Israel leaders say Jerusalem to remain 'state's capital'

[Jefferson23]

Sacred to both Muslims and Jews, Jerusalem is home to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which for Muslims represents the world's third holiest site

Tuesday, 07 October 2014

Israeli leaders have asserted that Jerusalem would remain as their state's capital, despite international criticism over recent plans to build more Jewish-only settlement units in the occupied holy city.

"One of the more significant elements of our national unity is the general agreement on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the world needs to understand that," Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said on Monday evening during a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"Jerusalem is our capital and as our capital, we need to allow the residents of the city to live and reside in it," Rivlin was quoted as saying by a statement from the premier's office.

According to the release, Netanyahu added: "When this [settlement building] happens in the capital of Israel, do we have to apologize? Or to cancel it? Not in my opinion, not in your opinion, and not in the opinion of any sensible Jew or indeed any reasoned and fair-minded person."

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/14532-israel-leaders-say-jerusalem-to-remain-states-capital

[oberliner]

1. Do you not think Jerusalem should be allowed to be the capital?

What are your thoughts on that?

[Jefferson23]

2. East J is OT, so what is there to decide? n/t

[oberliner]

7. The framework of a peace agreement

Could not Jerusalem be the capital of both states as part of the final peace agreement people them?

[Jefferson23]

8. They could agree to anything they want. What will persuade the Likud party to share?

[oberliner]

33. The will of the people

Israelis will support such an agreement and the government will abide by their will, as they are a democracy.

[sabbat hunter]

9. East Jerusalem

was never meant to be a part of Palestine. But the UN refused to do its job and protect it from invading Jordanian forces during the war of independence, thus the UN abrogated its rights to have oversight over it. As a result the old city is not really OT as no country owned it prior to 1948-49. (unless you want to go back to the Ottoman Empire days, the last country to rule the area as an integral part of the Ottoman Empire) Great Britain was a caretaker of the area until independent countries could be formed(and that is why it was a mandate).

But outside of the old city of Jerusalem, all of the WB should go to Palestine.

Now if Palestine wants to have its capital in the new east sections of Jerusalem, that would be up to them. But I see no reason why countries should not recognize Jerusalem (ie the western parts) as Israel's capital. Just keep that definition to the areas that are west of the eastern part of the old city.

[azurnoir]

10. An Israeli-Jewish terror group Lehi murdered the UN negotiator on 9/17/1948 in Jerusalem

the day after he submitted his proposal for peace, he was a Swedish Count named Bernadotte Folke, Years later one of the murders become Israel's 7th Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, this may have had a bit to with the UN's so called failure

[sabbat hunter]

12. regardless of the murder

the UN still did not lift a single finger to defend Jerusalem as a international city. Nor did it take any action against jordan for its occupation and annexation of Jerusalem. Jordan has since cancelled that annexation, thus leaving it to Israel by default as they are the one controlling it.

[azurnoir]

14. Jordan ceded the land to the Palestinians on July 31 1988 with the exception of

Muslim holy sites in EJ which it still has jurisdiction over to this day

[sabbat hunter]

15. except that

Jordan had no right to the old city in the first place therefore no right to cede it to anyone.

[Jefferson23]

13. How does that change the fact that EJ is recognized as OT?

“We don’t want to redivide Jerusalem,” he told 300 Israeli students and young activists at the Muqata, his presidential compound. “We would leave the city open, and have two municipalities with one governing body above them. This is the meaning of coexistence,” he said to raucous applause.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-we-dont-want-to-divide-jerusalem-or-flood-israel-with-refugees/

[King_David]

5. The people who live there get to decide.

That's why Israel is busy Juadizing ( not my word ) all Jerusalem .

The embassies will move when papers are signed.

Concessions will have to be made and if I were to lay a bet , I would bet on Jerusalem and Ramallah being places where present and future embassies will be found.

Life is not fair and full of dissapointment.

[azurnoir]

3. which countries have their embassies in Israel's claimed capital?

Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem remains unrecognized

[Jefferson23]

4. Yep.

[King_David]

6. It will be recognized when peace papers are signed

By Palestinians and Israel.

And the most likely outcome will be an undivided Jerusalem .I doubt any other outcome fair or not.

[Carlos Rodrigez]

11. It is obvious

to anyone that after a peace deal is signed, all countries will move their Israeli embassies to West Jerusalem. They can't move it before because they would have to simultaneously give Palestinians some concession, and what is there to give?

It is also obvious that the final peace deal will give Palestinians something in East Jerusalem. What remains unclear is how much of East Jerusalem they will get. This could range anything from getting most of the land where the 200,000 Arabs live. Or it could be a symbolic plot along with some kind of international soveriegnty over the Al Aksa Mosque.

The reason why Israel makes settlements in East Jerusalem is to strengthen its negotiating position and make future world leaders press for less territorial concession. This is only good policy to the extent world leaders today do not criticize too much. I myself think today's criticism is muted enough that it is worth bearing for the sake of the future.

[Jefferson23]

16. Hamas: We will not accept Judaisation of Jerusalem

The Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas warned on Wednesday that it would not remain silent over Israel's continuous aggressions against the Islamic holy places in occupied Jerusalem.

In a statement, Hamas reportedly said that what is going on in Jerusalem is at "the core of the real conflict, which will not end without ending the Israeli occupation".

"All the repeated and continuous aggressions on Al-Aqsa Mosque, carried out by Israeli occupation forces and its illegal settlers, are only part of a grander series of Judaisation activities for the city of Jerusalem and all Palestinian lands," the statement said.

The statement added: "The acceleration of this Zionist aggression comes in the context of prevailing uncertainty in the Arab and Islamic world, as all eyes have been deviated from looking directly at Palestine and its holy place, as well as the crimes of the Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip."

Concluding the statement, Hamas reiterated that it would not accept the Judaisation of Jerusalem and "is ready to pay any price to prevent this from happening," vowing that: "We will do all we can to purify the holy sites from the Israeli occupation. We will never recognise, under any circumstances, any political, demographic or religious changes made to the map."

Hamas also called upon the nations and governments around the world to look at what the Zionists are doing in Jerusalem, asking them to take action to stop it.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/14567-hamas-we-will-not-accept-judaisation-of-jerusalem

[King_David]

17. Hamas doesn't accept "Judaisation" of Tel Aviv

Eilat , Beersheba or Haifa either .

And so ?

Or Argentina or Bulgaria I may add.

[Jefferson23]

18. They share a lot in common with the Likud, but less radical and much less powerful. n/t

[King_David]

19. Much more bigoted haters of Gays

Hamas is Socially backward Homophobic Gay haters and killers .

[Jefferson23]

20. They are more socially prejudiced, the Likud will use anyone too though. n/t

[King_David]

21. Prejudice is a mild word

Bigoted
Hateful
Homophobic
Socially Backward
Socially regressive

[Jefferson23]

22. If that makes you feel better.

adjective
adjective: prejudiced

having or showing a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice; bigoted.
"people are prejudiced against us"
synonyms: biased, bigoted, discriminatory, partisan, intolerant, narrow-minded, unfair, unjust, inequitable, colored

Hateful covers the Likud too.

[King_David]

23. Yep I'm no fan of Likud

Hamas on the other hand doesn't allow Gays to live let alone tolerate.

[shira]

24. Hamas less radical than Likud? Bwahahahahaha!

You wanna stick with that one?

I wonder who else here agrees with you...



Any takers?

[Jefferson23]

25. Yes, they are. Who agrees or not won't change anything. n/t

[shira]

26. On every possible issue, they're FAR to the right of Likud....

Name one issue they're less radical.

Just one if you can...

[Jefferson23]

28. I'm shocked you don't agree with me, shira. n/t

[shira]

30. Expect to be challenged when u make up horseshit claims...

So when can we expect you to take that doozy back?

[Jefferson23]

37. The record of the Likud is clear and well documented. n/t

[shira]

39. Fatah is more radical & extreme than Likud....

....and Hamas is even more radical than Fatah.

There's not one issue you can point to, not one example, where you can demonstrate Fatah is less radical than Likud. Even moreso for Hamas.

You wonder why no Democrats in power share your views.

[oberliner]

27. Would you also say they were less radical than the Republican Party in the US?

And a follow up question, which party do you think is more radical: The Republican Party or The Likud Party?

[Jefferson23]

29. Inapplicable questions, oberliner. If you believe these questions have a connection, perhaps

you can answer them.

[oberliner]

32. I think Hamas is far more radical than either Likud or the Republican Party

I am trying to figure out where you put Hamas generally on the spectrum. The fact that you think they are less radical than Likud was surprising to me. I am curious to see if you also think they are less radical than the Republicans so that I can get a handle on how you are making these judgements. I think Likud is more progressive on most social issues than the Republicans (universal health care, minimum wage, and education for instance). They are pretty similar on issues like immigration and defense. Hamas, on the other hand, supports positions that are far to the right of either party on virtually every issue. They have explicitly embraces the notion of theocracy as a legitimate (and indeed ideal) means of governing. This would put them on the far extreme end of the spectrum politically in either the US or Israel (where such sentiments do exist but are, thankfully, marginalized to the far right).

[Jefferson23]

36. There is no connection between Hamas and the Republican Party that is relevant to this conflict.

As vile as the Republican's are, they have not been occupying anyone for decades, as has the
Israeli government.

My statement earlier is factually sound, comparing Hamas and the Likud. I look at what these
groups actually do, not what they aspire to be, claim to be.

The Likud began with Begin and there were other violent splinter groups and their
record of terror is well documented, coupled with the political power and support
they receive from American citizens and US government relations. So no, Hamas is less radical
and much less powerful...no matter how one tries to sanitize Israel's record.

[King_David]

34. Hamas is an extremist far right wing non democratic party

They haven't called an election ever and won power in a violent coup.And considered a terrorist org by just about every democracy .

Your comparing the 3 groups is just silly and looks foolish.

[Jefferson23]

38. You're confused. Oberliner is comparing 3 groups. Hamas, Likud was my focus.

The Likud, if their collective actions were compiled and their name removed, analysis could
place them in that category too..that was the essence of what I conveyed to you earlier.

[shira]

31. Really now O, it's just too much to ask them to justify their positions. n/t

[hack89]

35. So suicided bombers are not radical? Got it. nt