that all the borders in the region were drawn after ww2. if one is illegitimate, what about the rest?  
 
and your claim that there were no jews living in Palestine prior to ww2 is just nonsense.  
 
the fact is the Palestinian homeland issue was settled in the balfour declaration.  
 
the fact that Israel now occupies more area is a direct result of multiple attempts by arab armies to eliminate the state.  
 
how many instances can you come up with of a winning army giving up strategic territory after an enemy attack?

There is really no sense in me continuing to make comments, since your comment basically validated my idea of human phycology leading to fear, which then places Me before We, therefore there will never be peace.  
Now this is just my opinion,but your bias shows that you are not really for peace, unless it is in the interest of only one party, and your final statement, after my comment on Me vs We shows it will always be Me before We.  
 
Edited by don brown, 2017-12-11 13:01:50

allrighty then.  
 
philosophy is always nice, but we are talking about a real world situation.  
 
do you really not believe the rhetoric from extremists in the region?  
 
history shows that these comments can and will be acted on.  
 
so against the threats from hamas Hezbollah iran and the Salafists I believe Israel is looking at a we situation.  
 
as in, all of us.

Bezlebob, I am strong enough to go in and kick the old 93 year old lady across town out of her home. But I would never do that, just because my physical strength would allow me to do it, because it is not ethical and violates the rules that society accepts. So, by comparison your statement that a previous war (analogous to a military show of strength) has settled these disputes is not informed or ethical either. Just because an army can go in and demonstrate a show of force, does not mean that a population has to surrender. Like all wars, if you are the weaker army you just wait it out till the stronger army leaves, then claim back your previous life. It happens all the time. It is what people do all the time. Look at the US invasion of Iraq, or Vietnam, or any other similar war. Sure, they could fight but why do that when you are going to become just another victim. After the US forces left these places, they reestablished and claimed back as much of their previous lives as they could.  
 
No different here. Just because England makes a declaration (Balfour Delaration) in 1917, does not mean that the people from another land needs to accept it. And they never did. They were the weaker power, and never accepted it. Your statement seems to imply they did. That declaration was another show of force by some powerful interests that had no business trying to occupy another land and dictate how it operates. The English Empire has been among the most destructive forces to have ever existed. It has destroyed populations and community, and was unethical and a show of pure greed. The arabs are under no obligation to accept Israel's existence in their territory, because they simply do not have a right to claim it.  
 
By the way, I never said there were no Jews living in Palestine before WW2. What I did say was that MOST of the Jews had left prior to this period (sure there were some, but the numbers were very small by comparison to the Palestine arabs who never left and occupied most of this territory for over 2,000 years, so please don't misrepresent my statement.  
 
I guess the difference of opinion is that I just don't believe in the military. I don't believe that just because you are bigger and more powerful, that it justifies taking over somebody else territory. If you look at WW2, Germany invaded other territories because they thought they were more powerful. But those actions as we know were not ethical, and were a very destructive force in the world. And while they may have been able to invade other countries, that does not make it right. In fact, most would agree that it was unethical and wrong. Please don't imply that armies have the right to draw borders and lines. While they may have won the battle, they will never win the war. There are many ways of winning wars, and when you are the underdog, sometimes waiting things out and waiting till the occupying force leaves, is the best strategy.  
 
I don't support wars, and I wish other people including yourself, wouldn't either. We all saw the destruction these paths have in people's lives. Occupy your own space, participate in your own life, contribute to your community, and let the rest have the right to their own destiny, too. Quit meddling in other people's business.

Hezbollah is simply the unpowerful "strategic" army I talked about in my previous post. As an analogy, Hezbollah is the smaller but strategic David, in a Goliath war. I may not agree with Hezbollah's tactics, but I don't think it is informed to suggest that the underdog doesn't have a right to strategize how to overcome an unjust and heavy-handed war. David threw a stone, and at the right time. Everybody has a right to defend their own lives from the invasion by others.  
 
I think it is a silly and uninformed comment to suggest that Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organisation. While I do not agree with their strategies, the word "terrorist" these days is an overused, means nothing word, that is used to instill fear, and manipulate uninformed people into unjustified outcomes. Governments use the word terrorist these days to imply someone who doesn't agree with their own perspective. Sad, but true.

your description of Hezbollah may of been true during the 2nd Lebanese war.  
 
they are now a sitting member of the Lebanese government.  
 
that entirely changes things.  
 
any hostile act by Hezbollah can be seen as an act of war by Lebanon, which btw does not have a peace treaty with Israel.  
 
the result being that Lebanese army and infrastructure are targets.  
 
coupled with the Iranians tring for a foothold in Syria, makes the Golan a very important strategic position.  
 
there is also the fact that there is no peace treaty between Syria and Israel.  
 
I would say that things are very precarious and expecting concessions from Israel at the present time will not happen

East/west. Israel has their side and in my opinion can call it their Capital if they want. I really do not care what that useless UN thinks. If they were on their toes in 67 most of this mess would not have happened. Leaving because Egypt was making noises is typical UN think. Gutless.  
 
The Palestinians can call their side of the city what they want if they ever can get their groups together and speak as one. One issue, the right of return is not so difficult in my opinion.  
 
Trump pulled the trigger on moving the embassy.Other Presidents did not. If memory serves in 1979 Joe Clark won as our PM with a promise to move our embassy. I wonder if he would have went through with it.  
 
Someone had to do it and in this case it the US. The three days of rage was a near flame out in comparison to past years. Maybe some doors were opened here??  
 
Found a link http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jerusalem-embassy-tel-aviv-clark-1.4436795  
 
Edited by Doug, 2017-12-11 16:59:38