Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I never denied Israel the right of existence. But you can't just take old maps and put claims on some areas pretending there never was 2000 years since then.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.
I think your questions were manipulative. And I already answered them in the 499 post. Israel forcefully taking over the Temple Mount is an extremist position.You didn't answer my question. Which is the extremist position?
Yeah, it worked out so well before!I'm not sure you can consider the return of the Jewish people to a territory where they were, you know, ethnically cleansed, as "ethnic cleansing".
But a thriving community under Israeli sovereignty with Jews and Arabs seems pretty doable.
By that metric, it was once a Jewish place. Then it was a Muslim place. Now it is a Jewish place again (under Israeli control). You can't have it both ways. You can't demand "events happen and things change, 2000 years" for the Arabs and deny "events happen and things change" for the Jewish people. The Jewish people have decolonized and liberated their homeland. If it is not a shared place, it is a Jewish place.I never denied Israel the right of existence. But you can't just take old maps and put claims on some areas pretending there never was 2000 years since then.
There is no shared place. Once, it was a Jewish place. Now, it is a Muslim place. The only thing it 'shares' is geographical coordinates. The Jews have no more rights to it, than the Christians do to the Hagia Sophia mosque.
Disingenuous. You've added "forcefully", which was not included in your original position. And my position remains that equal access for ALL to a Holy site is NOT an extremist position. You've yet to convince me that equality is extremist.I think your questions were manipulative. And I already answered them in the 499 post. Israel forcefully taking over the Temple Mount is an extremist position.
Yes, of course, this point of view also has the right to exist. Israel can take control over the Mount and begin 'reconstruction' there. Israel can annex Gaza and begin to 'encourage' the Arabs to leave. It can do the same with the West Bank also. And some would call that decolonization and liberation.By that metric, it was once a Jewish place. Then it was a Muslim place. Now it is a Jewish place again (under Israeli control). You can't have it both ways. You can't demand "events happen and things change, 2000 years" for the Arabs and deny "events happen and things change" for the Jewish people. The Jewish people have decolonized and liberated their homeland. If it is not a shared place, it is a Jewish place.
Yes, I added 'forcefully' later because I previously thought it was clear by default that the Muslims won't accept any Jewish control over the Mount.Disingenuous. You've added "forcefully", which was not included in your original position. And my position remains that equal access for ALL to a Holy site is NOT an extremist position. You've yet to convince me that equality is extremist.
In fact, here's the admittedly reductive, summary of the extremist positions of the Arabs and the Israelis, as I see your position in the discussion.
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
Israeli "extremist" positions:
- caretaking (control over) Holy sites while guaranteeing freedom of worship and access for people of all faiths
- annexation of the Gaza Strip under the principle of recognition and equality for all
You DO see the stark contrast here, yes?
Wow. Again. Which is the extremist position?Yes, I added 'forcefully' later because I previously thought it was clear by default that the Muslims won't accept any Jewish control over the Mount.
What your equality for all means for Gaza is allowing the Jews to live on Arab lands.
Taking their holy site (it can be called that, right?). Taking their land. You really don't see nothing wrong here?
No.(it can be called that, right?)
Well, "my" equality in the original proposal was a path to peace where Jewish children and Arab children grow up playing on the same playgrounds together. You now seem to be claiming that this is an extremist position, because the normative position (as you claim above) is that Jews should not be allowed to live on "Arab lands" and, presumably, Arabs should not be allowed to live on "Jewish lands".What your equality for all means for Gaza is allowing the Jews to live on Arab lands.
RealismGreat. What would the Israeli extremist positions be?
Extreme optimism is a typical Jewish ailment.Maybe. My comment wasn't necessarily meant as a political solution. I was just pointing out that nothing demonstrates mutual humanity than your children sharing a classroom and playground.
By extreme I meant religious hardliners from the both sides.
Okay, if you want a simple answer on these questions 'in vacuum', then obviously that statements that begin with 'Only..' is extremist.Wow. Again. Which is the extremist position?
Only Arabs can live on these lands.
OR
People of ALL ethnic heritages and religions can live on these lands.
Only Muslims can have a place of worship in this Holy place.
OR
People of ALL faiths can have a place of worship in this Holy place.
Your equality can be called 'Hell is full of good intentions'. Your sentence about Jews and Arab lands is too simplified and distorted. Too bad I wrote everything in vain.Well, "my" equality in the original proposal was a path to peace where Jewish children and Arab children grow up playing on the same playgrounds together. You now seem to be claiming that this is an extremist position, because the normative position (as you claim above) is that Jews should not be allowed to live on "Arab lands" and, presumably, Arabs should not be allowed to live on "Jewish lands".
This is why I engage in diving deeply into people's entrenched positions. In the space of less than 24 hours of back-and-forth, you've gone from essentially agreeing that it would be lovely to have Arab and Jewish children growing up together to Jews shouldn't be allowed to live on Arab lands. It's revealing.
I don't place anyone in any category. Hamas should be eliminated.Extreme optimism is a typical Jewish ailment.
That's exactly the direction - instead of separation and running away from
fundamental Jewish responsibility to teach, for the false premise of security.
Let me suggest a typical right-wing question,
how would You weigh that against the liberal ideal,
of each community having a right to their curriculum?
What religious hardliners on both sides?
I know the identity politics in the media headlines,
but Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are no more hardline
religious than Ben-Gurion who took the Tanach,
as the land title and political policy to the UN.
Now, you want to put Yeshivah boys
and rebellious Judean teenagers in
the same category with Hamas?
It's opposite in every way.
And that exactly what freaks the most religious and Progressive Liberal minds,
the integration of socialism with religious conservativism. The very possibility
of Israel being THE alternative to their dichotomy.
Generally since the West has lost its groove,
the question is about preference between
marriage of radical Left and Islamism,
or Hebrew ideals as the bridge
between universal values.
Given a choice, what do
you prefer for your children?
What equivalence can be drawn is that their policy can be destructive for the region.Yes you did, assuming equivalence between "religious hardliners".
Secularism as alternative (to) religion or an economic policy?
What equivalence can be drawn is that their policy can be destructive for the region.
I support separation of 'the church' from state. Not sure what secularism has to do with economic policy.
I suggest you to read my comments about the matter that I repeatedly wrote in this section. I think it is pointless to repeat them over and over again.See, that's why general comments like that are detached
from the basic cultural understanding of the region.
Do you suggest we eat Hummus with chopsticks?
I suggest you to read my comments about the matter that I repeatedly wrote in this section. I think it is pointless to repeat them over and over again.
