Ricky:

jay
Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and has been that longer than any other capital on the planet. The U.S. doesn't even recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It's an outrage
.
Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.
To paraphrase Coward. "To be destroyed once is unfortunate. To be destroyed twice, is careless."

Throughout that time it has remained the capital of the Jewish people. You make my point. The bond is unbreakable.

So now you are saying that the Jews were careless in letting the Romans destroy Jerusalem? Allowing 750,000 (?) people die for religious and political freedom is careless. You tend to be sympathetic to oppressed people, but apparently not this time.

Ricky:

Israel demands that its myths be respected as truth and accepted as justification for its unilateral possession of the city. This denies the myths of Islam regarding the City. And much of recorded history.

Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is historically documented and independently corroborated. Why do you call it a myth? Unless you can find a Canaanite, the Jewish people have first claim to the city, and the Israelis have last claim.

Ricky:

the US would cease to have any influence in the Middle East.

What influence do we currently have? We haven't toppled Assad or prevented 500,000 people in Syria from losing their lives and millions from being displaced.

ray

Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is historically documented and independently corroborated. Why do you call it a myth? Unless you can find a Canaanite, the Jewish people have first claim to the city, and the Israelis have last claim.

sovereignty means the authority to govern.
There were very long periods of time when Jerusalem was governed by entities other than Israel or the Jewish people.
Tha Jerusalem is the spiritual capital is undeniable. That it was a sovereign capital ... not so much. Even in antiquity the Egyptians and Baylonians, were sovereign. Then Alexander's Greeks... And so on through the Romans the Ottomans and others...
The spiritual nature of the city is the mythic element. There's nothing wrong with myths. All nation states and nationalities hold myths as part of their collective understanding (And Islam lists Jerusalem as a holy city as well, so it uses the city within its myths).

But be that as it may:

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a legal milestone on sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices ruled that the U.S. Congress had overstepped its bounds when it passed a law in 2002 requiring the State Department to list Israel as a birth country in U.S. passports for Jerusalem-born Americans. By doing so, the court upheld the State Department's decision to disallow the Israel listing in passports.
No U.S. president has ever officially acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem since the state of Israel was first recognized by President Harry Truman in 1948. The United States, along with most of the international community, has taken the position that no country has sovereignty over Jerusalem until its status is negotiated in a Middle East peace deal.

I'm not alone in thinking Israel is not sovereign over Jerusalem. Your nation thinks the same way.

ray

What influence do we currently have? We haven't toppled Assad or prevented 500,000 people in Syria from losing their lives and millions from being displaced.

That would have taken a massive military intervention. I think you'll agree that the appetite for such an adventure did not, and does not exist with the US except for certain Neo-cons.
But for current influence:
I'll point to the bombing of ISIS targets, the close collaboration and support by US and other forces with Iraqi and Khurdish forces liberating Mosul and other ISIS occupied territories.

I think you also mistake " influence " for "the ability to control events".
Surely the Saudis, Jordanians, and other Arab nations pay heed to the opinions and wishes of the US government today. They may not be controlled by those wishes, but their behaviors and policies are influenced by them .
Perhaps the animosity from the Iraqis occupation diminshed the influence more than anything else?
But doubtless, the recognition of Israelis sovereignty over Jerusalem would end any Arab tolerance for American aspirations in the middle east.

Ricky:

But be that as it may:
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a legal milestone on sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices ruled that the U.S. Congress had overstepped its bounds when it passed a law in 2002 requiring the State Department to list Israel as a birth country in U.S. passports for Jerusalem-born Americans. By doing so, the court upheld the State Department's decision to disallow the Israel listing in passports.
No U.S. president has ever officially acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem since the state of Israel was first recognized by President Harry Truman in 1948. The United States, along with most of the international community, has taken the position that no country has sovereignty over Jerusalem until its status is negotiated in a Middle East peace deal.

I'm not alone in thinking Israel is not sovereign over Jerusalem. Your nation thinks the same way.

How about if a negotiated agreement is not possible? Do Israelis have to wait forever? (I know you are going to say that Israel is just as much to blame. But if one believes the vast majority of the fault is on the Arab and Palestinian side, at what point do you stop rewarding their intransigence?)

Ricky:

Surely the Saudis, Jordanians, and other Arab nations pay heed to the opinions and wishes of the US government today. They may not be controlled by those wishes, but their behaviors and policies are influenced by them .
Perhaps the animosity from the Iraqis occupation diminshed the influence more than anything else?
But doubtless, the recognition of Israelis sovereignty over Jerusalem would end any Arab tolerance for American aspirations in the middle east.

You've correctly constructed the psychology of Brussels and Ottawa, but the psychology of the Saudis, Jordanians, and other Arab nations may be different. Perhaps they are more influenced -- in spite of what they say -- by a willingness to support your allies, and not perpetually negotiate with a weak hand against your adversaries..

Freeman stated:

I am continually amazed at the power of rationalization. We have a president with no experience nominating a Secretary of State with no experience

I don't really like it either, but let's look back a few years
Obama, a President with no experience nominated Hillary Clinton who also had no experience.

she was a Senator for a few short years but had little to no foreign relations experience other than hosting dignitaries as the first lady. A "party host" hardly made her "experienced"

and ricky, regarding Jerusalem
as you yourself noted, Jerusalem has been controlled over the centuries by many different powers. The power right now is Israel. Why is it that when the Babylonians controlled it, then it didn't matter but now it does matter? Those in power make the rules.

A diplomat who vehemently disagrees with decades of established US policy. Who likens American Jews who support the two state solution to "kapos". Who was previously a lawyer for Trump bankruptcies. Meh. He'd be a shocking choice but in the context of the rest of Trump's picks, he's about average.

rayjay

How about if a negotiated agreement is not possible? Do Israelis have to wait forever? (I know you are going to say that Israel is just as much to blame. But if one believes the vast majority of the fault is on the Arab and Palestinian side, at what point do you stop rewarding their intransigence?)

What is a negotiated agreement is not possible? Do Palestinians have to wait forever? (I know you are going to say that the Arabs are just as much to blame. But if one beleives the vast majority of the fault is on Israels side , because they are the occupying power, at what point do you stop rewarding their intransigence?

GMTom

Why is it that when the Babylonians controlled it, then it didn't matter but now it does matter? Those in power make the rules.

First, its 2016 and natiopns tend to behave differently. Perhaps because mankind has evolved, perhaps because the consequences of violence can be far greater and not self contained.
Historians will tell you that since 1950 there have been fewer wars and less violence in the world then ever in history.
Conflicts between early societies like Judah and Babylon involved only the local players. Today a conflict is rarely without consequences beyond the borders.
Plus mankind has attempted to temper violent conflicts through international bodies. The original 1948 resolution concerning Jerusalem was such an attempt. And if it were supported by all parties and enforced seems to me to be a reasonable solution.
The more powerful Israel becomes the less they are interested in that solution. (And today they seem to have more of an interest in expansion.)
Same with the Arabs.

Ricky: First, its 2016 and natiopns tend to behave differently. Perhaps because mankind has evolved, perhaps because the consequences of violence can be far greater and not self contained.
Historians will tell you that since 1950 there have been fewer wars and less violence in the world then ever in history.

As I said, that makes sense in Brussels. But we've seen more of a devolution in Raqqa, Aleppo, and the rest of the Arab world.

Regarding Friedman, now that I've had a chance to read up, some of what he has said and written is too extreme for me. I do think that the US should recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but I can think of better choices for Ambassador to Israel.

BTW, whereas British ambassadors tend to be experienced diplomats, in the U.S. it is often a patronage appointment and it is up to the various assistants to know something about the host country and provide continuity. Prior to modern communications the Ambassador position was more relevant. Now you can just call the respective heads of state at any time.

rayjay

As I said, that makes sense in Brussels. But we've seen more of a devolution in Raqqa, Aleppo, and the rest of the Arab world.

And yet despite the current conflicts in the world , we live in a period of relative peace.
Christianity and the religious wars endured in Europe killed off as much as one third of the population (30 years war) ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

What do you think happens if the US recognizes Jerusalem as the capital? Why?

rickyp wrote:rayjay

As I said, that makes sense in Brussels. But we've seen more of a devolution in Raqqa, Aleppo, and the rest of the Arab world.

And yet despite the current conflicts in the world , we live in a period of relative peace.
Christianity and the religious wars endured in Europe killed off as much as one third of the population (30 years war) ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

What do you think happens if the US recognizes Jerusalem as the capital? Why?

I'm aware of Pinker's writings. You are talking about Europe, but the conversation is about the Middle East. But to play along with your silly question: If the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, then ...

Arab countries and some non-Arab Muslim countries would continue to denounce the U.S. and Israel ... they would talk about evil Zionists and compare us to Nazis ... they would say that Jews own the U.S. and its media (even though Israel is the only country whose capital isn't recognized by the US) ... they would teach their children to hate us, including with their toys and cartoons ... they would arm terrorists to kill and capture as many Israelis and Jews as possible ... they would pay the families for years when they fail ... they would name streets after them if they succeed. The Europeans would continue to fund Palestinian refugees who live in squalid conditions in the Arab world without settling them so they are 3rd class citizens, even though every other refugee group is settled, including the 750,000 Jews from Arab countries, and over 1,000,000 from Russia and other former USS Republics, even though Israel is much smaller and has a much smaller population ... they would fund the Palestinian refugee camps so the hate can continue and these poor people, who have been refugees for 4 generations can be a political issue. Oh, wait, none of that is a change from the status quo.

The Arabs and the Palestinians had their chances and they blew them all. You said that allowing Jerusalem to be destroyed was careless (yes, you are a first class jerk for saying that, no question). It won't be destroyed a third time and it will always be Israel's capital, no matter what ridiculous arguments you or the UN make; so, the US should recognize it as such and stop the pretense.

ray

The Arabs and the Palestinians had their chances and they blew them all. You said that allowing Jerusalem to be destroyed was careless (yes, you are a first class jerk for saying that, no question). It won't be destroyed a third time and it will always be Israel's capital, no matter what ridiculous arguments you or the UN make; so, the US should recognize it as such and stop the pretense

pre·tense
ˈprēˌtens,prēˈtens/Submit
noun
1.
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.

Perhaps the pretention is not that the UN or virtually every nation in the world refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - but that Israel is genuninely willing to offer Palestinian Arabs a state.
Nations know that Israel occupies Jerusalem. Official recognition would accept the occupation as just.
Few nations see the Israelis position as just.


ray

You are talking about Europe, but the conversation is about the Middle East.

I'm talking about humanity and how we've changed the ways we deal . Where historically violence was common, and was used to settle all manner of differences. Especially religious differences.
Today violence is relatively rare. It costs too much. We are too greatly integrated so violence isn't isolated. We communicate globally and recognize our shared humanity, rather than demonizing the enemy as something completely different.

Part of the evolution of sapiens is that we've attempted to find political resolutions where violence was the only solution. Its because violence was the only solution that Jerusalem was so often conquered, occupied and destroyed. The UN solution offered a resolution that could end the violence in the region.
Israel, as the stronger, occupying force is in a position to advance the cause of peaceful co-existence.... but apparently thinks peace is less desirable than getting its way entirely.

ray

Oh, wait, none of that is a change from the status quo.

So nothing is gained then?
Whats lost?
- international condemnation by nations that have been solid in their support of the UN resolution
- an accompanying erosion of the ability of the US to lead western nations in the direction it wants.
- the strengthening of Iran and Russia in the Middle East.
- peace, probably, as the move will be a provocation and and an additional justification for more violence.
Not much of an equation here...

same vision that hasn't worked for 100 years ,,, just be nice and there will be peace.

To paraphrase Coward. "To be destroyed once is unfortunate. To be destroyed twice, is careless."

The actual line was 'looks like carelessness', and while Noel Coward may very well have appeared in The Importance of Being Earnest at some point in his career, it was of course written by Oscar Wilde.

That small correction aside, what relevance does this have to the question at hand ?

I think what we're about to witness is a historic shift in US foreign policy which will more than likely result in a general disengagement from the Middle East. That may or may not prove to be a good thing, but it's what most critics of the US (including most Arab nations of course) have been stridently demanding for years. We'll have to wait and see whether the Russians, Saudis, Turks and Iranians can make a better fist of things. Personally I doubt it, but the simple fact is that the advent of fracking has had profound geopolitical consequences which are only now beginning to be felt. The US is no longer dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Trump and especially Tillerson will know this full well. It allows for a much more hands-off approach when it comes to arab trouble spots. I'm willing to reserve judgement on this new approach until we see how it shapes up in practice. We've all wanted the US to take a step back from military intervention, well now that's going to happen. Who knows, maybe it'll be for the best.

Interesting. If you're right all the more reason for Israel to be cautious in dealing with the power vacuum left by the US not wanting to get involved in Middle Eastern conflicts. Israel's right-wing might have been emboldened enough by the Trump win to think they could do away with the two-state solution and build more settlements but Trump himself has stated he would like to make a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. I cannot see why it would be in US interests--at all--to encourage Israel on a path of being more aggressive with regard to the Palestinians, doing away with the two-state solution, building more settlements, and I guess hoping that Palestinians will be so cowed by Israel's military might supported by the US that they will be cowed into quiescence and second-class status under a Israel dominated region. I have generally been supportive of Israel as having the better moral position overall but it's concerning that Israel's right-wing appears to think they can use their increased power (due to a perceived friendlier US) to push the Palestinians into accepting no nation and co-existing with Israeli settlements. I don't think that's possible, will almost raise tensions in the region, and is probably immoral. And the US in spite of friendlier rhetoric might not match it with substance.