'Instead of Gaza' | How should we name the new city?

[Failzero]

Hell those same Muslim countries refuse to allow Palestine citizens to come and live in their country.

Mandate that they allow or face suspension from UN

 

[ESay]

Well, if by "extreme" you mean that only one peoples can live on the territory, the solution, by definition, rids us of the problem.

By extreme I meant religious hardliners from the both sides.

 

[Shusha]

By extreme I meant religious hardliners from the both sides.

"Religious hardliners" still leaves interpretation, at least in my own head. I prefer to define by aspiration or actions, rather than labels.

As example, I believe, as a matter of moral objective standard, that the Jewish people should be able to access the Temple Mount, pray there, hold worship services there, build monuments or memorial markers, a synagogue, some representation of the Temple, as permitted by halachic interpretation, while maintaining access and all other rights for other faiths. Does this make me a "religious hardliner"? (Spoiler: It does not).

 

[ESay]

while maintaining access and all other rights for other faiths

Interesting passage. Does that mean that the Jews should be in charge of that place?

Yes, you play on the same tune as 'hardliners'. Why? What your proposals mean in reality? Take the Temple Mount out of Muslims, keep Jerusalem as one and undivided capital of Israel, keep all Jewish settlements in the West Bank, allow the Jews to settle in the Gaza Strip. In exchange on what? Oh, letting Arab children peacefully play with Jewish children. Generous, isn't it?

 

[Shusha]

Interesting passage. Does that mean that the Jews should be in charge of that place?

Yes, you play on the same tune as 'hardliners'. Why? What your proposals mean in reality? Take the Temple Mount out of Muslims, keep Jerusalem as one and undivided capital of Israel, keep all Jewish settlements in the West Bank, allow the Jews to settle in the Gaza Strip. In exchange on what? Oh, letting Arab children peacefully play with Jewish children. Generous, isn't it?

You made a number of wild assumptions there.

Edited to add: This demonstrates why labels are not especially useful in conversation. The label allows you to place your own interpretation and your assumed hidden meanings on the words I write and the values I hold.

 

[Shusha]

Interesting passage. Does that mean that the Jews should be in charge of that place?

Yes, you play on the same tune as 'hardliners'. Why? What your proposals mean in reality?

Equal access to shared Holy sites for people of ALL faiths is NOT an extremist position. It is, in point of fact, the conditions of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan and normative in objective moral thought.

Why would equal access to shared Holy sites be considered extremism?

 

[ESay]

You made a number of wild assumptions there.

Edited to add: This demonstrates why labels are not especially useful in conversation. The label allows you to place your own interpretation and your assumed hidden meanings on the words I write and the values I hold.

Wild assumptions, okay, sorry. But can you said specifically what you disagree with:
Will Israel agree to give some parts of Jerusalem to Arabs as their government quarters there?

Will Israel agree to resettle Jewish settlements in the West Bank?

Will Israel agree with the Gaza Strip to be an Arab sovereign state?

 

[ESay]

Equal access to shared Holy sites for people of ALL faiths is NOT an extremist position. It is, in point of fact, the conditions of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan and normative in objective moral thought.

Why would equal access to shared Holy sites be considered extremism?

I support allowing Jewish prayers to get access there. But I don't support any permanent constructions to be built there.

 

[Shusha]

I support allowing Jewish prayers to get access there. But I don't support any permanent constructions to be built there.

Why not?

 

[Shusha]

Wild assumptions, okay, sorry. But can you said specifically what you disagree with:
Will Israel agree to give some parts of Jerusalem to Arabs as their government quarters there?

Will Israel agree to resettle Jewish settlements in the West Bank?

Will Israel agree with the Gaza Strip to be an Arab sovereign state?

I think even the way you frame these questions is jumping the gun and making assumptions. Can we keep working on dissecting "extremism" first?

Arab extremist positions:

• intifada, martyrdom, "any means necessary", code for: killing Jews
• unilateral destruction or dismantling of Israel as a State
• co-operation with global Islamist terrorist organizations, including receiving funding
• denial of the connection of the Jewish people to their homeland
• denial of atrocities committed against Israel and the Jewish people
• demanding a Jew-free Arab State or ethnic cleansing
• demanding special or exclusive access to shared historic or holy sites

Do you agree that this list would represent Arab extremist views which are incompatible with the goal of "Jewish and Arab children growing up together on the same playgrounds"?

 

[ESay]

Why not?

Compromise is a two way road. The Jews get access to this place. The Muslims get a guarantee that the 'face' of that place won't be changed.

 

[ESay]

I think even the way you frame these questions is jumping the gun and making assumptions. Can we keep working on dissecting "extremism" first?

Arab extremist positions:

• intifada, martyrdom, "any means necessary", code for: killing Jews
• unilateral destruction or dismantling of Israel as a State
• co-operation with global Islamist terrorist organizations, including receiving funding
• denial of the connection of the Jewish people to their homeland
• denial of atrocities committed against Israel and the Jewish people
• demanding a Jew-free Arab State or ethnic cleansing
• demanding special or exclusive access to shared historic or holy sites

Do you agree that this list would represent Arab extremist views which are incompatible with the goal of "Jewish and Arab children growing up together on the same playgrounds"?

Yes, I agree.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, I agree.

Great. What would the Israeli extremist positions be?

 

[Shusha]

Compromise is a two way road. The Jews get access to this place. The Muslims get a guarantee that the 'face' of that place won't be changed.

Ugh. Compromise might be effective if we were arguing two morally equivalent positions. We are not. We are arguing extremism. The Arab position of exclusive access and control of a shared Holy site and special consideration only for Muslims is the extreme position. The Jewish position of equality is both the normative and the moral position. If there is a mosque used for worship and study, why can't there be a synagogue for worship and study? That would be the position of equality.

 

[ESay]

Great. What would the Israeli extremist positions be?

Taking over the Temple Mount.
Annexation of the Gaza Strip with the Arab population being pushed out of there.

 

[ESay]

Ugh. Compromise might be effective if we were arguing two morally equivalent positions. We are not. We are arguing extremism. The Arab position of exclusive access and control of a shared Holy site and special consideration only for Muslims is the extreme position. The Jewish position of equality is both the normative and the moral position. If there is a mosque used for worship and study, why can't there be a synagogue for worship and study? That would be the position of equality.

Because equality doesn't mean taking over the property using the pretext of your ancestors holding it some centuries back. You can't just say - hey, guys, you have plenty of room here, so there and over there will be my place from now on. Hurry up!

Yes, there is a mosque there. But there is no synagogue there anymore. Status quo. Access for prayers, but no permanent installations.

 

[Shusha]

Taking over the Temple Mount.

Again, I gotta drill down into your meaning.

Which is the extremist position?

1. Shared Holy sites should be controlled by the entity which has the principle of equal access for people all faiths.
OR
2. Shared Holy sites should be controlled by the entity which has the principle of denial of access to people of specific faiths and/or special privileges for people of specific faiths.

Annexation of the Gaza Strip

I do not agree that this is an extremist position as it stands (without the additional commentary below). But it might be that you view any one-state solution to be "extremist". Please clarify.

with the Arab population being pushed out of there.

Yes. I agree that forced removal, and probably also incentivized removal, of the Arab population would be an Israeli extremist position.

 

[Shusha]

Because equality doesn't mean taking over the property using the pretext of your ancestors holding it some centuries back. You can't just say - hey, guys, you have plenty of room here, so there and over there will be my place from now on.

Pretext? It seems you are walking the edge of transgressing item #4 on our list of Arab extremist beliefs: denial of the connection of the Jewish people to their homeland. Also, remembering that religious and ethnic rights are collective rights. They belong to the people in their entirety. You can't disconnect people from their ancestors and use that as an excuse for denying the rights of the collective.

It is not "taking over property", especially not with the implied ending of that thought, which is, "taking over property which belongs to Muslims". It is a shared Holy site. Shared. This implies it is property over which no party holds claims to ownership. There is nothing to "take over". It already belongs to all of us.

 

[ESay]

1. Shared Holy sites should be controlled by the entity which has the principle of equal access for people all faiths.
OR
2. Shared Holy sites should be controlled by the entity which has the principle of denial of access to people of specific faiths and/or special privileges for people of specific faiths

Either - make Jerusalem a city-state with complex system of power representing the Arabs and Jews, and to some extent Christians; and in this case the status quo of the Temple Mount can be reviewed

Or - leave it under Jewish control, with the Temple Mount preserving its status quo.

I do not agree that this is an extremist position as it stands (without the additional commentary below). But it might be that you view any one-state solution to be "extremist". Please clarify

One state solution won't be extremist if there will be 'one state for two nations' principle. But I don't think it will be acceptable for the Jews, because Israel won't be a Jewish state anymore.

 

[Shusha]

Either - make Jerusalem a city-state with complex system of power representing the Arabs and Jews, and to some extent Christians; and in this case the status quo of the Temple Mount can be reviewed

Or - leave it under Jewish control, with the Temple Mount preserving its status quo.


One state solution won't be extremist if there will be 'one state for two nations' principle. But I don't think it will be acceptable for the Jews, because Israel won't be a Jewish state anymore.

You didn't answer my question. Which is the extremist position?