DJT puts the world on a #ZionTrain to the Crazy House

If you're just waking up after some spirit journey on mescaline, or if you've been in solitary confinement away from any news sources, thank you for joining us while the world loses its shit over NOTHING. Any way you cut it the moving of the United States embassy to Jerusalem is a story that if people had a proper perspective on world affairs would be relegated to page 16 of most newspapers.

But as it is there are three reactions to this story.


  • 1. Donald Trump has officially alienated us from the Muslim world and may have started WWIII.
  • 2. Sudden Fanboy Onset Syndrome (SFOS)
  • 3. Focusing on stuff that is slightly less bullshit. 

Well, I'll tell you what: I didn't fall for any of it. Donald Trump took a risky stab at doing a very symbolic thing to satisfy one of his campaign promises, and I guess that is laudable or frightening depending  on which side of the issue you stand on. That does not change the fact that this is symbolic bullshit.

How did we even get here? 

The moving of the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been a central plank in the political agendas of each US president and/or Congress since the Clinton Administration. But why is it that the embassy has been located in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem to begin with?
Divided Jerusalem, 1948-67, with the white and dark grey
belonging to Jordan, and the light grey belonging to Israel.
(Palestinian Embassy in Bangladesh).


In 1948, the first Arab-Israeli War AKA Israeli War of Independence ended with the city of Jerusalem, like British Mandate Palestine itself, divided between Israeli and Arab League military control. the Kingdom of Jordan was the Arab League member that seized the eastern half of Jerusalem, and as such it remained under their rule from 1948 until 1967. During this time period the city was officially the front line in a war as Jordan and Israel had only signed a ceasefire in 1949 and maintained an armed frontier. Many nations choosing to open an embassy in Israel would never have risked placing their diplomats in the cross hairs of artillery and sniper attacks should a new conflict break out as almost happened several times. Therefore, since 1948 every full embassy in Israel from Albania's to Zambia's is located in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, whereas are several that have consulate level posts in Jerusalem and other Israeli cities.

Why is there opposition to the move?

Al-Aqsa mosque, central nervous point of Palestinian angst
against Israel. (+972 Magazine)

Israel's detractors continually refer to Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This could be due to one of several motivations:

  • Belief that at least part of Jerusalem must serve as a future Palestinian capital as explained by the Institute for Palestine Studies.  
  • The volatility of the city as evidenced by the numerous hostilities between Palestinians and Israeli security forces centered around the Holy Sites of Haram al-Sharif and Al-Aqsa mosque which are established on top of the Jewish temple.
  • Proponents of the liberation of all of Palestine "from the River (Jordan) to the Sea (Mediterranean)" that view any concession of any land whatsoever to Israel as a betrayal of the children of refugees from the 1948 war. These may range from hard line Islamists to far-left legacy Palestinian guerrilla organizations. Muslims, including Muslim Palestinians view Jerusalem (Al-Quds in Arabic) and Al-Aqsa mosque as the third holiest site in Islamic tradition. (See right)
Jerusalem (Al-Aqsa mosque under attack) calling to the Ka'aba
in Mecca to return to Islamic rule. (Rasha Mahdi)
  • Christian Palestinians, though not as militant as Muslims, also tend to hold that the city must remain the capital of a new secular Palestine. They are often proponents of the "one-state solution", where Israel and Palestine would merge into  a single state with no official religion. This is the meaning of the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". 
The basis of the Palestinian and world Arab/Muslim objection to an embassy to Jerusalem in Israel therefore sits upon a negation of the the Israeli or Jewish legal and moral status of holding onto either the whole or part of the city or even to have a sovereign state of their own. When explaining the counter-view it becomes clearer that none of these views, even the most "moderate" first one of a future Palestinian capital can be viewed as consistent with a vision seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict. . . 

What purpose does a capital serve?

As stated previously, the opponents of this purely symbolic move often refer derisively to Tel Aviv as Israel's true capital. In point of fact however Tel Aviv serves as the economic and cultural epicenter of modern Israel, but that does not make it the "capital". The main administrative, legislative, and judicial institutions of Israel are in Jerusalem and  always have been, apart from the Defence Ministry and other military institutions. Arab residents of East Jerusalem are entitled to apply for citizenship and in many cases do acquire it and move to other parts of the contiguous territories of Israel including West Jerusalem. So functionally, their argument that Tel Aviv is the true capital of Israel has no basis. That would be like stating that New York and Los Angeles, both much more teeming metropolises than Washington DC is the true capital of the United States, or that the cultural and business hub Sydney is the capital of Australia rather than Canberra. Every sovereign nation has the right to designate its capital where it chooses. The fact that Jerusalem happens to have deep religious and social significance to Israelis and Judaism is besides the point.

The Achilles heel of the Palestinian argument

Lastly, it is very simple to refute the objections to this move. Donald Trump does not need to break any international law to accomplish this, once again, purely symbolic gesture which could turn out to be financially expensive. Part of Jerusalem, the pre-1948 western part, is not under dispute as far as the peace negotiations are concerned. If he chooses to have land purchased there serve as the site of the new embassy, there is no legal statue even within the very critical International Criminal Court, that objects to Israeli control of WEST Jerusalem. The fact of the matter is that until now this issue has been used by politicians with both D's and R's behind their names to raise AIPAC money by promising to do just this, and Donald Trump was the only one willing to do it. 

What would "real change" look like?

Simply put: A US President seeking to create real change in the Middle East should end all foreign aid to all the different nations including both Israel and Palestine. Foreign aid, and military aid to be more specific, is a relic of Cold War geopolitics. They must also stop acting as if the USA, Russia, the EU or the UN can impose a just peace. That hasn't worked in Vietnam, or Syria, or any other conflict where foreign powers have meddled according to their own narrow issues. 

Only through total disengagement from the Israel vs. Palestine conflict can we look forward to any sort of closure, whether peaceful or violent. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Did the "Dancing Israeli" theorists actually read the FBI file?

Image
A few months ago a friend of mine, like myself Jewish, suggested to me that there would be forthcoming indictments of Israeli agents for involvement in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He was convinced that documents slated for declassification would shine a light on an operation by Israel's Mossad that had either prior knowledge or involvement in the plot.  I would be remiss if I did not admit that for years controversial historical events, what are popularly panned as "conspiracy theories", are a topic that has fascinated me. But I've always had a blind spot for the 9/11 theories mostly because there were so many of them, and it is difficult to distinguish serious questions from spaced out hyperbolic speculation. And sure, I'll also admit that the idea that there could have been a nefarious plot to topple the Twin Towers and pull the USA into wars in the Middle East made me uncomfortable. After all, my own family hails f
Read more

A year later Ryan Dawson is Addicted to Lies, Part 1

Image
 As I'm writing this it is the week after the 19th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the event that defined my generation just as Vietnam defined the generation of baby boomers. It is a bitter day for many reasons. On the one hand there is the largely held sentiment that the almost three thousand victims of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Another reason compounding it is the lack of transparency by the US government and various other governments regarding the events leading up to the tragic attacks. And yet on top of that is the fact that opportunistic hoaxers have taken it upon themselves to take advantage of that lack of transparency and use the available information to concoct lies and canards in order to fit their worldview. In 2019 I debated one such person, Ryan Dawson of ANC Report. Typically I have the urge to find something redeeming in one of my opponents, but with respect to him the longer the exposure to his material the easier it is to see th
Read more

The Ryan Dawson Refund Guide Part 1

Image
It is undeniable that in the course of the last 60 years going back to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War there has been a process whereby each generation of Americans is confronted with an event that causes them to doubt the official version of events and media accounts. This phenomenon can be seen in a wide variety of topics from campus culture (the Duke Lacrosse Case , Rolling Stone 's " A Rape on Campus ") to scientific data (Michael Mann's " Hockey Stick " saga), to war atrocities ( Ghouta chemical attack , Kuwaiti incubators controversy, Pallywood ), to alleged spying scandals (Trump-Russia scandal). Media organizations do the work of power brokers to promote a story without regard for establishing the facts before going to print (or the airwaves). In many cases when journalists, alternative media, or individual citizens question the conventional logic to the story they are reprimanded by media figures as "conspi
Read more