President Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[Skyweir]

Yes .. everyone should have their autonomy, a place to call home. I dont think the Israeli government, through these recent measures are demonstrating a similar fight for their neighbours.

It is appalling what happened to Jews. Gypsies, homosexuals, Eastern Europeans and the disabled in the holocaust. And with Jewish casualties exceeding 6m.

I have to point out however that Jerusalem was never settled peacefully.. it was home to others that lived there. So accomodations had to be made, and it is these accomodations that have perpetually failed.

Israel has become emboldened by Trumps acknowledgement of Israeli sovereignty .. and the moves that the government have taken above are to my mind cause for concern

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The original deal back in 1948 would have allowed for both an Israel and a Palestine but the coalition of Arab nations in 1967 had to go and mess that up. Their attack upon Israel and subsequent defeat laid the foundation for the mess we have now--none of those Arab nations actually *wanted* the Palestinians as citizens, preferring them to be "someone else's problem".

Even if Israel decided to withdraw from the occupied territories and let the Palestinians have half of Jerusalem, the damage is too far gone and too personal--the overall conflict would not end.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Thirty-four Seconds of Selective Enforcement

Border policemen perform a body search on a Palestinian youth following a stabbing attack on near Jerusalem's Old City.


The arrests and interrogation signify that the Jerusalem police expect Palestinian passers-by to understand what's happening before their eyes and act within seconds or else be brought to trial


On Monday morning, 24 hours after the terror attack in which Adiel Kolman was murdered in the Old City of Jerusalem, the police arrested eight Palestinian residents. Among them were a boy of 15 and a woman of 67. The suspicion: violation of the clause "not preventing a crime."

The arrests were carried out after film footage of the attack showed the suspects not doing anything. But the time between the event's beginning and the police's arrival and shooting of the terrorist was 34 seconds.

The arrests and interrogation signify that the Jerusalem police expect Palestinian passers-by to understand what is happening before their eyes and to act within seconds, while endangering their lives, otherwise they will be brought to trial. Experience shows how dangerous it is for a Palestinian to come close to a terror attack site, and how hasty the police are to open fire. Demanding that Palestinians to come close to an attack site is immoral and cruel.

The legal clause "not preventing a crime" is a most irregular charge in the Israeli legal system. Its clearest test was the case of Margalit Har-Shefi, who was ultimately convicted by the Supreme Court for not preventing the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The justices warned in the verdict of expanding the use of this clause. Justice Mishael Cheshin wrote, "The core of the offense of not preventing a crime is in the knowledge. Knowing that someone is scheming to carry out a crime is the spark that creates affinity between the defendant and the planned crime."

Har-Shefi, it should be stressed, didn't have 34 seconds to know about the planned crime and act to prevent it, but many months.

[…]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

"Not preventing a crime" is, itself, a crime? That...that's just fucked up beyond belief.

[Skyweir]

Wow that takes culpability to a whole new level .. crimes of omission.. well not even that .. not acting. The elements of such an offence might give such an alleged criminal status meaning. Perhaps one element is foreknowledge of the commission of a crime. Still wow

[Avatar]

Getting worse and worse...

--A

[Skyweir]

Yeah the worlds a circus and its being run by clowns

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

"Not preventing a crime" is, itself, a crime? That...that's just fucked up beyond belief.

Wow that takes culpability to a whole new level .. crimes of omission.. well not even that .. not acting. The elements of such an offence might give such an alleged criminal status meaning. Perhaps one element is foreknowledge of the commission of a crime. Still wow

At first blush, the basic formal structure or underlying assumption of this criminal offense seems to be "If you're not willing to fall on a sword for the State, then you must be an enemy of the State."





If so, then very interesting that Palestinians, let alone Israelis, would be under absolute obligation to the State.

[Gaius Octavius]

That crime is just part of a general trend in developed nations where more and more laws are created. Basically, it's getting to the point where most of the country are potential criminals. The whole idea that all citizens can theoretically know the law is now false. If you have to consult with an expert on law in order to understand it, you know our laws are fucked up.

I may sound like a loon, but I think ol' Hamurabi at least got something right. If you can't inscribe it on stone for the whole world to see, then it shouldn't be a law.

[Avatar]

Seen the idea in other forms too, like "if you have so many laws that you can't remember them unless they're written down, then you have too many."

I think it's a fear issue in general. Governments are becoming more and more afraid of their own citizens.

In the specific case, agree with Wos, why should they be obligated to a state that doesn't want them and is actively trying to get rid of them?

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think it's a fear issue in general. Governments are becoming more and more afraid of their own citizens.

[Revan]

I think it's a fear issue in general. Governments are becoming more and more afraid of their own citizens.

Fear leads to irrational actions. A government afraid of it's citizens seek to control that fear by taking preemptive actions to quell that fear.

Instead I think Governments should respect their citizens, realise their duty is to serve not rule.

[Skyweir]

Seen the idea in other forms too, like "if you have so many laws that you can't remember them unless they're written down, then you have too many."

Few laws today Av are passed from generation to generation by word of mouth ... theyre WRITTEN down .. and a record of them retained. ... and made publically available

I think it's a fear issue in general. Governments are becoming more and more afraid of their own citizens.

Im totally with Revan .. Governments need a reality check. They exist as representatives of their people .. you know .. by the people, for the people .. Israel flauts its being a principled democracy ____ .. its no different. They exist to serve their electorate not rule them.

I agree that governments that fear their citizens tend to irrational policies and actions.

In the specific case, agree with Wos, why should they be obligated to a state that doesn't want them and is actively trying to get rid of them?

I agree and .. think they are in an unenviable situation at best and completely untenable at worst.

[Avatar]

I agree that governments that fear their citizens tend to irrational policies and actions.

So most of them in other words.

--A

[Skyweir]

Ironically they should fear public reproach and do monitor public opinion .. well if theyre smart

Unless of course your Putin or KJU .. but then yeah theres that

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Fear leads to irrational actions. A government afraid of it's citizens seek to control that fear by taking preemptive actions to quell that fear.

Instead I think Governments should respect their citizens, realise their duty is to serve not rule.

The more people have the opinion that "I demand that the government do something about problem x!" the more those people are willing to allow the government to bend, even break, the rules to which they are supposed to be adhering.

[Skyweir]

I disagree .. the governments role is to serve the people ... in a democracy its the peoples job to demand accountability for what their representatives do and how they use public monies. I think sometimes they lose sight of this.

The people should demand the government to act .. particularly on campaign promises that got them elected.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I disagree .. the governments role is to serve the people ... in a democracy its the peoples job to demand accountability for what their representatives do and how they use public monies. I think sometimes they lose sight of this.

The people should demand the government to act .. particularly on campaign promises that got them elected.

So...should Trump order the Army Corps of Engineers to start building The Wall? That was one of his big campaign promises, after all.

Have you taken a close look at many United States citizens lately? (that is a rhetorical question--we both know the answer is "no"...unless you were visiting here recently) Most of them aren't accountable for themselves, much less worrying about holding the government accountable.

[Skyweir]

Hahahahaha...

Have I taken a closer look at any US citizens lately ...

mmm .. .. to answer or not to answer ... that is the question ... cue Shakespearean vibe

Soooo much material here ... but as tempting as it very much is ... I probably should decline a response
NB Free Lunch

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That was an...interesting...response. I know how I want to interpret it but I think I should probably err on the side of caution and discretion, refraining from giving voice to my suspicions.

We'll just chalk that up as a "no", shall we?