Christianity – USA Gov Policy

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are on the verge of breaking down yet again.

One of the thorniest issues involves the fate of Jerusalem. As in so many international issues, there is more emotion and misinformation than facts in the discourse over the problem. That’s not surprising, considering that it is a site of extraordinary importance to three of the world’s major religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Both Jews and Arabs claim biologic ancestry going back to the beginning of the site’s existence.

Archaeologists believe the area was first settled in the 4^th millennium B.C. near the local Gihon stream. Fortified walls first appeared in the 18^th century B.C., and difficult relations with neighboring nations are indicated by Egyptian “Execration” texts, which reveal that Egypt was hostile to the city.

From 586 B.C. onward Jerusalem, although at times quite prosperous, was subjected to numerous invasions. According to published sources, Jerusalem has been totally destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times, and captured 44 times.

Most famously, of course, was the Roman invasion. Rebellions against the rule of the Caesar’s resulted in the burning of the old city in 70 A.D. During the Byzantine period, Christianity had a heavy influence, until Muslims invaded in the 7^th century. They were ousted by Crusaders four centuries later in the 11^th century, who were ousted by the Arabs in the 12^th century. In the 15^th century, Jerusalem was taken by the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated by the Allies in World War One. After that, it was ruled as a British mandate.

Following the declaration of Israel’s independence in 1948, the city was divided between Israel and Jordan. (The United Nations General Assembly sought to establish the city as a separate entity under its own control.) The division lasted until the conclusion of the 1967 war, when a victorious Israel was able to occupy the entire site.
This drug stops the 5-alpha reductase enzyme from generic soft viagra creating DHT, thus treating male pattern baldness. The viagra sale india impotence pill is not going to happen; there is no proof of such an impact of supplement D. She will satisfy and request viagra no prescription for more lovemaking episodes. Where to Buy Best ED Medicines? There are so many health conditions which a man faces in his life. orden 50mg viagra midwayfire.com
Neither side has been particularly eager to compromise, and so the issue appears intractable. Delving through its voluminous history, however, several facts do stand out.

Of the three religions that lay claim to the site, Muslims appear to have the weakest link. The city has been central to Judaism essentially for as long as there has been a Jewish identity, with architectural and archeological evidence of it being the key center of worship. Christ was crucified there, making it the linchpin of Christianity. The Prophet Mohammed never physically visited the City, but is said to have arisen to heaven from there. Muslims rank both Mecca and Medina higher as religious sites. In terms of tolerance, the period of Israeli control has been more tolerant than that which occurred under Jordan.

A similar comparison may be made in terms of being a national capital. While Jerusalem has served as a capital city for Israel whenever Israel was independent, there is no substantial evidence that it has served as either a national or provincial capital for any Arab state.

But over the past decades, Palestinians have made keeping at least a portion of Jerusalem a key part of their demands, and most international organizations, including the United Nations, have been generally supportive. The United States has not recognized Israel’s claim of Jerusalem as its national capital. Therefore, the relative historical weakness of the Palestinian claims has not played a significant role.

It is quite possible that external factors, including both international organizations and individual countries other than the two parties involved, may be rendering negotiations more, rather than less, difficult. The casting of Jerusalem as a prize, a point of prestige in the eyes of the world, makes a settlement based on facts and practicality a secondary consideration.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.