Jump to content
270soft Forum

Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?


Guest

Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?

    • yes
      17
    • no
      7


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is the type of uncompromising, unreasonable, unproductive loggerheads attitude that Netanyahu and his supporter, and there direct opposites but analogs in groups like Hamas that is REALLY what's preventing any sort of resolution whatsoever and all peace agreements always break down.

I think Netanyahu has been a strong leader for Israel even though I don't agree with him on specific issues according to isidewith.  The Arabs shouldn't have continued to attack Israel with the goal of destroying the Jewish state after loosing the first time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

I think Netanyahu has been a strong leader for Israel even though I don't agree with him on specific issues according to isidewith.  The Arabs shouldn't have continued to attack Israel with the goal of destroying the Jewish state after loosing the first time.

Netanyahu refuses to recognize the validity of any sort of Palestinian state in an indefinite sense. Although he doesn't use the specific words, he pretty much seems to wish to consign the Palestinian people to an eternity, effectively, to being a stateless people, with no seeming legitimate recourse or review on that status.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I think Netanyahu has been a strong leader for Israel even though I don't agree with him on specific issues according to isidewith.  The Arabs shouldn't have continued to attack Israel with the goal of destroying the Jewish state after loosing the first time.

It's missing so many issue slike land for peace, drafting the ultra-orthodox exc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Netanyahu refuses to recognize the validity of any sort of Palestinian state in an indefinite sense. Although he doesn't use the specific words, he pretty much seems to wish to consign the Palestinian people to an eternity, effectively, to being a stateless people, with no seeming legitimate recourse or review on that status.

@Patine please see this video I think it proves our points.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Netanyahu refuses to recognize the validity of any sort of Palestinian state in an indefinite sense. Although he doesn't use the specific words, he pretty much seems to wish to consign the Palestinian people to an eternity, effectively, to being a stateless people, with no seeming legitimate recourse or review on that status.

There would have been a Palestinian state if the Arabs wouldn't have tried time after time to destroy Israel.  Israel controls the West Banks and Gaza Strip now, and it should stay that way.  To the victor go the spoils of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

There would have been a Palestinian state if the Arabs wouldn't have tried time after time to destroy Israel.  Israel controls the West Banks and Gaza Strip now, and it should stay that way.  To the victor go the spoils of war.

well the palestinians technically have full autonomy over Gaza. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

There would have been a Palestinian state if the Arabs wouldn't have tried time after time to destroy Israel.  Israel controls the West Banks and Gaza Strip now, and it should stay that way.  To the victor go the spoils of war.

You speak of "the Arabs" like they're a bee-hive or an ant-colony, or the Borg Uni-mind, united perfectly and in lock-step, without question, deviation, or internal challenge, in single-minded purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

You speak of "the Arabs" like they're a bee-hive or an ant-colony, or the Borg Uni-mind, united perfectly and in lock-step, without question, deviation, or internal challenge, in single-minded purpose.

@Patine we all know it wasn't meant that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

You speak of "the Arabs" like they're a bee-hive or an ant-colony, or the Borg Uni-mind, united perfectly and in lock-step, without question, deviation, or internal challenge, in single-minded purpose.

that and against Israel in '48 and '67 the Arab world was all for it 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

that and against Israel in '48 and '67 the Arab world was all for it 

The WHOLE Arab world. I don't believe I've read any commentary directly from Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, or the Sudan on the issue, at the time...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

that and against Israel in '48 and '67 the Arab world was all for it 

And also, you're only speaking for governments, assuming absolutely NO internal opposition or disagreement existed, which again goes back to my bee-hive statement...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

The WHOLE Arab world. I don't believe I've read any commentary directly from Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, or the Sudan on the issue, at the time...

The parts around Israel I overgeneralized. I'll get you videos and photos proving it tomorrow I don't have much time tonight to do such.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

And also, you're only speaking for governments, assuming absolutely NO internal opposition or disagreement existed, which again goes back to my bee-hive statement...

Once again I'll post the evidence tomorrow I don't have time to find it tonight,

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

Once again I'll post the evidence tomorrow I don't have time to find it tonight,

I don't think you have access to the information to prove ABSOLUTELY no disagreement in those Arab Countries AT ALL existed. Any polling of support by those Arab governments themselves are going to have to very biased results, if such polls were even done, because the pollsters would go around polling with AK-47's in hand. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

You speak of "the Arabs" like they're a bee-hive or an ant-colony, or the Borg Uni-mind, united perfectly and in lock-step, without question, deviation, or internal challenge, in single-minded purpose.

It was a coalition of Arb countries that gradually weakened after defeats until the wars stopped (for now).

1 hour ago, Patine said:

And also, you're only speaking for governments, assuming absolutely NO internal opposition or disagreement existed, which again goes back to my bee-hive statement...

Whether or not disagreement occurred inside the countries really doesn't matter. They still attacks Israel time after time and failed time after time.

1 hour ago, republicaninnyc said:

well the palestinians technically have full autonomy over Gaza. 

Israel has military control over the territory (as evidenced by the operations against Hamas in the region).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

There would have been a Palestinian state if the Arabs wouldn't have tried time after time to destroy Israel.  Israel controls the West Banks and Gaza Strip now, and it should stay that way.  To the victor go the spoils of war.

You speak of the "spoils of war" like it's still an admirable, noble, and ethical notion that has been a long-term historical success rate in territory management, and not a barbaric relic of the past. You've also used this ideal in past discussions to justify the horrible, atrocious, unjust, and cavalier treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. Government historically. The empires of old that promoted, glorified, and expounded this ideal ALSO had governments, societies, and pillars of their nations and cultures that were anathema to what the Constitutional ideals and foundations of the United States as a very nation were built upon. You are aware of this fact, right? Or are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilight said:

If you want to encourage more warfare, this is the attitude to have.

This has been the attitude forever

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Patine said:

You speak of the "spoils of war" like it's still an admirable, noble, and ethical notion that has been a long-term historical success rate in territory management, and not a barbaric relic of the past. You've also used this ideal in past discussions to justify the horrible, atrocious, unjust, and cavalier treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. Government historically. The empires of old that promoted, glorified, and expounded this ideal ALSO had governments, societies, and pillars of their nations and cultures that were anathema to what the Constitutional ideals and foundations of the United States as a very nation were built upon. You are aware of this fact, right? Or are you?

Like my post above has states, this has been the concept of warfare forever.  Also, there were times when action against the Indians was justified for self defense purposes. There were times when the British purposely incited the Indians to attack the Americans while also arming them with weapons and ammo.  But, at the same time, there were times where the people and government were in the wrong, such as the Trail of Tears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pilight said:

That doesn't make it right.

It is human nature and nothing can be done to stop it.  You are right about not making it right.  But, it also doesn't make it wrong either.  If the spoils are captured land, then there really isn't a point for the loosing side to be pushing.  But, there are other things such as forced slavery that would be wrong.  It all depends on what the spoils are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

It is human nature and nothing can be done to stop it.  You are right about not making it right.  But, it also doesn't make it wrong either.  If the spoils are captured land, then there really isn't a point for the loosing side to be pushing.  But, there are other things such as forced slavery that would be wrong.  It all depends on what the spoils are.

The notion that might makes right isn't human nature, it's a leftover from when we were wild animals.  It's certainly not a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic sentiment.  It's not even why the Israelis claim Jerusalem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It's its own country, and as a country it can name any city within its borders as a capital. I think Palestine can claim East Jerusalem as its capital, as it does, but as only a de jure sovereign nation in needs to work more on establishing recognized independence soon, or Israel can probably slowly gobble up the entirety of Jerusalem before that status is reached. This naturally leads to a legal battle over territory within Jerusalem. I think the overlap is allowable, and the borders should be districted based on population demographic. I do not think Palestine should claim more than East Jerusalem, and I do not think Israel can claim the entirety of East Jerusalem, and can claim only the neighborhoods within East Jerusalem that have more Israelites than Palestinians at the current moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Of course Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It's its own country, and as a country it can name any city within its borders as a capital. I think Palestine can claim East Jerusalem as its capital, as it does, but as only a de jure sovereign nation in needs to work more on establishing recognized independence soon, or Israel can probably slowly gobble up the entirety of Jerusalem before that status is reached. This naturally leads to a legal battle over territory within Jerusalem. I think the overlap is allowable, and the borders should be districted based on population demographic. I do not think Palestine should claim more than East Jerusalem, and I do not think Israel can claim the entirety of East Jerusalem, and can claim only the neighborhoods within East Jerusalem that have more Israelites than Palestinians at the current moment. 

The "Bleeding Kansas" approach.  That always goes well.

Suppose bunches of Palestinians move into West Jerusalem.  Can they claim it as their own when they outnumber the Israelis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...