Because the Israeli claim to Jerusalem is based on illegally conquered territory, a violation of international law. The U.S. moving the embassy there is a universal "**** you" to the U.N. and decades of human rights violations by Israel, and legitimizes the force they've used.

I've already expressed my distaste for Hamas, but if you think the situation is just "naming a city a capital" and Palestinians "using force" then you're an apologist for human rights violations and the machinations of an ethnostate, flagrantly oppose any sensible approach to peace in the region and are generally a piece of ****.

You happened to say something that closely resembles an antisemitic canard about Jews having a double loyalty and hijacking American foreign policy to serve "Jewish interests" using money. But as bad as that sounds, I'm not saying you're prejudiced. But you did "go there", so to speak, in that you evoked the canard.

It also shows you don't know very much about the conflict at large.

That rested largely on Hitler's efforts to ingratiate himself with Arab nationalists by suggesting he would help them overthrow their British and French colonial overseers. It doesn't have to do with Hitler recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state (which he, uh, didn't do).

Doesn't the same apply to Virginia?

lol

And is seemingly just as heated!

Founded before the U.N., but, yeah, the way the colonies were founded was definitely a violation of human rights.

At least insofar as the settlers deliberately displaced and murdered the natives.

But you admit that the native Americans were no angels.

Yeah, I probably don't know enough about it to make a fair comment.

Yeah, but just like the Israeli-Palestine situation, someone "not being an angel" doesn't justify systemic violations of people's rights.

Unless you're Eversor, in which case morals don't matter in global politics.

And that's how you see moving the embassy to Jerusalem?

A huge part of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is claims over the borders of Jersualem. Israel conquered parts of Jerusalem and wants the borders moved further East, Palestine the opposite. Both sides have religious claims to the city. Both want it as their capital.

The U.N. wants to keep Jerusalem neutral.

The U.S. moving the embassy is equivalent to saying "world consensus is wrong, Palestine has no claim, Israel should get what it wants unilaterally".

In other words is a strong move away from compromise and peace, a **** you to Palestine and a justification of crimes Israel has committed. It's a pretty big deal.

The only thing I can reasonably respond to here is the first sentence. No: Israel's claim to Jerusalem is not based on a violation of international law. At least not in toto. While it's true that the 1947 US partition plan called for Jerusalem to have international status and not to be part of either the Jewish or the Arab state that it envisioned, West Jerusalem was conquered by the Zionists and East Jerusalem was conquered by Jordan, which also conquered what is now known as the West Bank (that's also a name which the Jordanians gave to that territory, because they wanted to annex it, but only the UK and... I think one other country acknowledge their annexation of the territory to Jordan, and then they rescinded it). There are a few European countries that still have hopes that one day Jerusalem will become an international protectorate, but it's not the policy of the UN. Regardless, Israel conquered East Jerusalem along with the West Bank in the six day war, and in 1980 Israel passed a law that has constitutional authority claiming that the whole of Jerusalem is Israel's undivided capital. It's true that Israel's claim to the whole of Jerusalem is a violation of international law. But the Jerusalem Law also has provisions that allow Israel to relinquish parts of the city to other countries. And Israel has shown a willingness to give up parts of Jerusalem in negotiations in 2000 and 2008. So... Yeah, we need to see whether tomorrow Trump recognizes the whole of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, or if he somehow qualifies it, or leaves room for Palestinians to claim East Jerusalem. If he doesn't, then obviously there will be some problems.

Everything else you wrote is just a big ad hominem attack that accuses me of being a bad person because I happen to have realistic opinions about this topic.

Yeah, this isn't right. Not even if you're looking at a map upside down, right-side up or whatever else.



There are also Christian Palestinians, so it's not if the Palestinian have one religious "side". But, as it stands now, Jerusalem and Jordan cooperatively administer many of the holy sites in the Old City.



No it doesn't. As I said, some EU member states do, but that completely defies all of the international law and the motions at the UN that have emerged as consensus began to grow in the late 80s that a two-state solution was the best way to solve Israel's dispute with the Palestinians.



Not in principle. It depends on how recognition is formulated. Russia recognized West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last year with little fanfare. It also affirmed its hope that East Jerusalem will someday be the capital of a Palestinian state. I don't think Trump will say that exactly. But we'll have to see. The embassy is a minor detail, unless it's built in East Jerusalem.

And if you're so offended that Israel would deny the claim of Palestinians', do you get offended when Palestinians use their non-observer status in the UN to pass motions that Israel has no connection to its holy sites throughout Israel and the occupied territories, including the Temple Mount and the Western Wall?

I'm not sure how you're getting from recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel to justifying Israeli war crimes. I suppose there are a few steps connecting those two ideas that I lack the moral acuity to perceive on my own.

Only phonepostin but I'll write a longer reply later. There's a difference between Russia and America recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, as the United States is, you know, the primary military ally of Israel.

About once a fortnight I glance at this thread and somehow it manages to get perpetually worse.

I didn't suggest that they're the same. Quite to the contrary, I was pointing out a potential difference between them.

do better then nerd

Hasn't stopped you before.

I'm just happy to have done my part to foster a lasting friendship between Reid and Eversor.

YOU DID THIS TO ME??

Well, I tried.

I am literally eating popcorn right now as I read this on my phone.

If it’s antisemitic to think that every Jewish person is automatically loyal to Israel, why is that the official policy of Israel?

I actually agree with you, but this is exactly the problem with an ethnostate and why Israel shouldn’t want to be one.

uhhh... what reason do you have to say that the empirically false statement that every Jewish person is loyal to Israel is the official policy of the State of Israel ?

Probably that it is the official policy of the State of Israel.

jus sanguinis

Being eligible to immigrate and claim citizen to a country by right of birth, religious affiliation, or being married to someone who is eligible has nothing to do insisting that everyone who is eligible to claim citizenship is loyal to that country. There are plenty of Israelis who are fierce critics of their country and think it would be better if it did not exist. And there are plenty of Jews in the diaspora who share that sentiment. None of them are defying the Law of Return.

All of the jews outside Israel could share that sentiment, it has nothing to do with the clear implication that everyone should come 'home'.

Canada has jus sanguinis laws that make the children of Canadians born outside the country citizens automatically. Is that equally as problematic? Is it more problematic?

Except Israel did effectively annex much of Jerusalem after beating the Jordanians, extending the jurisdiction much further than it has been previously, and literally the entire UN security council minus the US agrees the annexation and settlements in East Jerusalem are illegal. The claim to west Jerusalem is stronger for Israel, but yeah, if we consider "Jerusalem" to be "Jerusalem" and not "west Jerusalem", then yes, Israel's activities are a violation of international law.

So yes, I may have been too hasty in speaking, because I don't think Israel has no claim to any part, but I also think you know what I'm referring to.



Oh, how nice, Israel has volunteered to return parts of Jerusalem they annexed illegally? In both 2000 and 2008 the offers Israel gave for parts of Jersualem were insultingly small. This while, returning parts of Jerusalem, i.e. restoring the borders to the pre-1967 borders is nearly universally recognized as the best solution by nearly every state outside Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. for the past 50 years. There's massive consensus here, and Israel has never come close to suggesting they return that illegally annexed land.



Right, okay, not neutral in the sense of the UN 1947 partition idea, but neutral in the sense of allowing all people of all religions to enjoy the sites.



You're right - we can't say what Trump will say, and I doubt even he knows yet. We'll have to see.

And yes, I don't like everything Palestine does, and I'm willing to make criticisms where it matters. But the general story is one of belligerent refusal to accept a huge international consensus on the Jerusalem situation coming from Israel, and it's my call that Trump's going to affirm Israel's hard stance on maintaining their illegal positions in East Jerusalem.

lmao what the ****

The Right of Return asserts, as a policy of the State of Israel, that all Jewish people, on the proven bases of religion and ethnicity, are qualified for immigration and citizenship; to faithfully live in Israel, contribute to Israeli culture, vote in Israeli elections, participate in Israeli politics, and enrol in the Israeli military. That means, per Israel, there is something in special Jewish blood that makes them automatically trustworthy and loyal to Israel.

I don’t know why you’re lecturing me about how stupid this is. I agree with you, not every Jewish person has Israel’s best interests in mind, and it’s silly to think that every Jewish person is more loyal to Israel than any member of any other race, just because they’re Jewish. It’s antisemitic. But it’s also Israeli policy.

Again. This is why ethnostates are stupid. They are implicitly racist and they export their own racism.

Are you seriously comparing Israel’s extraordinary diaspora return rights to a very jus soli Canadian airport babies exception?

Yeah. You didn't need to respond to me here because that's just what I said.



It's patently false that Israel "has never come close to "suggesting they return" illegally annexed land. On the one hand, this is false because Israel hasn't annexed any part of the West Bank. But it's also false, because, under the Oslo Accords, it has already withdrawn 18% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority -- that is, Area A, which is where the Palestinians have full autonomy over their civic administration and security. In the Camp David Summit, the Palestinians were offered 92% of the West Bank, but Arafat declined. And in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip. And regarding Jerusalem: if the Palestinians accepted Camp David, they would've received all of the neighbors of Jerusalem where Palestinians live in significant numbers. Don't believe me? Compare this map of the Summit's proposed divisions of Jerusalem to this map of its population breakdown:





That'd be lovely. As it stands now, Jews are forbidden from praying on the Temple Mount for security reasons, even though it's the holiest site in Judaism. I'd love to see some sort of arrangement where that were no longer the case.

Which is to say: the current political arrangement is not the deciding factor that determines who has access to which holy sites. It isn't clear, for example, that if there is a two-state solution, the current arrangement would be dramatically different, although perhaps certain sites that are administered by Jordan would perhaps be administered by Palestine or by Jordan and Palestine together. It's a topic that is discussed in negotiations.



In 1937 the Arabs rejected the Peel Partition plan, In 1947 they rejected the UN partition plan, in 1967, after the Six Day War, at the conference of Khartoum they made their famous Three-No's declaration ("no peace with Israel, no recognition of it, and no negotiations with it"), in 2000 Arafat refused Ehud Barak's offers, and in 2008 Abbas refused Ehud Olmert's offers. But I guess you're right that the general story here is Israeli belligerence.

The U.S. has actively been blocking peace settlements, and has been assisting Israel while they expand settlements in Jerusalem in violation of international law and national security council resolutions, and we have a president radically anti-Arab. What do you think Trump's gonna do with this recognition? The pieces all fit together to suggest it's not benign, at all.