Jerusalem: to be recognized as the capitol of Israel

[_Chap]

Good to know from subgenius that there is no point in Trump sending Jared Kushner to sort out the Middle East, since the only way those problems will be solved is by a general war in the area.

Once we have had that, of course, things will only be settled until the next one, and then the one after that, and so on and so forth. And how likely is such a war to stay local, given the major actors in that area?

I take it that subgenius applies this ethics-free, might means right approach to life in general? I mean, if his wife or daughter are beaten, raped and robbed, what does he say to them as they stagger in through the font door? 'Well, dear, like I said, to the victor belong the spoils, and that guy just did what he was entitled to do, counta' he won his fight with you in that alley!'.

[_subgenius]

Good to know from subgenius that there is no point in Trump sending Jared Kushner to sort out the Middle East, since the only way those problems will be solved is by a general war in the area.

well, only if the entire world's known history is considered. But yeah, America will solve it and no one will resort to violence on the matter ever again - thanks Chap!

Once we have had that, of course, things will only be settled until the next one, and then the one after that, and so on and so forth. And how likely is such a war to stay local, given the major actors in that area?

Yawn...gee, i don't know how long, but since it is just a fantasy of supposition, let us say - 373 years, that is how long.

I take it that subgenius applies this ethics-free, might means right approach to life in general?

Yeah, and not just me...so do you. For example, your post here is not passive, it is violent. May not be physically violent but it is an expression of you trying to be "right" by means of "might".

I mean, if his wife or daughter are beaten, raped and robbed, what does he say to them as they stagger in through the font door? 'Well, dear, like I said, to the victor belong the spoils, and that guy just did what he was entitled to do, counta' he won his fight with you in that alley!'.

Yeah, you're stupid...but alas, perhaps they only got raped because you were in that same alley and when you tried to reason with the rapists and then tried a more snarky and mocked approach, they still got raped. Perhaps the rape could have stopped if you had opted to beat the would-be rapist about the head with a 2x4 instead of reconcile the situation between him and these ladies?...maybe you had a more diplomatic idea where the rapist would only get to open-hand slap the ladies, and no open mouth kissing, etc., etc.....yeah, non-violence stops rape all the time, what were we thinking?

[_Chap]

What a weird response from subgenius!

Subgenius enunciates the principle that 'to the victor belongs the spoils' in matters of territorial occupation. I ask him how generally he applies this principle, given a specific example of someone who is victorious in a combat with his wife or daughter.

He then suggests that:

(a) I believe that non-violent resistance is the only legitimate response to aggression.

(b) That I would not have defended his womenfolk had I been present at the time of the putative attack on them.

I think that a psychiatrist might be able to explain how he came to those conclusions, which do not follow from anything I wrote. I can't however.

[_Gunnar]

I think that a psychiatrist might be able to explain how he came to those conclusions, which do not follow from anything I wrote. I can't however.

I often find myself at a complete loss as to how he comes to his conclusions about what others have said. He seems to have a tendency to interpret what others say in the worst possible light, or in a light that feels is favorable to his what he is determined to believe. I'm sure you have also noticed that he sometimes quotes articles in support of his position that actually supported the opposite of the point he was trying to make, as if he either didn't actually didn't actually read or understand the article himself, or hoped that we didn't or wouldn't read or understand it.

[_AmyJo]

..

Whoever thought DJT would be the one to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel? God works in mysterious ways ... using a horse's ass to fulfill prophecy. God uses the simple things of the world to confound the wise. And DJT is clearly a simpleton.

The other thing that isn't unthinkable is DJT ushering in Armageddon.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

"A damned moron." - Trump's Secretary of State

"An 11-year-old child." - Trump's former Chief Advisor

"An idiot and a dope with the intelligence of a kindergartner." - Trump's National Security Advisor

- Doc

[_canpakes]

This idea that people "belong" anywhere is founded only by violence. For example, the so-called "native Americans" could argue that they belong in the Tennessee Valley, and perhaps during a time they did, but alas they lost that battle and to the victor belongs the spoils.
In other words, they now "belong" where we tell them they belong because we belong here now. Justice is might, plain and simple. This notion that "history" entitles a group of people to pitch a tent is more liberal propaganda and this sort of entitlement has never been, nor will ever be, manifest except by the sword.

Sounds like you don’t much care for any Biblical claim that the Israelis ever had on any patch of desert in the Middle East.

And given that the modern state of Israel exists not through conquest but because it was legislated into existence by outsiders from within the UN, then what would be the rationale to prevent the same body from legislating it out of existence, or legislating a partner Palestinian State to share the same land?

[_Uncle Ed]

Interesting topic. I had to look twice when the Medía announced the move to honor the 1995 Congressional Jerusalem Embassy Act. I hadn't even heard of it before; so surreptitiously had all presidents from Clinton on kept signing the delay for yet another six months. Weird legislation!

Now we have the proverbial piper to pay, thanks to The Donald's "bold" move. It surely stokes the fires of change.

There will never be peace while "Palestinians" exist by self-identification; and they have bellicose Muslims pushing for their elevation to recognized nation state status. They breed far faster than Israelis. If let to have possession of large swathes of current-Israel, then the Jews are toast in the ME. This to me is inarguable.

So the solution is to push the issue to the breaking point NOW before it is too late. Does Trump actually believe in what he is doing? For one thing, he has interests in the area, family connections, business, and now political. As the greatest modern President of the US, The Donald will go down in history as the One Who Knew.

The practical side of this is that, if the US actually throws her weight around NOW, this will assure Israel's survival for the foreseeable future. No WW3 is going to come out of it. No world power status for Iran or any other Islamic state or states. They don't have the momentum yet or the capability to militarily stymie this move to secure Israel's power in the ME.

But if this is just a stupid bit of bluster, it will result in the US bearing a huge owie. This black eye won't heal for years.

While I am chiming in, I might as well share my practical "final solution" for Israel: Long ago, they should have (it probably isn't too late still) conducted all bellicose elements out of Israel, and taken as long to do this as necessary to relocate them, paying the bill as true altruists, all the while strengthening their borders with wire and a NML of death a la the demilitarized zone separating N an S Korea. Make it as wide as required. Keep it manned. Make that border as far into Golan and the WB as necessary. Take back as much of Sinai as necessary to secure the south as well. And Lebanon, strengthen the Christian presence there and turn the Maronites into a secure buffer state: the Maronites are willing enough (or were: this, today, will likely require some revision). Then, sit and wait. By securing good homes for the deportees elsewhere, Israel and the US will show themselves the good guys. And over time the so-called Palestinians will become residents of their new homelands. They actually have no connection anymore to Palestine; that is a Medía promoted lie, fueled by Islamists. With no further interest in "returning" (heh, 90% and fading have never lived there in their lives, and if that is a slight exaggeration right now, it won't be in a decade or so), the Islamists will have no casus belli beyond simply hating Jews, and a purported religious fanatical claim to a bit of land where two mosques stand, where Jewish temples once stood (and no doubt "now" - under my scenario being realized in the near future - stand again). The Muslim "historical" claims to the land are religious only; and Judaism predates by many centuries that claim, so it cannot be upheld.

The rest of the world, moves on apace: secular, enlightened by the prosperity of peace, and having zero patience for antiquated assertions from reliligious mandates: the rest of the world will insist that Muslims play nicely with others.

This can still be obtained as a reality, imho. But is Trump's move in that direction or simply a feckless blunder that will spell the end of Israel?

[_canpakes]

While I am chiming in, I might as well share my practical "final solution" for Israel: Long ago, they should have (it probably isn't too late still) conducted all bellicose elements out of Israel, and taken as long to do this as necessary to relocate them... over time the so-called Palestinians will become residents of their new homelands. They actually have no connection anymore to Palestine; that is a Medía promoted lie, fueled by Islamists.

No connection anymore? And why would that be?

The rest of the world, moves on apace: secular, enlightened by the prosperity of peace, and having zero patience for antiquated assertions from reliligious (sic) mandates: the rest of the world will insist that Muslims play nicely with others.

As mentioned to subgenius above, wouldn't the 'promised land' claim also be regarded as an 'antiquated assertion from religious mandates'?

How would forcing Jewish citizens within Israel and in settlements out of the area via forced deportation - and into other (conveniently unidentified and possibly hostile) nations - be any more inhumane than your 'final solution' for the Palestinians?

[_subgenius]

This idea that people "belong" anywhere is founded only by violence. For example, the so-called "native Americans" could argue that they belong in the Tennessee Valley, and perhaps during a time they did, but alas they lost that battle and to the victor belongs the spoils.
In other words, they now "belong" where we tell them they belong because we belong here now. Justice is might, plain and simple. This notion that "history" entitles a group of people to pitch a tent is more liberal propaganda and this sort of entitlement has never been, nor will ever be, manifest except by the sword.

Sounds like you don’t much care for any Biblical claim that the Israelis ever had on any patch of desert in the Middle East.

And given that the modern state of Israel exists not through conquest but because it was legislated into existence by outsiders from within the UN, then what would be the rationale to prevent the same body from legislating it out of existence, or legislating a partner Palestinian State to share the same land?

Nope, having the biggest gun in the room made that legislation. And biblical land claims of possession are manifest by violence... else they be resolved by the biggest gun in the room.
What other leverage are hoping explains whatever you're trying to explain?