Israel signals displeasure at Australia's 'mistaken' W.Jerusalem move

[DaddyWarbucks]

There go the Zionist meshugas shooting themselves in the foot again.

Instead of welcoming this move by Australia that recognizes Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem, they want moral support for an eventual takeover of the entire city, the holy sites included. 

That's part of the Eretz Israel agenda, regardless of how much it is downplayed by the Hasbara narrative.

Moderate Jews all over the world are starting to realize that dream isn't going to come true.

It's time to coexist with the Palestinians. If you don't give them a viable state of their own, then you will face a one-state situation with equal rights for all.

The world isn't going to tolerate another ugly apartheid state. 

Those days are over.

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

There go the Zionist meshugas shooting themselves in the foot again.

Instead of welcoming this move by Australia that recognizes Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem, they want moral support for an eventual takeover of the entire city, the holy sites included. 

That's part of the Eretz Israel agenda, regardless of how much it is downplayed by the Hasbara narrative.

Moderate Jews all over the world are starting to realize that dream isn't going to come true.

It's time to coexist with the Palestinians. If you don't give them a viable state of their own, then you will face a one-state situation with equal rights for all.

The world isn't going to tolerate another ugly apartheid state. 

Those days are over.

 

 

The above ignores the fact that there are differing views within Zionism, and that not all subscribe to the extreme version alluded to. Bundling them all together is just an easy way to bash Israel as a whole - which is what this the above is about. Same goes for the supposed "narrative" comment.

 

There are plenty of "moderate Jews" who are Zionist, the differentiation exits mostly in the confines of rants such as the one above.

 

 

[DaddyWarbucks]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The above ignores the fact that there are differing views within Zionism, and that not all subscribe to the extreme version alluded to. Bundling them all together is just an easy way to bash Israel as a whole - which is what this the above is about. Same goes for the supposed "narrative" comment.

 

There are plenty of "moderate Jews" who are Zionist, the differentiation exits mostly in the confines of rants such as the one above.

 

 

There may be differing views within Zionism but the one that dominates has brought death and destruction not only to Israel but throughout the Middle East.

I reject your accusation that my post was a "rant" to "bash Israel".

It was no such thing.  Stop the personal attacks. 

 

[Nilats]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, it isn't an all-encompassing "Israeli standpoint". To begin with Israel's sizeable Arab minority may see things differently, and then there are those Israelis not fully embracing right wing positions as you imply.

 

There is a wide consensus among Israeli Jews regarding Jerusalem's status as the county capital - what comes under this label, ,though, is another matter. The same popular support is not afforded for statements referencing West Jerusalem, the holy sites or East Jerusalem. As for "there hasn't been any debate about it in Israel for decades now" - that would be one of your customary counterfactual assertions. What Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem encompasses or ought to encompass is often discussed.

Pretty much all the Israelis I knew/know - dozens and hundreds of them - everybody shares that consensus, I'm not familiar with these discussions for that reason - I've heard many other discussions, it's not the population that is shy of talking politics. As far as I know it's only discussed outside of Israel. I wouldn't recommend to discuss with anybody in Israel - Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem, Palestine, "Jesus" - all these are best to avoid, they are far to sensitive to Israel, so when you say that it's discussed "often" is an exaggeration imo ????

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

There may be differing views within Zionism but the one that dominates has brought death and destruction not only to Israel but throughout the Middle East.

I reject your accusation that my post was a "rant" to "bash Israel".

It was no such thing.  Stop the personal attacks. 

 

 

Not that this topic is about Zionism, but your take on it about as extreme and hyperbolic as expected. You may reject whatever, but commenting on your post and on the views you routinely express do not constitute a "personal attack". Here's for better deflections.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Nilats said:

Pretty much all the Israelis I knew/know - dozens and hundreds of them - everybody shares that consensus, I'm not familiar with these discussions for that reason - I've heard many other discussions, it's not the population that is shy of talking politics. As far as I know it's only discussed outside of Israel. I wouldn't recommend to discuss with anybody in Israel - Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem, Palestine, "Jesus" - all these are best to avoid, they are far to sensitive to Israel, so when you say that it's discussed "often" is an exaggeration imo ????

 

A key feature in your posts is a reliance on supposed personal experience. Not only are these comments unverifiable, they often lack credibility when countered with facts and reason.

 

Even if you, indeed, knew that many Israelis and was intimate with their political views, it would indicate nothing more than your limited exposure to differing views within the country.

 

As for your "recommendations" - the list is kinda funny considering you claim to actually have knowledge of political views, and the assertion that Israelis aren't shy about talking politics.

 

As for my comment being an exaggeration, may I suggest visiting past topics, which are peppered with numerous links to articles, columns and references from Israeli sources debating various aspects of said issues.

 

You (and unsurprisingly, other posters from the other side of the political spectrum) are trying to present a one-dimensional, extreme take, as if it was an uncontested consensus. That's not really the case, unless one is invested in oversimplification or trying to mislead.

[Nilats]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A key feature in your posts is a reliance on supposed personal experience. Not only are these comments unverifiable, they often lack credibility when countered with facts and reason.

 

Even if you, indeed, knew that many Israelis and was intimate with their political views, it would indicate nothing more than your limited exposure to differing views within the country.

 

As for your "recommendations" - the list is kinda funny considering you claim to actually have knowledge of political views, and the assertion that Israelis aren't shy about talking politics.

 

As for my comment being an exaggeration, may I suggest visiting past topics, which are peppered with numerous links to articles, columns and references from Israeli sources debating various aspects of said issues.

 

You (and unsurprisingly, other posters from the other side of the political spectrum) are trying to present a one-dimensional, extreme take, as if it was an uncontested consensus. That's not really the case, unless one is invested in oversimplification or trying to mislead.

So far the Israeli minister confirmed exactly what I said in his statement, so if we have an exception to the usual views on this subject - it's probably you ????

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Nilats said:

So far the Israeli minister confirmed exactly what I said in his statement, so if we have an exception to the usual views on this subject - it's probably you ????

 

An Israeli minister, representing a right-wing party. If you think this amounts to representing all political views in Israel, you're welcome to your illusion. Or perhaps, work on better spins.

 

[Nilats]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

An Israeli minister, representing a right-wing party. If you think this amounts to representing all political views in Israel, you're welcome to your illusion. Or perhaps, work on better spins.

 

I'm more of a leftist myself, and as a whole Israel has strong leftist elements - that's why they provide healthcare to Arabs, those who recognize the state of Israel. The specific issue of Jerusalem is a political and security dead end for Israel. It's in the interests of Palestinians to recognize the state of Israel with Jerusalem as the capital - there's no other way to resolve that frozen state of civil war that exists there. Encouraging Palestinians to do the opposite is not a way of helping them in any humanitarian sense. The only country can and will help them is Israel - they will never receive any support from either Jordan, Syria, Lebanon... etc, other Arab countries don't care about Palestinians. So there's a lot of hypocrisy with people who claim to care about their well being and sentiments but continue to push them towards an obvious political dead and and continued misery and stagnation. 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I'm more of a leftist myself, and as a whole Israel has strong leftist elements - that's why they provide healthcare to Arabs, those who recognize the state of Israel. The specific issue of Jerusalem is a political and security dead end for Israel. It's in the interests of Palestinians to recognize the state of Israel with Jerusalem as the capital - there's no other way to resolve that frozen state of civil war that exists there. Encouraging Palestinians to do the opposite is not a way of helping them in any humanitarian sense. The only country can and will help them is Israel - they will never receive any support from either Jordan, Syria, Lebanon... etc, other Arab countries don't care about Palestinians. So there's a lot of hypocrisy with people who claim to care about their well being and sentiments but continue to push them towards an obvious political dead and and continued misery and stagnation. 

A leftist defender of Trump! Will wonders never cease?

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Nilats said:

I'm more of a leftist myself, and as a whole Israel has strong leftist elements - that's why they provide healthcare to Arabs, those who recognize the state of Israel. The specific issue of Jerusalem is a political and security dead end for Israel. It's in the interests of Palestinians to recognize the state of Israel with Jerusalem as the capital - there's no other way to resolve that frozen state of civil war that exists there. Encouraging Palestinians to do the opposite is not a way of helping them in any humanitarian sense. The only country can and will help them is Israel - they will never receive any support from either Jordan, Syria, Lebanon... etc, other Arab countries don't care about Palestinians. So there's a lot of hypocrisy with people who claim to care about their well being and sentiments but continue to push them towards an obvious political dead and and continued misery and stagnation. 

 

I doubt your opening comment, nothing in your posts suggests or supports it. More like low level debate tactics.

 

With regard to your strong statements regarding Jerusalem - the question is what comes under the label of "Jerusalem".  De facto, the city is split between east and west, and I do not think all Israelis are, when push comes to shove, quite as invested in keeping control of East Jerusalem. This excludes the holy sites, which are indeed a problem issue, and assumes that security concerns could be adequately resolved.

 

The rest of your post is mostly more off-topic counterfactual waffle.

 

[Nilats]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt your opening comment, nothing in your posts suggests or supports it. More like low level debate tactics.

 

With regard to your strong statements regarding Jerusalem - the question is what comes under the label of "Jerusalem".  De facto, the city is split between east and west, and I do not think all Israelis are, when push comes to shove, quite as invested in keeping control of East Jerusalem. This excludes the holy sites, which are indeed a problem issue, and assumes that security concerns could be adequately resolved.

 

The rest of your post is mostly more off-topic counterfactual waffle.

 

Since I do not jump at others accusing them of ignorance in every sentence - seems to be your only tactic in any argument... can we see some verifiable credentials that make you think that you can speak on behalf of all Israelis on this subject. Are you a leader of a political party of Israel... a rabbi of Israel, minister of defense... etc... Clearly and thoroughly present who you are or quit accusing others of ignorance of fact or opinion. I speak only from my perspective and I want to stress that - I don't claim to be the most informed on these issues, I've never met Shimon Peres personally, but I know many people who have.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Nilats said:

Since I do not jump at others accusing them of ignorance in every sentence - seems to be your only tactic in any argument... can we see some verifiable credentials that make you think that you can speak on behalf of all Israelis on this subject. Are you a leader of a political party of Israel... a rabbi of Israel, minister of defense... etc... Clearly and thoroughly present who you are or quit accusing others of ignorance of fact or opinion. I speak only from my perspective and I want to stress that - I don't claim to be the most informed on these issues, I've never met Shimon Peres personally, but I know many people who have.

 

Is that the best spin you can pull? I'm pointing out obvious inaccuracies and flaws in your "take", your response? More of the same, plus lame deflections.

 

There wasn't any suggestion in my posts that I "speak on behalf of all Israelis". If anything, the point made was that there are differing views within Israel. The one advocating some sort of hive-mind like attitude was yourself.

 

And as commented on earlier, not being well-informed, but holding strong views, is not necessarily a stance which commands respect, or even being taken seriously.

[mogandave]

Life for Israeli Palestinians is not quite as rosy as you depict.
I suggest you research the over 65 Israeli laws that discriminate directly or indirectly against Palestinian citizens in Israel 
https://www.adalah.org/en and in particular the recent racist Nation State Law that enshrines Jewish supremacy.
 
So if Israel is so magnanimous and kind towards its Palestinian citizens, the solution to a divided Jerusalem and illegal occupation of the West Bank is simple...Israel annexes the lot and grants all Jerusalemites and West Bank Palestinians equal citizenship. Everyone could move their embassies to Jerusalem then.
 
But that would mean the end of Jewish supremacy and Zionism, so for now that's a non starter for the current right wing nationalist Israeli government.
But that's what's going to happen one day anyway, or some sort of united confederation where everyone can live, work, and worship wherever they like.

So how are the Jews in Palestine treated?

Oh, that’s right, they’re murdered.

Palestinians are not interested in pease, or a two state solution. The are only interested in exterminating Jews.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.   The topic isn't about Germany, Trump, Nazi's or any of the other host of off-topic remarks.   Stay on topic.   Stop with the deflective diversions or face a suspension.

 

 

[Nilats]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Is that the best spin you can pull? I'm pointing out obvious inaccuracies and flaws in your "take", your response? More of the same, plus lame deflections.

 

There wasn't any suggestion in my posts that I "speak on behalf of all Israelis". If anything, the point made was that there are differing views within Israel. The one advocating some sort of hive-mind like attitude was yourself.

 

And as commented on earlier, not being well-informed, but holding strong views, is not necessarily a stance which commands respect, or even being taken seriously.

Can you write your opinion about what you think are the best plans to solve the East/West Jerusalem issue, and how many Israelis hold these opinions similar to yours... it's definitely on topic - I'm actually curious myself now, so feel free to state any opinions you like and your calculations how many Israelis in percentage support it. Just saying there are "different opinions" which is a general statement which is definitely always true btw, is not clear if it's really relevant to the overall sentiment of the country in this specific case...

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Nilats said:

Can you write your opinion about what you think are the best plans to solve the East/West Jerusalem issue, and how many Israelis hold these opinions similar to yours... it's definitely on topic - I'm actually curious myself now, so feel free to state any opinions you like and your calculations how many Israelis in percentage support it. Just saying there are "different opinions" which is a general statement which is definitely always true btw, is not clear if it's really relevant to the overall sentiment of the country in this specific case...

 

There is no "best plan" addressing issues pertaining to Jerusalem. It's not even a problem that can be seriously tackled outside of the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like pretty much any realistic conflict resolution scenario, it would be full of bumps and mishaps, some issues will not be adequately sorted and certain parties will not be supportive (to put it mildly).

 

IMO, as part of an overall agreement, the city ought to be divided (which is pretty much how things stand anyway). The main problem will remain sovereignty over the holy sites. Both sides' nationalistic and religious narratives made sure concessions on this front are difficult.

 

In a more reasonable setting, some sort of international oversight regarding access and security issues might have worked, but things being what they are, even this would be a hard sale for both people, and a challenge to maintain an uphold.

 

The one who's into making strong (if inaccurate) claims is you, and there's no obligation to follow your lead on this. With regard to public support, it would depend what's actually on offer, and how the offer is perceived. Hence, most of this is just talk - because there's no credible offer, and perceptions being what they are (rightly so too, to an extent).

 

And again, whether the question is about East Jerusalem (as in mostly Arab neighborhoods), or East Jerusalem (as in the holy sites) carries a different answer with regard to public support. The former less problematic than the latter.

 

I think a credible, realistic plan could be expected to a garner about 40% support. This is based on factoring Israel's sizeable Arab minority (likely to be favorable), and partial support from Jewish opposition. This has a lot to do with both context and content of the actual proposition. Given current conditions, atmosphere and demographic trends, I'm not overly optimistic as to the prospects of the projected support expanding much. Then again, there were past key decisions related to the conflict were taken with less than impressive majorities.

 

Notably, you do not actually provide anything other than your supposed "experience" to validate your point of view, but expect others to do so.

[mogandave]

 

There is no "best plan" addressing issues pertaining to Jerusalem. It's not even a problem that can be seriously tackled outside of the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like pretty much any realistic conflict resolution scenario, it would be full of bumps and mishaps, some issues will not be adequately sorted and certain parties will not be supportive (to put it mildly).

 

IMO, as part of an overall agreement, the city ought to be divided (which is pretty much how things stand anyway). The main problem will remain sovereignty over the holy sites. Both sides' nationalistic and religious narratives made sure concessions on this front are difficult.

 

In a more reasonable setting, some sort of international oversight regarding access and security issues might have worked, but things being what they are, even this would be a hard sale for both people, and a challenge to maintain an uphold.

 

The one who's into making strong (if inaccurate) claims is you, and there's no obligation to follow your lead on this. With regard to public support, it would depend what's actually on offer, and how the offer is perceived. Hence, most of this is just talk - because there's no credible offer, and perceptions being what they are (rightly so too, to an extent).

 

And again, whether the question is about East Jerusalem (as in mostly Arab neighborhoods), or East Jerusalem (as in the holy sites) carries a different answer with regard to public support. The former less problematic than the latter.

 

I think a credible, realistic plan could be expected to a garner about 40% support. This is based on factoring Israel's sizeable Arab minority (likely to be favorable), and partial support from Jewish opposition. This has a lot to do with both context and content of the actual proposition. Given current conditions, atmosphere and demographic trends, I'm not overly optimistic as to the prospects of the projected support expanding much. Then again, there were past key decisions related to the conflict were taken with less than impressive majorities.

 

Notably, you do not actually provide anything other than your supposed "experience" to validate your point of view, but expect others to do so.

So what do you think it would take to get the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a state and abandon attempts to exterminate the Jews?

[Nilats]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There is no "best plan" addressing issues pertaining to Jerusalem. It's not even a problem that can be seriously tackled outside of the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like pretty much any realistic conflict resolution scenario, it would be full of bumps and mishaps, some issues will not be adequately sorted and certain parties will not be supportive (to put it mildly).

 

IMO, as part of an overall agreement, the city ought to be divided (which is pretty much how things stand anyway). The main problem will remain sovereignty over the holy sites. Both sides' nationalistic and religious narratives made sure concessions on this front are difficult.

 

In a more reasonable setting, some sort of international oversight regarding access and security issues might have worked, but things being what they are, even this would be a hard sale for both people, and a challenge to maintain an uphold.

 

The one who's into making strong (if inaccurate) claims is you, and there's no obligation to follow your lead on this. With regard to public support, it would depend what's actually on offer, and how the offer is perceived. Hence, most of this is just talk - because there's no credible offer, and perceptions being what they are (rightly so too, to an extent).

 

And again, whether the question is about East Jerusalem (as in mostly Arab neighborhoods), or East Jerusalem (as in the holy sites) carries a different answer with regard to public support. The former less problematic than the latter.

 

I think a credible, realistic plan could be expected to a garner about 40% support. This is based on factoring Israel's sizeable Arab minority (likely to be favorable), and partial support from Jewish opposition. This has a lot to do with both context and content of the actual proposition. Given current conditions, atmosphere and demographic trends, I'm not overly optimistic as to the prospects of the projected support expanding much. Then again, there were past key decisions related to the conflict were taken with less than impressive majorities.

 

Notably, you do not actually provide anything other than your supposed "experience" to validate your point of view, but expect others to do so.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. So you are saying your own proposal isn't going to work? I still stand with Israel to deal with this entirely internal matter as it sees fit. I don't understand your relationship to Israel, so it's not clear to me how your opinion or sentiments are relevant in this case.

 

Simple thing to understand is that Israel has full right to deem any foreigner trying to divide its national capital as threat to national security - and imo they would be right in doing so.

[Morch]

 

@mogandave

 

I wonder what it would take for you to actually address the topic the topic (or even my the content of my post) rather than trying to hijack the topic by spewing inflammatory garbage around.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Nilats said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. So you are saying your own proposal isn't going to work? I still stand with Israel to deal with this entirely internal matter as it sees fit. I don't understand your relationship to Israel, so it's not clear to me how your opinion or sentiments are relevant in this case.

 

Simple thing to understand is that Israel has full right to deem any foreigner trying to divide its national capital as threat to national security - and imo they would be right in doing so.

 

Your repeated attempts to spin aside, this isn't "my proposal" - but things which were discussed in the context of the conflict, and even during negotiations. That you're either truly ignorant of this, or pretending to be, while whining about about said ignorance being pointed out is about the level of "debate" expected.

 

I haven't said it "isn't going to work". Acknowledging that it's one of the most problematic  issues in an already complex conflict is being realistic. Public opinion in Israel, and accompanying public campaigns, weren't necessarily very supportive on previous instances - and yet, these came to pass. No one claimed it  would be easy, straightforward or painless. Same comment as above applies.

 

As for your childish "stand with Israel" posturing bit - you're welcome to it. But it still doesn't validate your initial comments, painting Israeli views as single-minded and united over this issue. What you "stand with" is, perhaps, more of a right-wing view (disregarding previous claims to lean left, or whatever).

 

Simple thing to understand is that your "take" on Israeli politics is one-dimensional, at best.

 

 

[Nilats]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Your repeated attempts to spin aside, this isn't "my proposal" - but things which were discussed in the context of the conflict, and even during negotiations. That you're either truly ignorant of this, or pretending to be, while whining about about said ignorance being pointed out is about the level of "debate" expected.

 

I haven't said it "isn't going to work". Acknowledging that it's one of the most problematic  issues in an already complex conflict is being realistic. Public opinion in Israel, and accompanying public campaigns, weren't necessarily very supportive on previous instances - and yet, these came to pass. No one claimed it  would be easy, straightforward or painless. Same comment as above applies.

 

As for your childish "stand with Israel" posturing bit - you're welcome to it. But it still doesn't validate your initial comments, painting Israeli views as single-minded and united over this issue. What you "stand with" is, perhaps, more of a right-wing view (disregarding previous claims to lean left, or whatever).

 

Simple thing to understand is that your "take" on Israeli politics is one-dimensional, at best.

 

 

You are posting complete nonsense. Abiding by the countries Principal law enacted 30 years ago is not a "Right Wing" perspective - it's a normal patriotic perspective... So much pomp but you can't even get the basics right it seems. Google: Basic Law Jerusalem 1980. I'm starting to get suspicions that you've never even been to the country... There's no essential requirement for anyone to debate countries' principal laws - it has nothing to do with political pluralism - the law is the law, and the capital is the capital.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Nilats said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. So you are saying your own proposal isn't going to work? I still stand with Israel to deal with this entirely internal matter as it sees fit. I don't understand your relationship to Israel, so it's not clear to me how your opinion or sentiments are relevant in this case.

 

 

Nor do we know your relationship to Israel. Nor can we know, since you, like virtually all of the posters here, are anonymous. You may allege whatever you like about said relationship, but without a way of independently verifying it, it remains an allegation. And even if we did know that, what relationship would it have to the validity of your point of view? Arguments that can't be supported by independently verifiable facts aren't worth much, no matter what the details are of a poster's personal life.

[geriatrickid]

On 12/17/2018 at 11:18 PM, dexterm said:

And according to International Law, numerous UN resolutions (242,252,465,478,2334), The Geneva Convention, the International Court of Justice...the whole city is not the Israeli capital. East Jerusalem is illegally occupied Palestinian territory.

 

In fact, Israel is the only country in the world that recognizes Jerusalem as its undivided capital.

Even Trump hasn't gone that far. He's dog whistled as such, like Morrison when he was trying to win votes, but the fine print says it's still a final status issue.

LOL. The Arabs really do not have a legitimate claim to jerusalem. It looks like you forgot that the Ottoman Empire ruled over Israel for hundreds of years much as the French and British ruled over much of Africa.  Israel was considered the land of the Israelites/Hebrews by the Ottoman Empire. The British inherited that, but then sought to inject their own control by facilitating the  transfer of the Hashemite rulers to what is now known as Jordan. The British colonial powers stripped the local Bedouins of their rights and all of a sudden Transjordan was an "arab nation". There was no  country called lebanon either until the French carved it out of Syria. For some strange reason no one ever demands that  Lebanon be returned to Syria.

 

 The point being that one cannot pick a convenient  point in the timeline to pronounce Jerusalem as "Arab". It just so happens that when the Jordanians attacked Israel in 1948 they seized west jerusalem and denied  access to jews and destroyed jewish religious structures and either  expelled jews or slaughtered those that tried to remain. The standard  crap in this forum denies this historical event. The reason why Israel moved to proclaim  Jerusalem as its capital was because of what the Jordanians did in 1948. The arabs have never  respected  the  basic civil liberties of  their jewish residents and would never ever grant access to religious sites in Jerusalem to jews, although Israel allows access to muslims to religious venues.

Your dripping hypocrisy is not thick enough to conceal your hatred for Israel.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Nilats said:

You are posting complete nonsense. Abiding by the countries Principal law enacted 30 years ago is not a "Right Wing" perspective - it's a normal patriotic perspective... So much pomp but you can't even get the basics right it seems. Google: Basic Law Jerusalem 1980. I'm starting to get suspicions that you've never even been to the country... There's no essential requirement for anyone to debate countries' principal laws - it has nothing to do with political pluralism - the law is the law, and the capital is the capital.

 

Nonsense would be an apt description for your lame deflection attempts. Laws are not set in stone, even if you wish to pretend otherwise. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not public discussion and aired views regarding possible solutions (very much including partition) are a reality. In one way or another the issue made an appearance in most negotiation rounds between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

I don't give two figs about to your "suspicions", meaningless and hollow as they are. You can't seem to support your initial argument by anything other than deflection and posturing.

[metisdead]

A nonsense post has been reported and removed. 

[mogandave]

 
[mention=147994]mogandave[/mention]
 

I wonder what it would take for you to actually address the topic the topic (or even my the content of my post) rather than trying to hijack the topic by spewing inflammatory garbage around.

?

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.   Continue with nonsensical prattle and personal homilies and face a suspension.   It is completely off-topic.