By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - US candidates see Jerusalem as the "undivded" capital of Israel

Kasz216 on 23 July 2008
superchunk said:
MrBubbles said:
what about compensation for the Jews that were run out of arab countries?

They did not leave due to a war in their area and they could return if they wish. In fact every territory that they left still has Jewish populations. Granted, they don't have the same religious freedoms as they would have outside of those nations, but, they are citizens as are those that left.

Whereas the Arabs tried to return home when the hostilities stopped and were not allowed and this extends to those who were living in the occupied territories and fled in '67 as well. They are not even allowed back into those territories unless they have a visa from another country, which is only temporary.

In reality it is no where near the same circumstance. The Jews left for two reasons, many out of fear of retribution from their Arab leaders and many for the free land, homes, and money that was given to them to immigrate to Israel. The Arabs all fled out of fear and when they tried to return home they were told no. They havn't even been able to get their possessions.

Would you really let in a bunch of people who are part of a group of people who are suicide bombing and firing rockets at you?

I think it's asinine to expect Israel to let people back in... in which Hamas and other terrorists could be hiding in or a part of while constant conflict is going on.  It would take extensive backround checks... which really aren't possible in part due to the excessive feeling.  Some of which was forced... and some of which was chosen.



Around the Network
konnichiwa on 23 July 2008

It i a bold statement.






Kasz216 on 23 July 2008
konnichiwa said:
It i a bold statement.


Yeah... it seems he see's Israel as fully Israels, is for moving the embassy there and against palestines right of return. Which actually puts him more "to the right" them Bush on that.

Why people thought he'd be a really friendly president to palestine i don't know.



MrBubbles on 23 July 2008
superchunk said:
MrBubbles said:
what about compensation for the Jews that were run out of arab countries?

They did not leave due to a war in their area and they could return if they wish. In fact every territory that they left still has Jewish populations. Granted, they don't have the same religious freedoms as they would have outside of those nations, but, they are citizens as are those that left.

Whereas the Arabs tried to return home when the hostilities stopped and were not allowed and this extends to those who were living in the occupied territories and fled in '67 as well. They are not even allowed back into those territories unless they have a visa from another country, which is only temporary.

In reality it is no where near the same circumstance. The Jews left for two reasons, many out of fear of retribution from their Arab leaders and many for the free land, homes, and money that was given to them to immigrate to Israel. The Arabs all fled out of fear and when they tried to return home they were told no. They havn't even been able to get their possessions.

 

 

what are you talking about?  a large number of the jews left because of arab violence

 

most of the arabs left because other arabs told them to... that they could come back once all the jews were dead.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

superchunk on 23 July 2008
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:

I still think the purpose of the law is embodied in that example. I think that any unbiased judge or group of peers would soundly agree that Israel is required by law to move back to the 1967 borders pre-6 day war.

I think this is self-evident in the fact that no Nation includes those territories as part of Israel, including E. Jerusalem. Even the US official policy is that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital and that E. Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Territories.

This is illegal as well as not allowing the right of return to all Arabs and their direct descendants to their homes in Israel. Granted this should be given up by Arabs in the prospect of gaining full 1967 boundaries and monetary compensation for other lost homes. But, that is just my opinion.

Actually official US policy is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital... as is the view of a lot of countries.

Every 6 months the US president has to sign an order delaying the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Basically just to not stir up the area.

See the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

Obama has promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem as had been planned way back in 1995.

Any politician has to align themselves in US politics with Israel, even if they disagree, since it would receive a huge backlash from the 2nd largest lobbying group, AIPAC. So, what they say when they are on the political tickets are meaningless.

If AIPAC didn't exist, this issue would have been closed years ago.

Furthermore...

"However, U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have argued that Congressional resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem are merely "advisory", stating that it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority". [3] The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President and resolutions of Congress which make foreign policy are arguably invalid for that reason. The U.S. Congress, however, has the "power of the purse", and could prohibit the expenditure of funds on any embassy located outside Jerusalem. The U.S. Congress has not taken this step."

That act is not official. It is advisory. The official position is where the Embassy is, and that is Tel Aviv.

Occording to this Israeli site http://www.science.co.il/embassies.asp there are NO embassies in Jerusalem. i.e. no Nation accepts Jerusalem as its capital. They are all in Tel Aviv.



Around the Network
MrBubbles on 23 July 2008

and what do you say about the large number of arabs in israel? the arabs that have more freedom than most arab countries.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

superchunk on 23 July 2008
MrBubbles said:
superchunk said:
MrBubbles said:
what about compensation for the Jews that were run out of arab countries?

They did not leave due to a war in their area and they could return if they wish. In fact every territory that they left still has Jewish populations. Granted, they don't have the same religious freedoms as they would have outside of those nations, but, they are citizens as are those that left.

Whereas the Arabs tried to return home when the hostilities stopped and were not allowed and this extends to those who were living in the occupied territories and fled in '67 as well. They are not even allowed back into those territories unless they have a visa from another country, which is only temporary.

In reality it is no where near the same circumstance. The Jews left for two reasons, many out of fear of retribution from their Arab leaders and many for the free land, homes, and money that was given to them to immigrate to Israel. The Arabs all fled out of fear and when they tried to return home they were told no. They havn't even been able to get their possessions.

 

 

what are you talking about?  a large number of the jews left because of arab violence

 

most of the arabs left because other arabs told them to... that they could come back once all the jews were dead.

I specifically said many left due to fear from Arab leaders and implied arab violence.

This is an theory that has never had any evidence of support. In April 9, 1948 two Jewish terrorist organizations, the Irgun and Stern Gang massacred, biblical style, the entire Arab village of Deir Yassin. This was one month before Israel declared itself a state and the 1948 war started. If this combined with previous deadly attacks by these Jewish groups and others like them didn't create a mass fear among Arab populace of what Israelis might do if you stuck around, I don't know what would. As a side note, to my knowledge nothing like this (mass murder) happened in the Arab countries to Jews.



superchunk on 23 July 2008
MrBubbles said:
and what do you say about the large number of arabs in israel? the arabs that have more freedom than most arab countries.

I say good. To me they should mutliply as much as possible to become the dominant culture once again.

EDIT: Also, even though their status may be greater than that in most Arab countries, they are still treated with a lot of racism and are far below every standard as compared to Jews in Israel.

 



Kasz216 on 23 July 2008
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:

I still think the purpose of the law is embodied in that example. I think that any unbiased judge or group of peers would soundly agree that Israel is required by law to move back to the 1967 borders pre-6 day war.

I think this is self-evident in the fact that no Nation includes those territories as part of Israel, including E. Jerusalem. Even the US official policy is that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital and that E. Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Territories.

This is illegal as well as not allowing the right of return to all Arabs and their direct descendants to their homes in Israel. Granted this should be given up by Arabs in the prospect of gaining full 1967 boundaries and monetary compensation for other lost homes. But, that is just my opinion.

Actually official US policy is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital... as is the view of a lot of countries.

Every 6 months the US president has to sign an order delaying the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Basically just to not stir up the area.

See the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

Obama has promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem as had been planned way back in 1995.

Any politician has to align themselves in US politics with Israel, even if they disagree, since it would receive a huge backlash from the 2nd largest lobbying group, AIPAC. So, what they say when they are on the political tickets are meaningless.

If AIPAC didn't exist, this issue would have been closed years ago.

Furthermore...

"However, U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have argued that Congressional resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem are merely "advisory", stating that it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority". [3] The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President and resolutions of Congress which make foreign policy are arguably invalid for that reason. The U.S. Congress, however, has the "power of the purse", and could prohibit the expenditure of funds on any embassy located outside Jerusalem. The U.S. Congress has not taken this step."

That act is not official. It is advisory. The official position is where the Embassy is, and that is Tel Aviv.

Occording to this Israeli site http://www.science.co.il/embassies.asp there are NO embassies in Jerusalem. i.e. no Nation accepts Jerusalem as its capital. They are all in Tel Aviv.

They argue it's advisory. That's their excuse for the waiver. The congress has come close to overriding the waivers yet was stopped when of all people Israel told them to keep their embassys in Tel Aviv... Israel for once was being sensitive about the issue.

If you notice all official us paperwork lists the capital of Israel as Jerusalem.



superchunk on 23 July 2008
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:

Any politician has to align themselves in US politics with Israel, even if they disagree, since it would receive a huge backlash from the 2nd largest lobbying group, AIPAC. So, what they say when they are on the political tickets are meaningless.

If AIPAC didn't exist, this issue would have been closed years ago.

Furthermore...

"However, U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have argued that Congressional resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem are merely "advisory", stating that it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority". [3] The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President and resolutions of Congress which make foreign policy are arguably invalid for that reason. The U.S. Congress, however, has the "power of the purse", and could prohibit the expenditure of funds on any embassy located outside Jerusalem. The U.S. Congress has not taken this step."

That act is not official. It is advisory. The official position is where the Embassy is, and that is Tel Aviv.

Occording to this Israeli site http://www.science.co.il/embassies.asp there are NO embassies in Jerusalem. i.e. no Nation accepts Jerusalem as its capital. They are all in Tel Aviv.

They argue it's advisory. That's their excuse for the waiver. The congress has come close to overriding the waivers yet was stopped when of all people Israel told them to keep their embassys in Tel Aviv... Israel for once was being sensitive about the issue.

If you notice all official us paperwork lists the capital of Israel as Jerusalem.

You may be right, its all conjecture. However, I relate to the facts on the ground and those facts won't change until Palestine exists in some form. IMO that won't be for quite sometime since too many extreamists on boths sides exist and US is too biased to be a real partner for peace.