How about another Mandate? (A solutions thread)

[Humanity]

Defining "occupied territory" is not so difficult unless you are Israeli! Then it all get's a little more complicated...

There are three basic definitions of "occupied territory". The Arab Palestinians and there supporters will say its ALL occupied. The international community will say that the Green Line is an actual border (patently false, but has entered global consciousness in such a vehement and stubborn way, its hard to convince people that it is patently false.) And Israel will say that much of the territory is disputed until a peace treaty is hammered out. Shrug. Anyone who claims that defining "occupied territory" is easy is not paying attention.

Yeah, clearly I do not agree with the mindset of must withdraw from ALL of the territory...

Interesting, because that was exactly how you wrote your demand in the previous post:

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

So, if I understand your post correctly, you have softened considerably from this approach. The rest of your post appears to me to be quite balanced and I mostly can't find fault with it. If I may sum up?

There should be two states and mutual acceptance and recognition. There should be an international border between states. Neither state is obligated to provide services to the other, though mutual agreements (water in particular) would benefit both parties. Belligerent activity needs to be adequately addressed, including with military action (but possibly not by Israel -- interesting solution. It is a RADICAL shift from accepted international law and practice. Double standard for Israel?!) Ethnic cleansing is to be avoided. People should be permitted to choose their nationality and residence. Land swaps are a no-brainer. Settlements (both Jewish and Arab) need to be part of the negotiations. There should be free, internationally supervised elections in places where there are not currently.

These are all points of agreement between us. I do find it interesting (and refreshing) that you take the time to respond. I think it goes a long way to helping me understand your point of view. I think you sometimes post "sound bytes" that don't reflect the true depths of your understanding of the conflict and its potential solutions. Perhaps I do as well.

Points of disagreement, clarification and further discussion:

Though, I must question why it is ONLY Israel who is deciding what she keeps and what she gives away?

This is directly related to the initial post you made demanding Israel end the occupation and remove all settlements. In order to do that there has to be some sort of definition of what that means. If there is no negotiation and treaty about what that means, and yet you demand Israel perform this action unilaterally, then Israel has to make that decision unilaterally.

As far as Gaza is concerned, yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza... However, it has never relinquished control of Gaza... That is a fundamental issue in itself... I know, I know, it's Israel "protecting" herself... So, in reality, Gaza is still considered as 'occupied' as it is still significantly controlled by Israel... There can never be the shift in ideology until this stops... And yes, it will simply fuel the extreme ideology until Gaza is no longer under ANY control from Israel...

Sure. I don't entirely agree with this, but let's focus on solutions. How do we move forward here?

Do we agree that the fundamental problem is the ideology which Hamas (and Gazans) holds that Israel must not have any sovereignty over any part of the territory? How do we solve this fundamental problem?

What should Israel be doing on a practical level? Let's say Israel chooses to give full control to Gaza. In my world, that means Israel views the border as an international border. That means Israel has the right to restrict entry into its nation as it sees fit. That means Israel has no obligation to provide medical care to foreigners. Nor electricity, water, security or anything else. Nor trade agreements. (Though she can choose to do so). That also means Israel has no right to restrict movement of people or trade through sea, air or other land crossings.

I have no problem with this. This is actually, in fact, the GOAL here.

BUT...here's the problem. Let's say this all comes about. And let's say Gazans use this opportunity to import weapons and attack Israel. (I think this is likely in the extreme.) What do you think would be a permissible response from Israel, in this case?

To clarify one thing where I feel you have misquoted me....

You stated that Palestinians want withdraw from ALL territory... Am I right in thinking that you believe that Palestinians want withdrawal to be the non existence of Israel? I state that I wanted Israel to with draw from ALL "Occupied" territory... That does NOT mean that I want Israel to 'disappear' quite the opposite... I am more than happy for the existence of Israel... The same as I am happy with the existence of every country...

So, to clarify, no I haven't "softened" my views, far from it, I strongly believe in Israel withdrawing from occupied territory... But, and I hope like you also, believe that there needs to be sensible negotiations in relation to land swaps WITHOUT making isolated enclaves of Israelis or Palestinians!!!

However, let me deal with your 'summing up'...

Basically yes to all... But, perhaps I should clarify one point... Retaliation for 'belligerent activities' If you want to call it "double standard" for Israel that is fine, but I consider it a POSITIVE "double standard"... You want Israel to be lambasted for it's 'heavy-handed' retaliation against belligerent activities? You want some board members here to shout and scream 'murder of civilians' and point the finger directly at Jews? Probably not... So, why not have a PROPER international force, WITH Israel involvement if you so wish, to stop any belligerent activity... If that means, in the case of Gaza, the ousting the controlling government then so be it... But Israel could never get away with it alone... Of course, if you prefer Israel take ALL responsibility for any retaliation and face international condemnation and possible repercussions then sure, why not...

Any peace solution needs some agreements on supplies of water, power etc... And also help, financial and practical, for Gaza/Palestine to become independant... It's really up to Israel whether they wish to assist or not... I could care less one way or the other, there would be two independent states so, no one going to force anyone to help out...

Yep, it's really what everyone is looking for, give Gaza the right of 'self determination'... Air, land and sea... To be agreed ONLY after true, free elections and on the understanding that Gaza will be taken out of the control of an elected government IF the government a) in any way shows aggression toward Israel b) does nothing to stop/condem individual terrorist groups!

And of course there would be an international border, each state having the right to control as it see's fit...

 

[Humanity]

There is considerable overlap with the three Abrahamic faiths on holy sites.

This is what I thought you were going to say. It is not a common thing at ALL for religions to usurp other religion's holy places. So let's be honest about what this is.

(Christianity and) Islam usurped another faith's myths, stories, scripture, history, monuments and holy places. It replaced and overwrote and fundamentally dismissed another faith to the extent that the UN (representing the international community) rejects the original ownership of these stories and history and places. To the extent that the UN (representing the international community) gives precedence of these places, and dominance over them to the usurpers, as though the usurpers have EQUAL claim to those places they have usurped.

It is the height of absurdity. As though the British should have rights to claim Canada's First Nations holy places because, well, they stole it a really long time ago, so....

'Religion' has ALWAYS 'borrowed' from others...
Which, in my mind, is why religion, as a 'story' is such utter BS!
Horus and the story of Jesus, for example...
Yes, I know that there are many counter claims and disputes over the actual story of Horus but that is also true of Jesus...

 

[Shusha]

To clarify one thing where I feel you have misquoted me....

You stated that Palestinians want withdraw from ALL territory... Am I right in thinking that you believe that Palestinians want withdrawal to be the non existence of Israel?

Yes. I think this is the goal for many Palestinians (not all). It is supported by Hamas certainly, and parts of Fatah. I'm relatively certain the people don't all want this, though a significant portion do. But the current governments do.

I state that I wanted Israel to with draw from ALL "Occupied" territory... That does NOT mean that I want Israel to 'disappear' quite the opposite... I am more than happy for the existence of Israel... The same as I am happy with the existence of every country...

Yes, I understand this is your position.

So, to clarify, no I haven't "softened" my views, far from it, I strongly believe in Israel withdrawing from occupied territory... But, and I hope like you also, believe that there needs to be sensible negotiations in relation to land swaps WITHOUT making isolated enclaves of Israelis or Palestinians!!!

Right. So the way I see it, your initial statement was "Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territories". I interpreted that as a unilateral, non-negotiable requirement put upon Israel. But then you "soften" your position by agreeing to negotiation, land swaps, discussion on both Jewish and Arab settlements, agency for individuals in choosing their nationality and residence, etc.

In that case, we agree. (At least in principle).

In my view, in a perfect world, the two sides of the conflict would sit down and hammer out a nice peace treaty, agreeing on land swaps, borders, dual-citizenship, water sharing agreements, etc, etc, etc.

In the absence of a perfect world (which appears to be the case), perhaps Israel should unilaterally make some of those decisions and act accordingly, thus withdrawing from the remaining territory in an effort to show good faith to the Palestinian people that they intend to support a Palestinian State. Such a arrangement would likely favor Israel, but Israel can afford to be generous.

One other thing -- I don't think there is a morally responsible way of preventing enclaves of Jews or Arabs in the other state. Its geographically impossible without ethnicaly cleansing some areas. Which I feel is morally unacceptable. Instead, I think each state will have to cope with a certain population of the other. I actually see that as a positive thing. And, of course, the people affected should have some say in the matter.

Also, you made no comments on Jerusalem.

But, perhaps I should clarify one point... Retaliation for 'belligerent activities' If you want to call it "double standard" for Israel that is fine, but I consider it a POSITIVE "double standard"... You want Israel to be lambasted for it's 'heavy-handed' retaliation against belligerent activities? You want some board members here to shout and scream 'murder of civilians' and point the finger directly at Jews? Probably not... So, why not have a PROPER international force, WITH Israel involvement if you so wish, to stop any belligerent activity...

Here's my problem with what I see as a double standard. No other country (to my knowledge) has been required by the international community to restrain from defending itself against belligerent attacks. Imagine telling South Korea it can't defend itself if it gets attacked by North Korea? Now, if what you are really saying is that the international community should aid Israel in responding to Gazan belligerency, then YES! But that must come with a balanced and objective set of guidelines about how to be effective militarily in the conditions Israel is faced with in Gaza. There can't be a different set of standards for Israel. If you are going to demand that no air missiles are used because of the proximity to civilians you have to demand that for every country. And supervise every country. If you only make these demands on Israel it smacks of antisemitism. If people think we can have a war without killing any civilians in a place like Gaza they are just fooling themselves.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you are going to demand that no air missiles are used because of the proximity to civilians you have to demand that for every country.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One other thing -- I don't think there is a morally responsible way of preventing enclaves of Jews or Arabs in the other state. Its geographically impossible without ethnicaly cleansing some areas.

Indeed, in a two state solution, all Israeli settler are Palestinians.

Nothing gets destroyed. Nobody has to move.

 

[Shusha]

'Religion' has ALWAYS 'borrowed' from others...
Which, in my mind, is why religion, as a 'story' is such utter BS!
Horus and the story of Jesus, for example...
Yes, I know that there are many counter claims and disputes over the actual story of Horus but that is also true of Jesus...

Oh please. There is a HUGE difference between borrowing concepts and myths from one religion to another (though I remain entirely unconvinced in the Hor/JC connection) and the Vatican building a church on the Giza plateau and then taking both religious and political control of the Great Pyramids because it really belongs to them.

If you can't see that....

 

[Coyote]

The problem I have with that is the same I have with cultural appropriation...where do you draw lines?

When does the normal evolution of religion, music, cuisine become something bad and can any one group hold the patent on faith or ideas or musical tradition?

You draw the lines at stealing. Its like copyright, yes? I can write a story about a little green man with big ears and a staff. But the second I call him Yoda and give him a remarkable speech pattern and put him in a story about Luke Skywalker -- I'm stealing.

Islam is not an "evolution" of Judaism. Islam is not at all related to Judaism.

In order to steal, you must be the owner of something or it has to be something you created. Something unique. You are the author. But once you start expanding that to something like religion it becomes problematic.

Almost every religion has roots in older beliefs or has icorperated the stories of an older belief into their own. They are built upon what came before. Both Christianity and Islam were built upon Judaism. How is that theft? If a musician uses Traditional African instruments and rythums to create a new musical genre is that theft? Or is it stifling the free flow of cultures, music, food, ideas and religion and ability to express them in new forms?

Both Islam and Christianity are very related to Judaism...

 

[Coyote]

'Religion' has ALWAYS 'borrowed' from others...
Which, in my mind, is why religion, as a 'story' is such utter BS!
Horus and the story of Jesus, for example...
Yes, I know that there are many counter claims and disputes over the actual story of Horus but that is also true of Jesus...

Oh please. There is a HUGE difference between borrowing concepts and myths from one religion to another (though I remain entirely unconvinced in the Hor/JC connection) and the Vatican building a church on the Giza plateau and then taking both religious and political control of the Great Pyramids because it really belongs to them.

If you can't see that....

No one should be barred from their faiths jolly sites.

 

[rylah]

The problem I have with that is the same I have with cultural appropriation...where do you draw lines?

When does the normal evolution of religion, music, cuisine become something bad and can any one group hold the patent on faith or ideas or musical tradition?

You draw the lines at stealing. Its like copyright, yes? I can write a story about a little green man with big ears and a staff. But the second I call him Yoda and give him a remarkable speech pattern and put him in a story about Luke Skywalker -- I'm stealing.

Islam is not an "evolution" of Judaism. Islam is not at all related to Judaism.

In order to steal, you must be the owner of something or it has to be something you created. Something unique. You are the author. But once you start expanding that to something like religion it becomes problematic.

Almost every religion has roots in older beliefs or has icorperated the stories of an older belief into their own. They are built upon what came before. Both Christianity and Islam were built upon Judaism. How is that theft? If a musician uses Traditional African instruments and rythums to create a new musical genre is that theft? Or is it stifling the free flow of cultures, music, food, ideas and religion and ability to express them in new forms?

Both Islam and Christianity are very related to Judaism...

The matter here is not copyright infringement. The 12 bar Blues can be embellished and arranged into a Heavy Metal song which gives us the Black Sabbath and Led.

However I don't remember the British musicians banning Afro-Americans from performing their traditional songs in the House Of Blues.

 

[rylah]

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.



The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.

The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

I don not think that there is any question that we largely agree... Devil is in the detail...

To try and deal with your comments as made...

Why "must" Jerusalem stay under Israeli sovereignty? Corpus separatum was proposed in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... For me, as a non Jew and non Muslim, yet with my 'Christian' upbringing, feel that Jerusalem is WAY more important than to be fought and argued over by multiple religions as to the 'ownership' of such an historic place!

Defining "occupied territory" is not so difficult unless you are Israeli! Then it all get's a little more complicated...

Yeah, clearly I do not agree with the mindset of must withdraw from ALL of the territory... There IS no ideological solution, for either side... However, there does need to be an acceptance that BOTH parties exist, Israel and Palestine, particularly Israel... That would be a good start position...

So, for simplicity, let's define the Green Line as de facto so that I can at least answer your questions...

Land swaps should NEVER be off the table! Come on, there does need to be a sensible approach to negotiating peace!

No, of course not, everyone should have the right to live where they choose... I'm a foreigner in my chosen country... There is no reason for it to be different anywhere... And I haven't "renounced" my home country, so why should Jews choosing to stay in Palestine?

Settlements, Jew or Arab, need to be part of the negotiations, included in land swap negotiations maybe? However, there does need to be a sensible approach to this... Why would you have an isolated settlement, Jewish or Arab, in the middle of a defined state?

"international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border" - Yes of course... If we are looking at a two state solution then there MUST be clear, defined borders...

Both sides have an "obligation" to the other... In terms of respecting those "international borders"... However, my chosen country to live has agreements with its neighbouring country to provide "services" ... I don't see that as being unworkable in this instance either... And I should mention that my chosen country to live is NOT that friendly with its neighbour!

Further incidents need to be dealt with... That is given... However, some caution needs to be taken here... I would like to see, as I have said many times before, that ANY aggression, and I am going to single out rocket attacks from Gaza, should be dealt with by an international force and NOT Israel... Yes, I know, you are going to ask why cannot Israel defend herself... It's hardly EVER going to be a 'fair fight' is it... Gaza's military consists of? So, as has been seen, America and allies are very capable of dealing with 'aggressors' in the ME, let them deal with it.... Israel can then never come under criticism for heavy handed tactics!

Yes, I am with you, mostly, in that option 1 is the better option... Though, I must question why it is ONLY Israel who is deciding what she keeps and what she gives away?

As far as Gaza is concerned, yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza... However, it has never relinquished control of Gaza... That is a fundamental issue in itself... I know, I know, it's Israel "protecting" herself... So, in reality, Gaza is still considered as 'occupied' as it is still significantly controlled by Israel... There can never be the shift in ideology until this stops... And yes, it will simply fuel the extreme ideology until Gaza is no longer under ANY control from Israel...

Any mandate has to be put in place with agreements from across the globe... I would go so far as to say that, if there is even a 80% agreement then it should be 'implemented' with the help of the international community...

And one final thing... There needs to be elections, free, open elections within Gaza and Palestine as soon as possible... Carried out under international controls to ensure that there is a) no falsification of results b) that there are elections EVERY 4 years!

I am willing to give up the West Bank, which is the heartland of Biblical Israel, but not Jerusalem. It is the heart and soul of the Jewish People. Without Jerusalem, there is no point in there being an Israel at all. So much Jewish blood was not spilled so Tel-Aviv could have its nightlife, clubs and beaches.

Thats no surprise...

However, Jerusalem is currently divided... And, I feel, will remain divided even with a negotiated peace solution...

Corpus separatum would give Jerusalem the status it deserves!

I have been thinking about this idea of corpus separatum. It alarms me.
Where would the line be drawn?

Notice that Jews are a minority in the world, and You are suggesting giving control of the city to a majority of Christians and Muslims.
Where's the line between liberal idealism and simply taking Jerusalem from Jews?

This is further accepting and enforcing the unjust status quo on the Temple Mount and others, in my view.

 

[Shusha]

In order to steal, you must be the owner of something or it has to be something you created. Something unique. You are the author. But once you start expanding that to something like religion it becomes problematic.

Really? Why? Why is it problematic to say this people developed in this place, has this history here and created these monuments and these writings? Do you have a problem with Egypt having 'ownership' of Hatshepsut's Temple? Do you have a problem with Cambodia 'owning' Angkor Wat? Do you have a problem with Britain 'owning' Stonehenge?

Almost every religion has roots in older beliefs or has icorperated the stories of an older belief into their own. They are built upon what came before.

Sure. We agree. And I have absolutely no issue with Islam, or any religion, "borrowing" mythical elements. As you said, we did it too, most obviously with the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah. I'm drawing a distinction between myth-borrowing and denying indigenous peoples their history.

Both Christianity and Islam were built upon Judaism.... Both Islam and Christianity are very related to Judaism..

I think you can make that argument for Christianity as a hard sell, but not at all for Islam. There is nothing about Islam that "builds on" Judaism. Islam borrows (steals, usurps) one particular story from Judaism (that of the patriarch Abraham). That's it. Even the theft of the Temple Mount is not directly related to Judaism, but to an entirely separate event in Islamic mythology.

How is that theft? If a musician uses Traditional African instruments and rythums to create a new musical genre is that theft? Or is it stifling the free flow of cultures, music, food, ideas and religion and ability to express them in new forms?

I am not restricting new forms of myth and story. Or a sharing of cultures. Remember what the foundation of the discussion is. Jerusalem. The Temple Mount. The Cave of the Patriarchs. The Tombs of Joseph and Rachel.

These places, these places of religious and historical meaning for the Jewish people, are being erased from that people's history. They are not just being "adopted" by another parent -- they are being erased from being connected to the Jewish people. By followers of Islam. By a foreign culture who invaded and usurped the places, the history, the myths, the stories and are actively trying to exclude the original builders of these places. With the support of the international community. And you are arguing FOR it.


.

 

[rylah]

One other thing -- I don't think there is a morally responsible way of preventing enclaves of Jews or Arabs in the other state. Its geographically impossible without ethnicaly cleansing some areas.

Indeed, in a two state solution, all Israeli settler are Palestinians.

Nothing gets destroyed. Nobody has to move.

This is a lie. In the Palestinian vision of the 2 state solution, Palestine is Judenrhein and Israel is a state 'of all people':

So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

"Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state."

Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

"Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after."

MAEN RASHID AREIKAT
The Palestinian ambassador to Washington

 

[Shusha]

In order to steal, you must be the owner of something or it has to be something you created.

You do realize this is exactly the argument used by the anti-Israelis of the world, yes? That the Jewish people have no ownership over their own land, history and religious monuments.

 

[rylah]

In order to steal, you must be the owner of something or it has to be something you created. Something unique. You are the author. But once you start expanding that to something like religion it becomes problematic.

Really? Why? Why is it problematic to say this people developed in this place, has this history here and created these monuments and these writings? Do you have a problem with Egypt having 'ownership' of Hatshepsut's Temple? Do you have a problem with Cambodia 'owning' Angkor Wat? Do you have a problem with Britain 'owning' Stonehenge?

Almost every religion has roots in older beliefs or has icorperated the stories of an older belief into their own. They are built upon what came before.

Sure. We agree. And I have absolutely no issue with Islam, or any religion, "borrowing" mythical elements. As you said, we did it too, most obviously with the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah. I'm drawing a distinction between myth-borrowing and denying indigenous peoples their history.

Both Christianity and Islam were built upon Judaism.... Both Islam and Christianity are very related to Judaism..

I think you can make that argument for Christianity as a hard sell, but not at all for Islam. There is nothing about Islam that "builds on" Judaism. Islam borrows (steals, usurps) one particular story from Judaism (that of the patriarch Abraham). That's it. Even the theft of the Temple Mount is not directly related to Judaism, but to an entirely separate event in Islamic mythology.

How is that theft? If a musician uses Traditional African instruments and rythums to create a new musical genre is that theft? Or is it stifling the free flow of cultures, music, food, ideas and religion and ability to express them in new forms?

I am not restricting new forms of myth and story. Or a sharing of cultures. Remember what the foundation of the discussion is. Jerusalem. The Temple Mount. The Cave of the Patriarchs. The Tombs of Joseph and Rachel.

These places, these places of religious and historical meaning for the Jewish people, are being erased from that people's history. They are not just being "adopted" by another parent -- they are being erased from being connected to the Jewish people. By followers of Islam. By a foreign culture who invaded and usurped the places, the history, the myths, the stories and are actively trying to exclude the original builders of these places. With the support of the international community. And you are arguing FOR it.


.

I agree here on 98%. Not sure about what You've said about Islam.

It seems that the effectiveness of any proposed solution should be measured by its' application to the Temple Mount. It's the heart of the problem for both sides. We can find agreeable solutions to most of the issues, but this one has the potential to break it all down.

 

[montelatici]

In order to steal, you must be the owner of something or it has to be something you created.

You do realize this is exactly the argument used by the anti-Israelis of the world, yes? That the Jewish people have no ownership over their own land, history and religious monuments.

There are no Jewish people, there are people that practice Judaism that are a part of the Argentinian people, U.S. people, Irish people, etc. Just as there are people that practice Hinduism, Mormonisn etc. To say otherwise, i.e. that Judaism, for some reason, is different than other religions is actually counterproductive for people that practice Judaism worldwide. If an American that practices Judaism is not an American, it raises quite a number of problems.

 

[Shusha]

If an American that practices Judaism is not an American, it raises quite a number of problems.

Why would an American who is Jewish NOT be American? I am Canadian. My ancestry is Irish and Scots and German. There are no problems with this. None at all. No one questions whether or not my "loyalty" lies with Canada or with Scotland. No one questions whether I am a Canadian. Are Arab Palestinian Americans suddenly not American?

Your antisemitism is showing by making a "Jewish problem" where there is none.

 

[montelatici]

If an American that practices Judaism is not an American, it raises quite a number of problems.

Why would an American who is Jewish NOT be American? I am Canadian. My ancestry is Irish and Scots and German. There are no problems with this. None at all. No one questions whether or not my "loyalty" lies with Canada or with Scotland. No one questions whether I am a Canadian. Are Arab Palestinian Americans suddenly not American?

Your antisemitism is showing by making a "Jewish problem" where there is none.

Quite the opposite, I am saying that an American that practices Judaism is part of the American people.

 

[Shusha]

If an American that practices Judaism is not an American, it raises quite a number of problems.

Why would an American who is Jewish NOT be American? I am Canadian. My ancestry is Irish and Scots and German. There are no problems with this. None at all. No one questions whether or not my "loyalty" lies with Canada or with Scotland. No one questions whether I am a Canadian. Are Arab Palestinian Americans suddenly not American?

Your antisemitism is showing by making a "Jewish problem" where there is none.

Quite the opposite, I am saying that an American that practices Judaism is part of the American people.

Which also poses no problems.

 

[Humanity]

Here's my problem with what I see as a double standard. No other country (to my knowledge) has been required by the international community to restrain from defending itself against belligerent attacks. Imagine telling South Korea it can't defend itself if it gets attacked by North Korea? Now, if what you are really saying is that the international community should aid Israel in responding to Gazan belligerency, then YES! But that must come with a balanced and objective set of guidelines about how to be effective militarily in the conditions Israel is faced with in Gaza. There can't be a different set of standards for Israel. If you are going to demand that no air missiles are used because of the proximity to civilians you have to demand that for every country. And supervise every country. If you only make these demands on Israel it smacks of antisemitism. If people think we can have a war without killing any civilians in a place like Gaza they are just fooling themselves.

I thought I had made my views and reasons for non Israeli retaliation pretty clear...

Obviously not...

So... Let me 'accept' your stand point, as I also mentioned in my previous comment...

Go for it... Let Israel 'defend' herself...

I don't really care... Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation... Or, to use your words "antisemitism"

So... Can you see why my discussion point is POSITIVE Israel or not?

 

[Shusha]

Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation...

Why, though? Why is Israel receiving worldwide condemnation for defending herself? What should she be doing differently, in terms of military action?