Yes, it was partitioned into 2 parts, Jordan for Arabs and Israel for Jews.
So why do we now hear about a 3rd country being formed from another partition of that land, the Palestine Authority?
Rights, in this case, means what you can defend militarily excluding any sort of moralistic or ethical dimension to rights. Is that the game you are playing?
Last I heard, your country believes that too. Or has the Right of Return been removed from law?
And there are plenty of countries who grant citizenship only based on parentage, not place of birth.
Personally, if I thought that putting Jerusalem under UN sovereignty and removing the Israeli or Palestinian governments from the process except as member states, I’d jump at it in a heartbeat.
Your sentimental attachment to a city is not more valuable than peace in the middle-east. If children can’t share their toys they should be taken away.
That being said under UN supervision people of all faiths could go and worship there.
As for comparing to Mecca and the Vatican, Jews have never had a historical claim or any strength over those cities, nor are they facts on the ground there either, so it doesn’t matter. It’s that macho pandering you were talking about.
Let Israel declare Tel Aviv their capital, which it actually is, and let Jerusalem be an autonomous city state belonging to no nation.
Is it not? Zionists colonized the area now known as the state of Israel pandering to the British colonial authorities.
If you have a problem with the word colonialism being used as it regards the formation of the state of Israel, I’d like to hear it because I’ve never heard a coherent argument put forth saying that it wasn’t.
Just like America, Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, etc… The modern state of Israel is a direct result of colonialism. How is that statement even controversial?
I believe they can now. 
Yes, but people fight over the control, and it remains a major barrier to peace concessions. Removing it from the negotiating table entirely is a wonderful option.
I don’t think one could force the Islamic guys to let Jews or Christians onto the Dome of the rock, or to participate in the archeological digs they conduct on the Temple.
That’s what the UN troops are there for.
I think they would walk up to the UN troops wearing explosives and blow themselves up. They have a sweet deal now, having their important religious site to themselves. I don’t think they would be willing to give up exclusive use.
Whats-his-name’s novelistic fantasy about Jerusalem under international control would be a step towards peace, but it ain’t gonna happen.
carnivorousplant: actually, I’ve been inside the Dome of the Rock. It’s quite beautiful.
Which would amount to absolutely no change, at all.
You’ll find that the seat of Israeli government is, in fact, not in Tel Aviv but Jerusalem. You might as well claim that Richon L’Tzion “actually is” Israel’s capital.
No, they don’t. There hasn’t been a major push for Jerusalem since 1967. Further, it is not a major barrier to peace negotiations as Israel has already offered East Jerusalem to the PA in negotiations that had a very strong chance to succeed. The status of refugees is a major sticking point. Jerusalem is not. Nor can you simply take away a country’s capital and expect that to somehow help negotiations. And, along the same lines, you couldn’t take Jerusalem without going to war for it. Good luck getting the UN to do that.
Most certainly not, no.
It’s bizarre that anybody would even argue that point.
There are so many things wrong with that. First, not only did Zionists begin to immigrate to the region and buy land decades before the Balfour Deceleration, but the British went as far as to draft the racist White Paper. It’s beyond me how you could describe Jewish behavior (which included blowing up the military headquarters of the British in the area), as “pandering” to them.
Further, you’re torturing the language to get it to give you a specific result. We have different words for immigration and colonization. If I buy an apartment in the next town and move there, I’m not “colonizing” it. The fact is that people have realized that Colonialism has a justifiably bad reputation and that the West is still guilty over it, so some folks have decided to play some linguistic sleight of hand and pretend that free citizens moving to a new place and buying land, of their own volition, is the same sort of thing as Britain using military force in a foreign land in order to have the natives send back resources that could be sold, or what have you.
You want an elaboration on why you’ve invented a definition of a word that has massive pol8itical baggage and shouldn’t be used especially since we have accurate words to describe what happened?
Why?
It should be rather obvious that individual citizens moving to a new location is not, in fact, “1 a: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.”
We’re not even talking interpretation, but simple denotation here.
Because it’s factually inaccurate.
There was a UK that sent citizens to America.
There was no Jewlandia that colonized the Levant.
it’s just weird and more than a little strange to describe the non-state-sponsored voluntary migration of private citizens as “colonization”. By that standard, Mexico is colonizing the United States. As is much of Asia. Which makes large swaths of Texas Mexican territory, I guess. And every China Town is an Asian under political control. And so on, and so on, and so on. It’s just absurd.
We can talk about Israel in the context of nationalism, which would be correct. We could talk about it in the context of socialism, which would miss the point a bit but would still lead to an analysis of many of the early Zionists’ goals. We could talk about the UK’s role in global politics in the post-colonialism period and how that led to its loosening hold over the entire Middle East. But to talk about Zionism as “Colonialism” is simply absurd. We might as well go a step further and refer to it as “imperialism”. Or as some nutters are wont to do these days “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide”, or whatever.
We should use language that is accurate, elucidative and serves the purpose of furthering discussion. Deceptive bombast like calling Israel a “colonial” power is simply rhetoric bomb chucking.
Oh, and the UN? Please. This is the same organization which has a long history of bias towards Israel’s enemies, up to and including numerous coverups and trickery with the aim (or just the totally coincidental result :rolleyes:) of hurting Israel. Putting the UN in charge of Jerusalem is a bit like putting Pat Buchanan in charge of the local B’nai Brith.
Cool. I’m curious as to your religion or ethnicity, though.
I’m an American, Jewish, of vaguely Russian extraction primarily.
When I went inside the dome it was on a trip called Project Understanding, six Catholic kids, six Reform Jews, one rabbi, one priest. We had no trouble getting in, we were only told to be respectful and quiet while we were there.
Untrue, it would table Jerusalem as a bargaining chip for all time.
Where they actually do most of the work is in Tel Aviv.
Fair enough.
Arguing by assertion really does nothing for my ignorance on the subject. I fail to see how Zionism wasn’t colonizing, and how the British colonial rule is irrelevant to the whole process.
So it’s only colonialism once the British sign a peace of paper? Ok, the British government handing over the state of Israel to the Jews.
I’m not torturing anything, you can relax on the hyperbole. I really do not understand how calling it colonialism is not appropriate. Your veiled and not so veiled insults do nothing to allay my confusion. I do not have some leftist axe to grind here, I really don’t understand how it’s inappropriate.
Your immigration comment doesn’t apply here. If you are a single person emigrating to another country that’s immigration, if you are a mass movement of people moving to another area to occupy and take it over, you are colonizing it. So, yes, we have two different words for a reason, but you’re abusing the word immigration to make a point about colonization.
I didn’t invent any terms. It’s obvious by the fact that I replied to YOUR post where YOU and **Alessan **brought it up, that I had no hand in its invention. Your constant ad hominems do nothing to change my confusion as to why it’s inappropriate.
Individual citizens did not move to Israel, a massive migration of Europeans with a political motive and a political organization moved to Israel.
But in response to 1: finally you address the actual issue after half a post of mainly personal attacks. Ok, so the severing of ties with the parent colony is what makes it no colonialism. Is that fair to say?
So because they were a people without a land, then it’s not colonialism? Is that the only distinction?
Umm again with the silly comparisons. Mexican nationals are not claiming sovereignty over portions of Texas.
Ok, so we don’t have a proper word for what they did, because it wasn’t just immigration as you claim, it was a methodical plan to take and occupy a territory permanently. The only difference I can see is the lack of state backing.
I agree, and your post could have been half the length without the personal insults which I am not really moved by. Your addressing of the actual question between the insults have been more persuasive. I am no longer moved by veiled references to an ‘agenda’, as it regards this topic because it’s just nonsense used to stifle debate. I am however willing to question the accuracy of the vocabulary I am using and I thank you for helping me see why it’s inaccurate.
No, because putting the UN in charge of Jerusalem would be putting them in charge of a holy city that is holy to many people not just Jews. Putting Pat Buchanan in charge of B’Nai Brith would be putting him in charge of an organization that is relevant to just Jews. The distinction here is that Jerusalem is not just for the Jews.
The UN makes decisions that piss people off all the time. They piss off other nations too, not just Israel. Every time Israel is hurt by anything it’s a grand conspiracy against the Jews. Is it a grand conspiracy against Iran that there are UN sanctions? What about Cuba? The UN must really be anti-Cuban right?
That’s hardly an answer to my question, is it? I’m asking what Arabs’ responses are to the sorts of points that Alessan is making–while suspecting that these sorts of conversations seldom take place.
Cool. I am impressed by the guys running the place.
Somebody pissing on your Mama’s tombstone wouldn’t annoy you? I believe that colors conversations that take place.
Alessan, you may think my analysis is OK, but I apparently wasn’t clear enough, because your response confuses it. The two societies each have to make a u-turn on one specific issue, in my view. The Palestinians have to give up the right of return to lands within the borders of Israel, as you note in your response. The Israelis have to agree to share Jerusalem as the capital of both countries. Yet you then change the equation and compare Palestinian leadership’s public views on the right of return with Israeli leadership’s public views on accepting the notion of an independent Palestinian state (the two state solution). Within my analysis the two are in no way equivalent. Accepting the two-state solution is a pre-requisite, either explicit or implicit, to the negotiations. Otherwise why negotiate? One side would be “negotiating” an outcome it doesn’t accept, and the other would eventually (or sooner) discover they are “negotiating” with a partner that doesn’t accept the goal of the negotiation.
I hope that helps clarify my views.
You then go on to make at least implicitly contradictory statements about your own views on Jerusalem.
To get a deal the political leadership of both parties must start doing the hard work within their own political constituencies to make the necessary compromise. I’m not going to challenge your assertion that Palestinian leadership has not begun to sufficiently address the right to return issue. (I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of statements of Palestinian leaders, and I it is what stuck in Arafat’s craw at Camp David, it seems to me.)
I also don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of the statements of Israeli leadership. Can you enlighten me as to how many Israeli political leaders have said that Israel should accept a Jerusalem which is the capital of both countries?
As to your own views, I recognize the courage it takes for an Israeli to say “That said, I personally would probably accept, under certain circumstances, the division of Jerusalem into Israeli and Palestinian halves, so long as the Old City stays on the Israeli side. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable compromise.” Your later statements about the importance of Jerusalem to the Israeli identity are more than indicative of the difficulty of the issue.
But you never identify what the “certain circumstances” are, so I really don’t have any indication whether it could be a reasonable compromise or not. Can you be more explicit? And think about it. Your views could influence the views of both Israelis and Palestinians. Your choice is whether they will be constructive or not. Abe’s point about “well poisoning” was well taken, it seems to me, and your response was that you were responding to an earlier “well poisoning,” not that well poisoning doesn’t occur. I don’t think I’ve poisoned any wells (I’ve certainly tried not to), so I hope we can continue to fight ignorance together.
Sure it is. I’m giving you the essential context to understand exactly why Israelis aren’t keen to give up Jerusalem.There’s no reason to discuss what isn’t on the table and never will be.
I was responding to the claim that under the UN everybody could worship freely there… when they can already do that.
What type of work, exactly? Legislative work? No. Judicial? No.
Financial? Then does that mean that Manhattan “really” is the US capital?
Well, at least you agree that Colonialism is not the proper word.
Of course, , for more than half a century, there was zero hope of overthrowing the Ottoman Empire so no “methodical plan”. Even later, during the Mandate period, the Jews of the region agreed to a state on only a limited portion of territory whose ownership rights they’d already purchased. The plan to “take” territory was defensive and designed to be implemented if the whole situation descended into war.
Of course, it was immigration. What happened after the sovereign fell in WWI and the new sovereign established the area as the Jewish Homeland is another story. We could coin a new word, but there doesn’t seem much need. We can simply describe what happened in all of its nuances.
You’ve drawn a distinction without a difference. That UN workers and/or policy in the region is heavily biased against Israel with often deliberately damaging results is almost impossible to deny. Arguing that placing them in charge of a site that the vast majority of Israelis consider a national treasure is absurd. That they might only fuck with Israelis and leave various other people alone is not a reason to let them administrate it. Let alone the fact that you’d have to launch a war to conqueror it. Which nations, exactly, would wage this war against Israel as part of the UN force? How, exactly, would the UNSC get a vote under Chapter VII to launch such an invasion?
You’re essentially calling for a war to be waged against Israel in order to help the peace process.
No, that’d just be the UN’s conspiracies against Israel which have been proven.
Like having three IDF soldiers captured by Hezbollah soldiers wearing faux UN gear, driving faux UN vehicles and when UNFIL videotaped the kidnapping scene complete with details that might have helped Israel, the UN then denied that any such tape existed. For months.
Or having proof that a UN position in Lebanon had an Hezbollah position right next to it but then hiding those emails and claiming that Israel hit the UN compound on purpose and there was no Hezbollah presence at its location.
Or having a UN run school whose Head Master was a bomb maker for Islamic Jihad and then trying to squash the story.
And of course, there’s the UNRWA…
[
](The Rise of the UAE and the Meaning of MbZ | The Washington Institute)
No, it’s no conspiracy theory. The UN’s history of coverups and malfeasance is quite clear.
A quick point about ancestry. Some of my ancestors emigrated from Hawaii. Does that give me and my family any claim to it? Why don’t I just move there, assert my claim and boot out all the Americans?
Secondly, to this assertion that Israel just somehow appeared and managed to fight wars. Exactly where did they get the weapons from without international backing? How were they recognised as a state without international support?
To say that Israel was won and built without the support of the general international community is soehow akin to saying that it fell from the sky as a fuly built nation. Especially in the time period we are talking about.
Australia has been mentioned here. The country was settled first as a prison colony more than 200 years ago. For practical purposes the contry was uninhabited when the English arrived. But even then there was international recognition of the British claim to the country. (yes I do know some of the history of how the settlers treated the Aboriginals. I also know that under international law at the time Australia was claimed by the British as it was unihabited)
For America - settlement was sponsored by the English right - otherwise why was there a war of indpendence?
Or how about New Zealand in the 1800’s? The place was settled by treaty with the Natives. A treaty between the British crown and the people of New Zealand that still needed international recognition.