Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Scott Mayers

Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

Recommended Posts

"Plus I just wanted to trap you with your own Godwin's Law moment." 

Hmmm....I should make a 'Law' too. The Law of Inoculation: When one tends to desire resistance to logical reflection on some idea that is common by some outside group or the general population, name the tendency of their most powerful arguments as conspiring to mislead you by triggered themes as a 'law'. This inoculates the insider from giving outsiders the platform known to brainwash you of something irrational that appears logical.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Can you specifically name or link your topic? 

 


Here, I tried to share informations from any sources but noone share anything other than me ^_^ only some troll posts. Another problem is that I am a bit whimsy. So I am interested with many different issues at the same time and I instantly lose all my interest about a subject and focusing another subject. So this always cause my projects to stay in half. I am the brain, not the worker. I give orders, I dont take orders.

 

 

Edited by Altai
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Begging facts is not proving them. Do you not recognize the borders prior to 1947?

I am not begging anything. I understand your point Scott Mayers, but certain key things changed since 1947. All actions have consequences... shall we ignore history?

Edited by OftenWrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have struggled with this issue for decades.  It is the points raised by B-C and Altai that I seem to feel these days is what should determine the outcome.

Not only Canada - AND the US exist in their current political form as sovereign states once under the control of an aboriginal population, but so do MANY modern states.  While I may not agree with USA/UK simply deciding that Israel should exist in what was clearly Palestine, reality is that is now in the past and needs to be dealt with under the reality that there are two states within one territory, and THEY need to figure out how to co-exist.  I think it is reasonable to assume that whatever the current legal makeup of any sovereign state might be, THAT is what should define who/what it is and over what it has authority.  Jursalem IS the de-facto capital of Israel today, so then we can move on to the next issue.

That would be recognition by the USA.  I can not think of too many things pro-Yank that Hezbollah has said or done.  In fact, as enthusiastic members of the Iranian framed fundamentalist part of Islam, I believe we can agree they are anti-Western.  Israel, on the other hand, has been pretty much consistanly pro-Western.   When you consider that they owe their existance mostly the USA and UK, what else could they be??  So, if an American President was to do anything at all regarding a contentious issue (and it certainly IS contentious) what side do you think he would logically come down on?   DUH!!!!!

As to the timing of when and reasons why Trump has chosen to inflame this situation, I don't pretend to know what goes on behind closed doors inside the Beltway (other than a lot of illicit sex acts, it would seem).  I tend to agree, though, that this is one big flip of the bird from Trump to fundamentalist Islam - as that clearly fits the profile.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel keeps murdering civilians. Today two Palestinian babies one 3 years old and one 6 months old are murdered by an air strike of Israel terror organization.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Altai said:

Israel keeps murdering civilians. Today two Palestinian babies one 3 years old and one 6 months old are murdered by an air strike of Israel terror organization.  

Do you think Palestinians ever kill civilians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Do you think Palestinians ever kill civilians?

Yes...retaliation is a bitch too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Czech Republic is the only country that follows the proper position. They issued a statement saying they recognized western Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and considered it to be the future capital of a Palestinian state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes...retaliation is a bitch too.

The size of the bitch is inversely proportional to the amount the victim had to do with the event for which retaliation is initiated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can simply this argument in an extremely logical way. But it will require spelling things out very specifically. If you have patience, I think most, if not all, might agree to the concern in how I will explain it. 

Step 1: Assume that we are as gods that can look into any one of our own or each other's creative worlds that are simplified versions of our own. 

Insight one: IF any of us chooses to, we can opt out of looking at any worlds. If you are one who opts NOT to look (not to 'observe'), you have to remain indifferent to judgement about the worlds that others voluntarily participate in observing. This means that for you who do NOT want to look, you LACK the capacity to judge whether the world that others DO choose to participate in observing. This may seem all too obvious. But my first point in this set up is that if we cannot or choose not to observe some world, we can easily dismiss what we lack knowing. For the Israeli-Palestinian 'world' (or worlds we can imagine some of to create), this means the simplest absolute solution to ANY problem we 'judge' is to simply NOT OBSERVE it. 

Insight two: Given we are 'gods', we cannot be "forced" to look or observe any other world but our own. (We could technically create our own worlds too by initiating it and then ignore it after that, of course.) So, for this Israeli-Palestinian world, all we can contend with is to those who 'choose' to look at the situation. This at least makes you eligible to judge. If at any point you walk away while the rest are continuing to observe, you may miss information that may make you ineligible to further judgments. In other words, if you do NOT participate in the essential details about what those of us DO choose to observe in this 'experiment', you may be disqualified by those of us who have been there throughout the experiment. This point I am making can be compared to hearing "HALF" truths about some situation or scenario of hearsay by some friend who might be gossiping about themselves or another. The information COULD be true that you 'observe'. But if you only have part of the story, a half-story could be worse to draw conclusions than the whole one. So, I ask that you read each part in order here for the argument and if you opt to skip part of it, you may miss some significant detail that would make you understand fairly.

 

Step 2: Let us 'gods' consider a simplified world that has the following components: (1) and Island or Islands will represent a limited environment within any world we create for this experiment, (2) Two people of equal initial conditions, such as being 'twins' in genetic kind. 

The islands will be our sub-worlds within worlds that we can imagine represent isolated conditions within a larger universe that 'may' have some possible affect on them if we so choose. 

For the people, let us imagine one to be P and P1, where Px will stand for any one of them arbitrarily.

 

Step 3: First let us imagine observing a world where each Px live on their own islands in some given world:

5a2b62411cded_Fig.1.jpg.eb008b60f51a52e8aa22ec7271da5035.jpgFig.1

In this world, each have their own island and so there is no need to question whether they can affect each other. This kind of scenario is as two distinct people withing distinct environments. It is similar to the condition of the world we are observing as being isolated from those other 'gods' here who opt out of observing. The difference is that we can 'observe' these Ps worlds and so our observations CAN affect us for the act. If it 'harms' us for looking at, we can simply STOP looking and go on to do something else. However, it could pleasure us even for simply entertaining us and keep us participating. What I am leading to is that we should choose to 'judge' these worlds upon some set of goals that we observers have in common. The 'common' goal I desire here is to agree that we UNDERSTAND the scenario that relates to some common other 'sub-goals' that we set up for our worlds in an "objective" way. 

For instance, we have to agree that we SEE the same world we are observing at present and to the conditions we set as some example to test. For the above scenario, the 'goal' is to understand the above figure as two distinct islands with two distinct peoples. I will label them with the subs '0' or '1' in what follows. But the image above is to help us see that these are two 'copies' of people (P) with identical circumstances. 

My subgoal here is that we 'agree they are isolated peoples that do not affect one another in this given world'. If this is the case, we can move on to the next step.

 

Step 4: I will change the world such that these two people are distinct with the same initial conditions that live on the same world (goal). The 'subgoal' here will be to 'agree to the subconclusions I present below as insights.'

5a2b675d5ebae_Fig.2.jpg.ea321a32a30836d267df79f6f0bfacb9.jpgFig.2

Insight: If the island is sufficient to enable both Ps to exist and their existences do NOT prevent either one of them from perishing, P0 and P1 will not require 'affecting' each other for the better or worse. In this condition, both Ps are a part of their environment and for this condition, that they not require affecting each other AND their existences do NOT prevent either one of them from perishing, they may live peacefully whether they pay attention to one another OR later opt to affect one another. This conditional world means that even if they CHOOSE to later on to do anything with each other, EVEN if it seems to be potentially 'hazardous', they cannot actually cause either of them to perish. This state is a kind of "don't care" situation because this world is not really LOGICALLY different than the prior world in Fig.1 regarding their survival one way or the other.

 

Step 5: Let us use the same world set up of Step 4 with Figure 2 BUT alter the condition such that Px can affect each other. Because they are equal, it is arbitrary which one we pick to represent the first actor or the other in what follows. This means that I will arbitrarily pick P0 as one who behaves first with P1 responding. Furthermore, let us assume that IF they choose to affect each other, they can now potentially destroy the other AND they do not even KNOW of 'harm' nor 'pleasure' (any emotive values these represent of 'value') unless they are affected that risk their survival.

Insight: If they behave without actions that harm the other, each survives and have no emotive value one way or the other. They don't 'need' each other for their survival and so are relatively 'indifferent' to each other.

Insight: If we imagine P0 act in some 'accidental' way that affects P1 by threatening its life, P1 derives a novel emotion of discomfort as its survival is now threatened. Though confused of this novel experience, it knows that P0 is the causal agent in the environment and so derives a dislike against him/her for that behavior. At first, he/she may attempt to walk away, but if (s)he gets too close, P0  eventually behaves similarly. P1 decided to try to communicate this discomfort to P0 by indicating s(he) 'feels' threatened. [I'll use "he" from now on to make this easier. I hope none of you other gods find offense. Just let it mean any of us.]

Pis irreverent towards P1. How can it 'know' what even a 'feeling' is? P1 may as well be saying, "I am jucapultasic towards you", some made-up word that means nothing and perhaps confusing. Not being buffed by its 'free will' to behave, P0 doesn't take offense nor interest at first. So he repeats the act towards P. This may help P0 to make better sense of the meaning of jucapultasic. But P1 being assaulted again, has an infuriating anger, more negative feelings, towards him and strikes back hard with a copy of that behavior. That is, P1 now acts with reflective force against P0 in an amplified version of what he did to him. (Maybe this strong reaction seems justified to make up for the two assaults P1 received from P0, he thinks).

P0 now has discovered its own novel emotion of discomfort. But it is even relatively worse towards him as he almost dies and it takes some time to regain his health and mind enough to do anything about. P1 in the meantime is now "relieved" and so experiences a pleasureful emotion. While relieved, he leaves P0 alone as he is no longer affecting him negatively. His experience of discomfort makes him realize that he has a sympathetic reflection upon the action and opts NOT to continue any more harm towards P0 as he heals.

Insight: If comparing this to real circumstances, we might think of this as children who learn of what is or is not harmful and pleasant from initial experiences. I conditioned this without a 'positive'  default towards each other in the way the Jewish nor Muslim community may feel initially indifferent to each other prior to any harm that might instigate emotive problems. While the 'relief' represents what might be a type of incidental 'pleasure' that arises distinctly from each other's relationship. They may feel pleasures external to each other. But this might be like Px possibly having some default 'comfort' about themselves without a need to seek it beyond their internal experiences. The set up here for WHO might be WHO here is irrelevant. P0 could be Muslim (or Palestinian) OR Jewish (or Israeli). All that matters is that they derive some initial experience that caused both to be 'affected' negatively towards each other. I've also used this neutral thought experiment to show how in this initial condition, no one is at 'fault' FROM OUR GOD'S EYE-VIEW. This way, we should  now all agree that these comparisons are possible conditions for the real world, even if they may not be the literal case in fact. As 'gods' we act as nature's reality that knows of whatever truth is about these groups without bias. Like nature, we could be indifferent to the details of these people, just as Pand P1 are indifferent to each other as Px.

 

Step 6: Continuing on the last step, let us agree as gods to continue observing to see what happens. We may be able to alter the conditions as gods, but being our mere creations, any 'harm' or 'pleasure' these Ps have do not concern us because we could undo this for simply erasing our creations. What we want to determine for now is IF they can resolve the problem ON THEIR OWN. They may both be able to and not be able to if we randomly ran the world's again in what follows. But under those situations, we'd have to grant them a 'free will' beyond OUR relative knowledge of their choices. This is then just to see what 'possibilities' may occur if we blinded ourselves to incidental details. For instance, in some contingent world, the original 'harm' done by P0 may have been done without P1 initially knowing that the act came directly from P0. It could have been due to some apple falling out of a tree by P1's lack of knowledge. So let us guess some possible continued scenarios instead from what we've already determined instead. 

Let it be the case that from Step 5, P0 recovers and though some time is passed, he no longer trusts P1 in a bit stronger kind than P0 because that very strong single blow was sufficient to put a greater emotional discomfort and even some 'fear' with respect to P1. P1 on the other hand is only mildly concerned but more confident for its experience and belief that it successfully communicated to P0 what it means to be harmed. 

But later, when P1 confidently walks past P0 forgetting and perhaps 'forgiving' him already, gets a violent blow from him all of a sudden. P0 was fine until P1 walked too close and he figured that to avoid the kind of extreme threat he experienced before, he'd strike first without hesitating. He only strikes P1 as hard as he experienced before. P1 has now experienced the MORE harmful experience that he gave to P0.  He asks him 'why' he opted to act that way. He also adds that it was he who started the initial attack before and so his own action before was a 'reaction' to the harm imposed upon him. P0 responds that he only gave back precisely what was given to him. He may have 'accidentally' harmed P1 before but does not believe that he is 'liable' because he lacked intention. P1 asserts that this very attack was also only an initial natural response for the experience of discomfort he experienced for the attack. BUT, P0 , he argues, was MORE harmful for both "knowing" how he was harmed. So why did he justify this new attack? P0 then reasserts that even his initial harmful attack was long ago and was nowhere as harmful (twice as less) as P1's second blow. P0 argues that he hit him twice only because he was still ignorant of the meaning of the words, (like jucapultasic), he used to communicate the harm. 

Insight: We now have what I believe is the comparative condition of the Middle East's Jewish and Muslim issue with each other. As gods, we see how the scenario of P0 and P1 begun by relatively 'innocent' behaviors and seems to escalate from there. What might possibly happen is that they BOTH recognize the logic and realize that they both simply have to agree to STOP. The emotions involved though may also possibly continue to affect them and they might begin to argue who should stay on the island for not being able to effectively trust one another any longer. Each has now gained such emotional discomfort that they reactively fear each other beyond even their own 'logical' means. They each decide that the best solution would be to have one of them leave the island. One of them could find some other island and they both could then live in peace, right?

 

I could expand upon this here but this should be enough at least to see if we have any agreement thus far. I believe this is the 'kind' of condition we have for the Israeli and Palestinian dispute. They both want to claim a place they initially shared at some point. While one may have been 'first' in some even earlier time, this still doesn't satisfy their resolution because they both seem to share the view that they cannot live together, if even just for some genetic reflective discomfort. Is there a possible solution?

One I suggest, as gods, we are akin to 'observers' outside of Israel. We may not BE 'gods' relative to them in fact. But we are AS 'gods' if we are like the scenario above because we may possibly CHOOSE to act in some way to alter their conditions from without. To me, we could find some island that is equally as attractive to each,....copies of identical places they could exist in comfortable isolation. But we are NOT actual gods and so cannot alter the 'natural given world' we live in. But as observers that can be considered culpable for 'observing' what is occurring, we MAY have some influence. The U.S.'s decision (Trump's announcement) acts as some outsider directly imposing some outside 'god'-like support. This is like one of us demanding that say, P0, should leave the island without being able to have created an island for them to go. This condition is like 'favoring' one party over the other when both are objectively not at fault. But the 'support' of one comes at the expense of cursing the other as though they WERE in some 'wrong'. And even if they were to accept some assumption of the outside deciders to be selecting favor/disfavor WITHOUT emotional judgement, being the one of the parties that is of such a coin toss doesn't reflect well either. Should the Muslims/Palestinians, for instance, accept some 'suicidal' demise by nature simply for some arbitrary "fairness" of nature to toss the dice against their favor? 

This emotionally laden circumstance to me COULD be solved better if WE were to find a way that they both can coexist on the same island WITHOUT bias of favor nor disfavor to the other. Giving the 'prized' land (Jerusalem) to one or the other exclusively is equally as divisive because it still disrespects one of the parties, namely the Muslims here. We also do not want to reverse this either. The best solution is to try to make the 'prized' lands, like Jersusalem, NON-P0 and NON-P1 owned but to a Px place that is both inclusive of sharing with them AND any other 'x' of P that may come along now or in the future. 

Does this make sense? Do you other 'gods' here agree? Can you ADD to this with additional models onto this to see if there are any other solutions?

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Bolding letters
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Does this make sense? Do you other 'gods' here agree? Can you ADD to this with additional models onto this to see if there are any other solutions?

 

No, it does not make sense, but I will propose another model that has been executed in the past and still exists today:

Israel could draft The Palestinian Act of 2018, taking sovereign control of all the land, but agreeing to cultural requirements of the Palestinian population on designated "reserves".   In this way, Israel would retain control of borders and natural resources while native Arabs would become "status Palestinians" subject to the legislation and courts of the Israeli sovereign state.  Negotiated "treaties" could be agreed to by both parties, subject to the whim of the controlling sovereign.

This solution model has been implemented around the world, most notably in North America on a large, continental scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one side dwells an ugly apartheid settler colony supported by an even uglier imperial power, and on the other stands the glory of a global defiance against that immoral depravity called “Zionism” —

A racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, climate change denier, serial sexual predator, real estate charlatan, prompted by his ultra Zionist son-in-law and bankruptcy lawyer, has come out to recognize Jerusalem as “the capital of Israel” — how utterly befitting is that! What an apt and perfect closure to the ignominious thievery of Palestine! Zionists deserve this perfect ending to their history of colonial occupation of another people’s homeland! A cesspool of every moral disease in the world, a despicable bastard, loathed by the world, siding with them and declaring a stolen city their capital!

And on the other side stands the world — 

The world will win. The Zionists will lose. There is an inner rhythm to the arch of justice in this world — imperceptible, quiet, dignified, beautiful — add any other ennobling thought the world celebrates and of which the Zionists are deprived —

Resist brothers and sisters in Palestine! You with your glorious presence in the ugly midst of the occupation of your homeland and the world in solid unwavering solidarity—bearing witness to your righteous cause!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Do you think Palestinians ever kill civilians?

LoL its impossible for you to understhand that. You are nothing different than Israel, you live on stolen American native lands. So you steal Canadian native lands first and Canadian natives are figthing back to take their lands and you say you are innocent and you are just figthing to defend yourself :lol:

Edited by Altai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you just dodged squid's question, Altai. by the way, you don't have me on ignore, do you? I"ve been wondering about that. I know this is a very emotionally-charged discussion, especially for someone who lives in the middle east, but you don't need to drop red herrings like that.

Edited by JamesHackerMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I think the Czech Republic is the only country that follows the proper position. They issued a statement saying they recognized western Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and considered it to be the future capital of a Palestinian state. 

No. The Czech Republic has never commented on West or East Jerusalem. It simply says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

and its possible for a second Muslim Palestinian state to have it as their capital too. That's all Trump has said as well.

Trump has never stated Jerusalem should not or can not be the capital of a Palestinian state on the West Bank.

The problem with you and the majority of the people on this thread are you don't read or have a clue about the history of Jerusalem or what the PA did in regards to this issue.

 

In fact three not one, three Israeli Prime Ministers as part as peace offers, offered to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state, Rabin, Olmert and Peres. Arafat told all three he would never accept any solution other than all of Israel and Jordan merged with the West Bank and Gaza into a Muslim sharia law state.

That is the current position of the PA and Hamas. They do not recognize any right of Israel to be anything but a Muslim state.

In fact Abbas and Hamas have stated that repeatedly..

In fact the official position of the Arab League of Nations is that Israel can NOT exist as a JEWISH state which is why they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it has to do with not recognizing not just the capital, but the entire nation.

The refusal by the Arab League, Hamas and the PA is not about a stand alone issue as to the choice of where Israel's capital is, its  its existence as a Jewish state and its right to exist. Even if the "capital"  was in Tel Aviv, these same parties have made it clear they do not and will NEVER recognize Israel as a Jewish state anywhere in the Middle East.

None of the experts on Jerusalem on this thread will mention that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 12:28 AM, Scott Mayers said:

Begging facts is not proving them. Do you not recognize the borders prior to 1947?

 2017-12-07_232504.png.5e7b74734abca6137ba6c22f3fab87e3.png2017-12-07_232448.png.5c0c4dacae64faccd21b523175400519.pngMcjEnye.thumb.png.c0a972b868fe1d9dcb6abe1a513332db.png

 

I have argued that Scott Mayer, Hudson Jones, Marcus et al, use the identical script over and over again. One of the things

these supposed individuals do is to constantly put the shrinking map falsehood on threads about Israel over and over again.

The technique is based on a simple principal, if you repeat the same lie or falsehood repeatedly, it will become true.

 

In fact the shrinking map argument is placed on this form in  each and every post or thread about Israel.

http://edgar1981.blogspot.ca/2014/05/countering-shrinking-palestine-maps-lie.html

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/07/debunking-map-that-lies.html

http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/articles/israel-today/188-israel-palestine-when-the-map-lies

Interestingly whenever the shrinking maps technique is exposed as a sham none of the Middle East experts who present this shit on this forum follow up and respond. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 11:44 AM, Altai said:

Do you guys know that Jarusalem means "The city of islam"

 

Now you know ^_^

The above is total and utter bullshit. Its passed off as fact because the people behind these bull shit threads depend on peoples' ignorance as to the actual history of Jerusalem. When someone like me responds and points out the actual history and facts they then rely on you not to read hoping like them you stop after one sentence and have equally as limited an attention span.

I make an effort to debunk this shit because I believe it is my moral obligation.

To start with, Jerusalem or “Yerushalayim” which in Hebrew is  יְרוּשָׁלַיִם) is and has never been a Arabic name and it has never referred to Muslims. That is a total and utter lie.

In fact it can be traced back to the Middle Bronze age. The name it was called and is still called ibn Arabic is Al-Quds (القدس) and Bayt Al-Maqdis (بيت المقدس), meaning holy city.

This is how much of a liar Altai is. Jerusalem  or Urusalim (URU ú-ru-sa-lim) or Urušalim is what it was referred to when using the  Amarna or Abdi-Heba scripts which can be traced back to the 1330’s BCE. Amarna letters of Abdi-Heba . It refers to the name BETH SHALEM. In  Sumero-Akkadian which also calls Jerusalem Urusalim it meant,  created by or founded by the God Shalim. In Hebrew Shalim means cornerstone but in Sumero-Akkadian, it refered to the God Shalim who was in fact a Canaanite God of the setting sun, hell and health.

So its derivation has nothing to do with Muslims or Arabic. Nothibng.

The hebrew word Yerushalaim was transtaled into ancient Greek and Latin as Hierousalem/Hierosolyma and in early Syriac Christian Bibles as Ierousalem Latin Hierosolyma or Ierusalem. In Arabic this name when used was Urusalim  (أورسالم) but as I stated it would be referred to in Arabic not as the simple translation from Hebrew but as Al Quds and Altai knows that more than anyone because “she” has come on this forum in the past referring to Al Quds day a yearly demonstration to commemorate losing the war to Israel and organizing demonstrations calling for the recapture of all of Israel including Jerusalem.

In fact the component  name "Shalem",  also is derived from the same root as the word "shalom",  city of peace. The other component in the word AYIM  is how in Hebrew words are made plural and it was made plural as opposed to singular because the city sits on two hills.

Another explanation is if you go to the Bible and Genesis (Rabbah) 56:10, Jerusalem the name is explained as a mic of the words YIREH which means “He will see to it," and “Shalem” which referred to the city of King Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18. The scholar Philo claimed Jerusalem meant, "God's city"  and midrashim which is commentary by Rabbiahs explaining the words of the Bible refers to Jerusalem as meaning"City of Peace”. No one let alone Muslim scholars have ever said it means city of Islam which is why I have stated on previous threads I doubt Altai is a Muslim because to say such stupid things defies what any Muslim with any knowledge of Arabic or Islamic history woyuld say.

Jerusalem, was not originally built nor named by the Hebrews (Israelites) and Jews lived in it long before Muslims came about. The Cannanite town called  Salem as I stated would date  back to the early  middlebronze age, and the first Biblical mention of this place is in Genesis 14:18, where Abraham and Melchizedek meet. The name Jerusalem occurs in Joshua 10:1 and the city of Jerusalem was  said to have been conquered, sacked and apparently abandoned by Israel in Judges 1:8 but then remained occupied by JEBUSITES. According to Judges 1:21 it was originally located in the territory of  Benjamin and then in 2 Samuel 5:6 , it says 400 years later King David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites, annexed it and made it his capital .

So this had NOTHING to do with Muslims an din fact by the time Hebrews made it our capital it already existed as Salem. Jerusalem as I said is built on TWO hills and they were referred to by Isaiah as the Hills of Jerusalem in Isaiah 10:32. There is some misunderstanding when its translated as meaning “Hill” not “Hills” of Jerusalem but that is a minor error caused by not understanding the plural meaning of Jerusalem in Hebrew. No one fights over the reality there are two hills in Jerusalem or that the city is built on these hills.

When one moves from the Old to the New Testament which is the verses Christians follow and they would come after the Jews in chronology, they used the term Hierosoluma which is plural in Mathew 2:1 and singular feminine in Matthew 23:37I (Hiersolem). In Mark 1:5 a resident of Jerusalem was called a  Hierosolumite. Those are ancient Greek words. Hieros means sacred. Hierus  means Priest. Again nothing to do with Islam.

Psalm 76:2 used the term "Salem" for "Zion", which was the citadel of Jerusalem.  The scholar Josephus who many rely on (and some say is not 100% accurate) and the Aramaic translation of the Bible, (Armaic being the language Jesus spoke) also used the above term/. Jerusalem has in the past been referred to as IR DAVID, (City of David) which is also used for the name of the site south of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In Judges 19:10  it is referred to as the City of Jebus. In Jeremiah 31:22 its referred to as Naweh Sadeq (נְוֵה-צֶדֶק). In Isaiah 29:1:8 it is called ARIEL (אֲרִיאֵל). Its also been referred to in Hevrew as, עיר הקודש, which means Ir Ha Kodesh, City of the Holy Place.

No Muslim scholar would dispute the above. They have no need to. Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638. This would be where the “Old City” or East Jerusalem is today which prior to 1967 was occupied by Jordan which used to be called Trans Jordan. This old city of Jerusalem would grow when the Romans took it over. The Christians then captured it in the 11th century, then it was capturede by the Khwarezmi Turks and would have only had about 8,000 people under Ottoman Empire rule in the 19th century.

In fact the Arabic name of Jerusalem, القدس, or Al-Quds began to be used in 9th century CE, two hundred years AFTERthe Muslim conquest of the city. Prior to the name Al-Quds, it was called in Arabic,  إيلياء, Iliya which comes from the Latin word AELIA or  (from the Latin بيت المقدس , Bayt Al-Maqdis or Bayt Al-Muqaddas which then evolved to the word Al Quds. Bayt Al-Maqdis in Arabic in effect comes from the Hebrew name for the Temple in Jerusalem. Bayt Al-Maqdis means "The House of the Holy". The word QUDS in Arabic means  "holy". The word, al-Quds aš-Šarīf  was used by the Ottomans who also used the Persian/Farsi name,  Kuds-i Şerîf. In Arabic Al-Quds means holy, and   لقدس الشريف  or Al-Quds aš-Šhareef, means Holy Sanctuary.

You want a source here:

source: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jerusalem.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2017 at 8:50 PM, Omni said:

As mentioned the other thread has discussed this issue a fair bit. And impeachment is certainly part of the discourse. I personally think this latest show from Trump is more to do with his mental instability than a "fuck you", but come to think of it, I suppose they could be related.

As usual you spew nonsense. Trump can not be impeached for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2017 at 7:34 PM, Scott Mayers said:

Thank you. I haven't been here for a while and don't like to step into a thread that's a mile long that requires me to read too much to catch up. 

 

Your selectivity as to what you will and will not read is evident. Now as for your absence, check with Omni on whether you are entitled to compensation from the Canadian government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 4:39 PM, Scott Mayers said:

"Je-" and "Ye-" beginnings, which originate most related languages to this day, means both "I" and "The" (as in 'one'). 

"-ra", from our African/Egyptian roots, derived from the sound of lions that indicated power of force, and evolved into generally meaning any such FORCEFUL factor, specifically the "rays" of light from the sun [note lions, with the mane and its orange, sunlike appearance, relates. 

"-us-" could be from "Asher" ('A-Syria); but the "el" or "al", when placed at the END of words was a way to assert an ULTIMATE "thee" without defining, like a variable or article. For instance, when 'el'am', then likely refers to the "elohim" or, in general, "ALL ORIGINS_sources" (such as 'gods' collectively, or, even secularly, as ANY major cause of nature). 

So, "Jerusalem", likely meant, "I (or that which) sees ALL sources (or all the gods) , as the equivalent secular-and-religious shared meaning. A temple was NOT a place for a specific god, but the first stage of civil evolution as tribes settle down. Jerusalem also was an outpost of the time of Akhenaten (akin- to the [shaper]) [The sun's perfect circular shape was the ultimate container. "Adam" derives of this too, which means that which is shaped (has solid boundaries).]

Compare other similar names: Joshua (je-zheu) [the Sis (the same)]...Aramaic; Jesus (Je-sus) ["the same as" == "the Zeus"]...Greek. 

Absolute and utter bullshit and its been responded to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In fact three not one, three Israeli Prime Ministers as part as peace offers, offered to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state, Rabin, Olmert and Peres. Arafat told all three he would never accept any solution other than all of Israel and Jordan merged with the West Bank and Gaza into a Muslim sharia law state.

That is the current position of the PA and Hamas. They do not recognize any right of Israel to be anything but a Muslim state.

I am not doubting you, however I am questioning you.  And please believe me that I don't know as much on this topic as some might think, so I am not being naive. 

1.  I thought the Rabin/Arafat peace talks under Clinton were about both sides recognizing the other, based on a two-state solution ?

2. Is the PA not a continuation of Arafat's government in this regard ?

Also - if, as I have been reading, there has never been an intention to place the capital on occupied territory then why is this idea so controversial ?  Is it the symbolism ?  I always thought the controversy came out of the site of the capital being on disputed land.  

I value your objectivity, and ask that you try to frame your reply in both the pro- and con- centrist opinions on the Jerusalem issue please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Erdogan said today in his speech "Israel is a country of invasion. They are terorizing the region and US is supporting them in a way contrary to the laws, contrary to the hearth and contrary to the morality. Being powerful does not mean being the right. We dont recognize US's decision."

 

Now bite your fingers with anger and drop dead with your hatred ^_^

Edited by Altai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 6:39 PM, Bonam said:

Indeed. People are being silly, talking about "ancient history" or trying to decompose the meaning of the name "Jerusalem". None of that matters. In practice, Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for almost 70 years now. Other countries pretending it ain't so doesn't change the reality. 

Stop talking reality. Just stop it.

Well stated.

By the way this well known Zionist  like I would suggest the majority of us, would have no issue with a peaceful

Palestinian state sharing the capital. 3 different Prime Ministers proposed that only to be told by Arafat et al that

they would never under any circumstance recognize a Jewish state. So the issue has never been a stand alone issue.

Its not like its the only issue holding up peace. It fact some argue by placating the PA and Arab League over Jerusalem 

sends the message they do not have to acknowledge the unique reality of Jerusalem as not being a Muslim only city which is the

position of the PA and Hamas and Arab League.

Placating the denial of the reality of the existence of the JEWISH state of Israel has not enabled discussions, its enabled the status

quo to continue.

You want reality? 90% of the land Israel built its government buildings and Knesset on are CHRISTIAN church owned. This  is why

Israel pays rent to these churches. The PA. Hamas and Arab League do not recognize these rights. You hear any of the geniuses on

this thread talking about that?

 

The IDF when it went into East Jerusalem in 1967 and  ended Muslim vandalism to Christian and Jewish religious sites and enabled

access for both Christians and Jews  to these sites.

To this day there is a panel of religious clergy of Muslims, Christians and  Jews.

They could create a unique protectorate for all 3 in Jerusalem. Its possible. Problem is the Muslim clergy walked away saying

no Christian or Jew should have access to the Mount or other holy sites and they would never recognize any government but a sharia

law one.

I can tell you that most Israelis are not religious and understand religious Christians, Jews and Muslims each have strong

feelings and many of these people are TOURISTS who when they come spend MONEY.

 

Reality for Palestinians is they need tourism to make money and their leaders who hold them captive will never

recognize not just the Jewish but Christian demensions to Jerusalem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Palestinian state

sharing the cap[itsl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The size of the bitch is inversely proportional to the amount the victim had to do with the event for which retaliation is initiated.

The size of bitch is moot when it has the most powerful asshole on the planet on its side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...