The US just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What problems do you see coming from this?

EDIT: and the US will move the embassy to Jerusalem as well.

Ok, this whole thing is going to be a problem and I feel like Pence is behind it. I just wonder if Pence is one of those Apocalyptic Christians who work to bring about the Tribulation, Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

[GMDino]

(12-06-2017, 03:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What problems do you see coming from this?

EDIT: and the US will move the embassy to Jerusalem as well.

Ok, this whole thing is going to be a problem and I feel like Pence is behind it. I just wonder if Pence is one of those Apocalyptic Christians who work to bring about the Tribulation, Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

That and Netanyahu probably said nice things about Trump so Trump will do anything to be nice back.

Clearly there is no thought about consequences.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-06-2017, 03:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What problems do you see coming from this?

EDIT: and the US will move the embassy to Jerusalem as well.

Ok, this whole thing is going to be a problem and I feel like Pence is behind it. I just wonder if Pence is one of those Apocalyptic Christians who work to bring about the Tribulation, Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

We shouldn't have done this.  There's going to be conflict and violence in the Middle East now.

[GMDino]

(12-06-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We shouldn't have done this.  There's going to be conflict and violence in the Middle East now.

Ah!  Sarcasm!

Unless you just forgot the word "more". 

[CKwi88]

"winning"

[*PhilHos*]

According to Google, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Sooooooooo, shouldn't the US get points for getting the answer correct?

[Millhouse]

I always have felt that Jerusalem should be similar to the Vatican, in that it should be a city-state, not under the control of a country. It should be ruled by a council of Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

I dont agree with this decision though, because of the security concerns of the embassy there. There is a reason why no one has an embassy there to begin with.

But hey, if it was said in a campaign speech, it should be upheld even if it isnt a smart thing to do. That seems to be the main reason as to why he is doing it.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2017, 04:24 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: "winning"

Exactly. It seems this was a Campaign promise made as far back as Bill Clinton and the Law to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol was passed in 1995. Other Presidents have just kicked the can down the road for the last 20+ years.

[Dill]

(12-06-2017, 03:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What problems do you see coming from this?

EDIT: and the US will move the embassy to Jerusalem as well.

Ok, this whole thing is going to be a problem and I feel like Pence is behind it. I just wonder if Pence is one of those Apocalyptic Christians who work to bring about the Tribulation, Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

First off, almost every nation in the world has condemned the move, including Germany.  The other UN security council members have as well.  The Guardian seems to think Trump just plunged the Middle East into fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/06/trump-to-plunge-middle-east-into-fire-with-no-end-with-jerusalem-speech

I don't see an immediate consequence (i.e., in the next four days), but ME nations and non-state actors will begin adjusting, reforming, solidifying alliances and opposition.  The Palestinian Authority and Hamas will receive renewed backing from the people Obama/Hillary did not want backing them.  Most Egyptians and Saudis and Jordanians will protest this move and refuse support for any government which appears to endorse it. 

European nations will speed up their efforts to construct trade and military partnerships independent of the US.

Palestinian resistance on the ground will increase, possibly meaning we'll see fighter jets rocketing Palestinian homes on the West Bank and IDF sweeps through Ramallah and Jericho, arresting teenagers and looting homes. 

This is another step back from US world leadership. And, coinciding with the crushing of ISIL as state with territory and the story of a US "Muslim ban" now circulating in the ME, anther step towards ME conflagration. We can expect an upsurge in recruitment for Jihadist groups and increased threat of "homegrown" terrorism within the US.

On the other hand, US evangelicals will celebrate, seeing an important step towards the End of Days.

It's also possible that Trump could begin walking his statements back of the next few days, as advisers with government experience and access to intel drive home the consequences for his Brand.

[Dill]

(12-06-2017, 04:37 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I always have felt that Jerusalem should be similar to the Vatican, in that it should be a city-state, not under the control of a country. It should be ruled by a council of Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

I dont agree with this decision though, because of the security concerns of the embassy there. There is a reason why no one has an embassy there to begin with.

But hey, if it was said in a campaign speech, it should be upheld even if it isnt a smart thing to do. That seems to be the main reason as to why he is doing it.

Solutions like that seem reasonable to us and the rest of the world.  

But Israel will never go along with that, at least the right wing government won't, which has increasing support from Israeli voters.

[*jason*]

The world will be a better place when that city is wiped off the face of the Earth again.

[NATI BENGALS]

I have been thinking. What is the best way to whack the hornets nest that is the ME with a stick.

Bingo. Bout time we threw some more fuel on that fire.

[Bengalzona]

I believe it is a gambit, part of negotiations by Trump to bring Palestine back to the table. It's their way of saying, "Hey, you walked away. So we will just lend credence to Israel's claim on Jerusalem. But if you wanna come back and talk, we can still discuss this." The quotes from Trump and Nut-in-honey-yahoo seem to indicate this.

It could pay off big or fail miserably for the Prez. I'll give him credit for trying a new approach, anyway.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-06-2017, 08:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I believe it is a gambit, part of negotiations by Trump to bring Palestine back to the table. It's their way of saying, "Hey, you walked away. So we will just lend credence to Israel's claim on Jerusalem. But if you wanna come back and talk, we can still discuss this." The quotes from Trump and Nut-in-honey-yahoo seem to indicate this.

It could pay off big or fail miserably for the Prez. I'll give him credit for trying a new approach, anyway.

This.  We've been trying the same bullshit for close to eighty years with zero progress.  Something drastic needs to be done.  You're never going to convince religious zealots with logic and you'll never get them to compromise.  You have to "hurt" them and show zero tolerance for their crap.  Unfortunately, all the Arab world seems to respect is strength and those unabashed at wielding it with impunity.

[Bengalzona]

(12-06-2017, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This.  We've been trying the same bullshit for close to eighty years with zero progress.  Something drastic needs to be done.  You're never going to convince religious zealots with logic and you'll never get them to compromise.  You have to "hurt" them and show zero tolerance for their crap.  Unfortunately, all the Arab world seems to respect is strength and those unabashed at wielding it with impunity.

Early on, we were pretty wise and just stayed out of the whole mess. Until the 1967 war. That was when we figured out that Israel would be a great proxy against the Soviets. The best proxy. You've never seen a proxy like this!

But seriously, they were a great proxy. In 1967, they were able to whip up on the Arab League and their Soviet-supplied 'modern' weapons with only a hodgepodge of outdated western weapons, some of which were World War II-era. That got our attention.

The Soviets had spent much of the 50's through 80's selling their weapons throughout the world to earn much-needed income (in case anyone ever wondered how those AK's and RPG's got scattered throughout the world). We figured (rightly so) that we could supply Israel with our modern weapons and train them in our tactics and really make the Soviet weapons and tactics the Arabs were using look trashy to countries trading in arms.

The Israelis got modern weapons and, thereby, greater security. Meanwhile, we hit the Soviets where it hurt the most (their pocketbook) without firing a shot. It's too bad Nixon was such an paranoid, insecure crook, because his admin really knew how to play international politics. They laid the roots for taking down the Soviet Union long before Reagan came to power.

But Israel was even more important to us than just as place to show off our arms and tactics to the world market. Israel was the 'Casablanca' of the Cold War. If you are Jewish, you are allowed duel-citizenship with whatever country you are from and with Israel. The two countries with the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel during the Cold War? The U.S. and the Soviet Union. Israel was able to take advantage of this. All throughout the Cold War, Israelis were able to come and go at will from the Soviet Union and the U.S. as both countries honored the dual citizenship. The true value of the Mossad was not just that they were effective infiltrating Arab countries (they were). The true value to us is that they could get human intell inside the Soviet Union, not something that we were good at during the Cold War. We were more concentrated on mechanical means of gaining intelligence. By the early 70's we were realizing that that alone wasn't enough. And not only were the Israelis able to come and go from the Soviet Union, they also had Jewish individuals in high positions in the U.S.S.R. (as they do here). In short, they had what we needed. A match made in Heaven.

But even in the 70's, we still didn't want to get involved with the Palestinians and trying to solve the "Two State" solution. We were trying to broker peace treaties with Israel and its Arab neighbors without tackling the Palestinian issue. And with the Camp David Accord, it was starting to work. That would change in 1982 when Israel invaded Southern Lebanon to get at the PLO they were sheltering. This was a development that could rile the Arab League back into action and restart the larger wars there we were trying to stop. This is how our Marines ended up in Lebanon and how many died in a suicide attack on their barracks in 1983. That was the point when we began to see the Palestinian issue as being an important piece in the Middle East Peace jigsaw puzzle.

The Reagan Admin couldn't do much because they had their hands full with other issues around the world (Soviets, Afghanistan, Iran-Contras, Drug War, etc.). They did try to initiate some talks. The same happened during the first Bush admin (Gulf War). The first admin which really had a chance to make headway on the issue was the Clinton Admin. Things had settled down enough in other parts of the world for us to begin to look seriously for an answer. And, surprisingly enough, the Palestinians were pretty receptive. The Clinton Admin helped broker the Oslo Accords and it was really starting to look like there could actually be a path for the Two State solution.

Unfortunately, the nascent Palestinian Authority was not able to keep all of the Palestinians under a central control (they were also hindered by the fact that the Palestinian populations were divided between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, geographically separated areas). Hamas broke off and began suicide bomb and rocket attacks against Israel. Israel responded to these attacks and the peace process was forgotten. Because of the situation there, neither the second Bush nor the Obama admins could do much there.

And that leads us to Trump. Netanyahu has long maintained that they had to play 'hard' with the Palestinians to get them to the table. The Obama Admin tried to play a "good cop, bad cop" routine with the Palestinians to get them to the table ("We know Netty is mean and all, but we're your buddies. Come and sit at the table and we'll help you talk to this guy"). It was worth a try, but they didn't bite. After attempting that, an admin can't 'go back to the drawing room' and come up with a different approach. You sort of have to remain consistent in your approach.

That leaves the door open for Trump to try the new approach. And for all of his faults, he actually may be the right guy in the right pace at the right time to do this. It will not happen overnight. But if he can just get the Palestinians to the table, more than half the battle is won. And this would be a MASSIVE coup for his embattled and unpopular admin. Honestly, I wish him well and I hope that it works.

[Dill]

(12-06-2017, 08:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I believe it is a gambit, part of negotiations by Trump to bring Palestine back to the table. It's their way of saying, "Hey, you walked away. So we will just lend credence to Israel's claim on Jerusalem. But if you wanna come back and talk, we can still discuss this." The quotes from Trump and Nut-in-honey-yahoo seem to indicate this.

It could pay off big or fail miserably for the Prez. I'll give him credit for trying a new approach, anyway.

Did Palestinians "walk away"? If we are talking about the most recent (2013-14) attempts to jump start the peace process, seems like the Israelis are to blame. Again.

E.g., Netanyahu insisted on a united (i.e., Israeli controlled) Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and categorically denied any Palestinian right of return to a state so defined.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Netanyahu-rejects-Palestinian-right-of-return-to-Israel-329895

So far as I can tell, "coming back to discuss" would only mean reiteration of the aforementioned demands with no concessions beyond release of a few prisoners (already scheduled for release years ago) and continued Israeli control of the West Bank with increasing settlement.

Until now, the US has had some, if minimal, credibility as an impartial negotiator between Israel and Palestinians. It was upon that minimal credibility  that negotiations depended for international recognition and respect. The US stood for a two state solution (with Palestinian power of bilateral negotiations) and condemned the settlements and wanted the occupation to end.

I don't see how the US can expect continued credibility after we have just thrown our weight behind one of Israel's most contested bargaining points.  Israel has continually called for peace while continuing to settle the West bank, creating a huge block of Israeli voters who don't want to leave the West Bank. Netanyatu announced more settlements DURING THE LAST ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS to the great frustration of Obama and Kerry.

To most of the world the message is pretty clear--Jews, Muslims and Christians are called to "work for peace" while acknowledging complete Israeli hegemony over Palestine.



For this to be a GAMBIT there would have to be a possibility that Israel would retract its claim for a unified Jerusalem capital. That became less, not more likely, because of Trump's move.

[Dill]

(12-07-2017, 01:01 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: And that leads us to Trump. Netanyahu has long maintained that they had to play 'hard' with the Palestinians to get them to the table. The Obama Admin tried to play a "good cop, bad cop" routine with the Palestinians to get them to the table ("We know Netty is mean and all, but we're your buddies. Come and sit at the table and we'll help you talk to this guy"). It was worth a try, but they didn't bite. After attempting that, an admin can't 'go back to the drawing room' and come up with a different approach. You sort of have to remain consistent in your approach.

That leaves the door open for Trump to try the new approach. And for all of his faults, he actually may be the right guy in the right pace at the right time to do this. It will not happen overnight. But if he can just get the Palestinians to the table, more than half the battle is won. And this would be a MASSIVE coup for his embattled and unpopular admin. Honestly, I wish him well and I hope that it works.

The part I cut out of your post was an excellent overview, B-Zona. 

I disagree with your reading of Netanyahu, though. I don't think he wants Palestinians to come to the table. When he has them there, he does all he can to send them away again. That is the point of "playing hard."

At the moment, what could Palestinians hope to gain by "coming to the table"? Their leaders keep giving up major concessions, but nothing changes on the ground--except in the favor of Israel.  The things they want, like autonomy, the ability to farm their own lands, an end to occupation, are not what Netanyahu and the Likud want.

I think their response will have to be another Intifada. The Israeli response will be hard to spin away in international media.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2017, 01:31 AM)Dill Wrote: Until now, the US has had some, if minimal, credibility as an impartial negotiator between Israel and Palestinians. It was upon that minimal credibility  that negotiations depended for international recognition and respect. The US stood for a two state solution (with Palestinian power of bilateral negotiations) and condemned the settlements and wanted the occupation to end.

Which achieved nothing since, forever.  Quite frankly, and you won't admit this, there is no peace for most "Palestinians" as long as Israel exists.  You know this, you just won't admit it.

Quote:I don't see how the US can expect continued credibility after we have just thrown our weight behind one of Israel's most contested bargaining points.  Israel has continually called for peace while continuing to settle the West bank, creating a huge block of Israeli voters who don't want to leave the West Bank. Netanyatu announced more settlements DURING THE LAST ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS to the great frustration of Obama and Kerry.

You mean we lost the reams of credibility we had with the Palestinians prior to this move?  Islam views us as infidels, we are haram and not to be trusted.  Israel has, huge, issues, but they are a more reliable ally, USS Liberty and all.  The status has achieved nothing, time to disrupt the status quo.

Quote:To most of the world the message is pretty clear--Jews, Muslims and Christians are called to "work for peace" while acknowledging complete Israeli hegemony over Palestine.



For this to be a GAMBIT there would have to be a possibility that Israel would retract its claim for a unified Jerusalem capital. That became less, not more likely, because of Trump's move.

As critical as I've been of Israel, and if you've inhabited this board you need no further information, they weren't the ones who initiated the war that saw Israel seize the whole of Jerusalem.  Wars, like elections, have consequences.

[Dill]

(12-07-2017, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which achieved nothing since, forever.  Quite frankly, and you won't admit this, there is no peace for most "Palestinians" as long as Israel exists.  You know this, you just won't admit it.

You mean we lost the reams of credibility we had with the Palestinians prior to this move?  Islam views us as infidels, we are haram and not to be trusted.  Israel has, huge, issues, but they are a more reliable ally, USS Liberty and all.  The status has achieved nothing, time to disrupt the status quo.

As critical as I've been of Israel, and if you've inhabited this board you need no further information, they weren't the ones who initiated the war that saw Israel seize the whole of Jerusalem.  Wars, like elections, have consequences.

 
Who initiated the war which seized Palestine and set about ethnically cleansing regions for Jewish settlement? Did you see the map posted above. The Israelis haven't simply seized Jerusalem. They take away Palestinian land every week. I don't blame the victims for 1967.

And yes, I do mean that we lost the minimal credibility we had before with Palestinians and other players in the region.  That credibility was minimal because it exerted so little control over the Israeli side--though it had the power to do so.  That is why "nothing since forever" has been achieved. And backing occupation and theft will only break the status quo in the direction of widening and bloodier conflict. 

I don't see anything particularly "reliable" about Israel or advantageous in our support for them. There was an argument for this during the Cold War, when the USSR was supplying Syria and Egypt with weapons. That rationale is long gone.  Now they are our prime recipient of foreign aid and in return work to turn US foreign policy to their national interest, not ours. As I said above, Trump's move is consolidating world opinion against the US. In the Middle East, it will create precedent for common action and cooperation between Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, not what Trump wished for.

Claiming that I secretly grant validity to a stereotype of Palestinians but "won't admit it," and then linking that stereotype to a larger one of Islam does not advance any point. It simply repeats a technique and point of Israeli propaganda. Palestinians aren't upset because they have been driven from their land and forced to live under brutal occupation--their hatred of their oppressor is simply a natural consequence of who they are. The "we are infidels to them" is simply a reversal and projection of the charge you place on them.

[GMDino]

Well, that didn't seem to go as many think it was planned...

BREAKING: Palestinian president: Trump announcement on Jerusalem is `declaration of withdrawal' from peace process.

— The Associated Press (@AP) December 6, 2017