US Recognizes Jerusalem As Capital of Israel

[Kragar]

6 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

BTW, @Kragar: I'm wondering what you think of Haley's threats about funding after the vote. I'm a bit skeptical, because I believe that US funding in large part goes to countries where America has financial and military interests. (Like a lot of Middle East countries)

 

I read one article from a right wing publication that said the threats worked, as evidenced by the number of abstentions. (Including Canada's) The timing of that seemed off, but I suppose it was pretty common knowledge that the US was going to be displeased with anyone who disagreed with them. (There was also mention of Trump himself making similar threats, prior to the vote, but if so, I didn't see it)

 

Thoughts? Helpful? Unhelpful? A bit of an empty threat? (i.e. posturing?)

 

The question is directed to @Kragar, because he and I were already discussing this topic, but I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts.

I seem to recall hearing Trump making those threats, but I'm not sure.  With his regular stream of bluster and hyperbole, I tend to ignore him when he speaks, because more often than it should be, it's just mindless crap coming out of his mouth.  And, I just hate the way he speaks, but then I would say the same for Obama, Hillary, W, McCain, Bernie, Cruz, Gore, and probably a few others that have thrown their hat in the ring.  Guess I am just picky that way  

 

Since the resolution was non-binding to begin with (so, what's the point?), I wonder how valid the threats are.  And, we all know how the government likes to throw money around for goodwill or not, and your skepticism is valid.  My guess is that if any cuts are made, they won't last too long.  All it would take on the part of any snubbed nation are some kind words propping up the Donald, and all would be forgotten.  Until his next tantrum, at least.

 

So, fairly empty threat, IMO.  Helpful or not:  I'm leaning towards unhelpful but the impact seems pretty small to me, unless it were to somehow lead to Trump trying to renegotiate treaties to further snub countries that pissed him off.  And the odds on that happening better be pretty damn low, or things will get ugly.

[RUPERTKBD]

5 hours ago, Kragar said:

I see what you're saying here.  But there is a long history of US vetoes, especially when it comes to the Middle East, where they stood up against identical massive majorities in the UN.  This "standing alone" is not terribly new.  US protects Israel, Russia/USSR protects Syria, rest of the world's opinion be damned.

 

Even Jimmy Carter has come out saying how harshly Trump is treated by the media, and IMO this situation is just an extension of that.  Why would the world be silent when Russia did the same thing 8 months ago, but all of a sudden it matters when the other superpower pledges to do the same thing? 

 

There's a lot of things I don't like about Trump, as you know, and there is plenty of embarrassing things that have come from him.  IMO, this embassy situation is not that big a deal, and the level of media and global backlash would not be there if another President made the decision.  The rest of the ME can bitch and moan about this, but if any peace agreement down the road leads to Israel not having its capital in Jerusalem, it's quite easy to move the embassy back to Tel Aviv or whatever place Israel chooses.  I don't believe the rhetoric that this move is some major blockade to peace in the ME, aside from the fact that it helps to protect Israel.  The hatred for Israel is so strong through much of the ME, there is IMO no hope for peace, even if there is an agreement on a 2-state solution.  Arafat is gone, but the hatred still lingers.

 

Re: your follow-up post.  I haven't read much about Haley's comments, so I don't know enough to form an opinion yet.  I'll need to get back to you.  Might take some time with holiday preparation going on.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but I thought I'd take a stab at the bolded portion:

 

IMO, the difference between the US exercising it's veto rights and Russia doing so is that Russia is generally seen as an outlier.

 

I think Trump somewhat identifies with Putin, because they both have an "IDGAF" attitude. However, in the case of the USA, this is definitely a departure from the norm. There's a reason Americans commonly refer to POTUS as "The leader of the free world".

 

I agree that the embassy move is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but with Trump, it's part of a pattern of isolationism. I think this shift garners more attention because it's not what other nations have come to expect from America and coupled with Trump's "style", it's always going to be news.

 

Putin? Not so much. 

[Kragar]

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but I thought I'd take a stab at the bolded portion:

 

IMO, the difference between the US exercising it's veto rights and Russia doing so is that Russia is generally seen as an outlier.

 

I think Trump somewhat identifies with Putin, because they both have an "IDGAF" attitude. However, in the case of the USA, this is definitely a departure from the norm. There's a reason Americans commonly refer to POTUS as "The leader of the free world".

 

I agree that the embassy move is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but with Trump, it's part of a pattern of isolationism. I think this shift garners more attention because it's not what other nations have come to expect from America and coupled with Trump's "style", it's always going to be news.

 

Putin? Not so much. 

Maybe I confused things.  When I said Russia doing it in April, I wasn't referring to a veto.  It was about them recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, and apparently it was unchallenged (I didn't find any need for them to veto the UN over it, for starters).  Some might say them making a point of it being "West" Jerusalem matters, but since the UN says the whole city is supposed to be independent, this should have raised some eyebrows.  The fact that the media and much of the rest of the world is treating the US differently now is just a matter of being anti-Trump, IMO.  And, it's not right.  

 

Your IDGAF comment, I can get behind.  That sounds like Trump, and it is a departure.  It's not terribly presidential, but apparently some people were tired of presidential.  I appreciate what Trump did with regards to NATO and military spending, but there's a lot that he says on the global stage that rubbed me the wrong way too, and I often cringe when he talks about foreign affairs.

 

There was a UN resolution (irony, perhaps?) in 1947, to create a 2-state solution, with Jerusalem as an independent city (wholly within Arab territory, btw).  The Arabs wouldn't accept it (and some Jews weren't too happy about it either), and civil war began.  Months later, when the Brits gave up control of the area, the surrounding Arab countries attacked immediately.  We all know how well that went.  Considering how the Arabs have handled matters then, and since, why should Israel have to give in now?  They gambled and lost, so it's time they lived with the fruits of their actions.  As far as the US is concerned, a little IDGAF isn't unrealistic.  IMO, of course.

[189lb enforcers?]

Because the SJWs were only recently called into action, this little bit of contextual history concerning the Presedency and Jerusalem may shock the few here who can admit they are only very new to this subject matter. The first minute of the video is all I really want to share, the rest has a bent that is not intended for this discussion. 

 

hypocritical Left, 101.   

Trump’s position on Jerusalem isn’t even newsworthy, let alone controversial; its redundant, old news. What a pathetic thread. 

 

FTR, I am not a fan of Israel in any shape or form. A land deeded to the Israelites from “God” is something to question. The Palestinian people struggle greatly from a people globally subsidized to do so. Quite a history the Israelites have with their neighbours. The Old Testement, if you take fiction as fact, contains many genocidal atrocity stories of the Israelites killing off entire civilizations, or races, if you will. Apparently it’s true: You can accomplish anything with God on you side, even have a Country built for you, smack dab in your enemies’, if you say the God said so! Quite the opposite of what the Left would typically support, ya? 

 

“Religion poisons everything”.

C. Hitchens 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

Not a thing anymore?

 

[Dral]

5 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Not a thing anymore?

 

Still kinda is.... it's just not a thing the Left can really win an argument over so they are moving onto other things to complain about...

[DarthNinja]

On 12/19/2017 at 11:50 AM, taxi said:

And Israel won't provide a fair settlement until their security needs are met..a real chicken and egg scenario. Jerusalem was most certainly not the safest in the middle ages. I'm not sure how you can state that is a fact. Only a small number of Jewish families were allowed to move back into Jerusalem and they had to live as Dhimmi.

Like what security needs? Weapons? Fighter planes? Tanks? Assault helicopters? Missiles? 

 

I think you have things sickly twisted and backwards. Israel is the occupier and the oppressor. They are the very cause and reason of the injustice. Zionism is the scourge on humanity that has cause incalculable suffering for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, DarthNinja said:

Like what security needs? Weapons? Fighter planes? Tanks? Assault helicopters? Missiles? 

 

I think you have things sickly twisted and backwards. Israel is the occupier and the oppressor. They are the very cause and reason of the injustice. Zionism is the scourge on humanity that has cause incalculable suffering for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Why?  Explain please. 

[Dral]

6 minutes ago, DarthNinja said:

Like what security needs? Weapons? Fighter planes? Tanks? Assault helicopters? Missiles? 

 

I think you have things sickly twisted and backwards. Israel is the occupier and the oppressor. They are the very cause and reason of the injustice. Zionism is the scourge on humanity that has cause incalculable suffering for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Like not having to worry about their neighbors threatening to wipe them off the face of the map every time there's an election in the region because saying that kinda stuff is incredibly popular and will get you a ton of votes...

[Warhippy]

14 hours ago, DarthNinja said:

Like what security needs? Weapons? Fighter planes? Tanks? Assault helicopters? Missiles? 

 

I think you have things sickly twisted and backwards. Israel is the occupier and the oppressor. They are the very cause and reason of the injustice. Zionism is the scourge on humanity that has cause incalculable suffering for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

They have the most advanced rsenal in the ME capable or literally wiping whole countries off of the map.  And they have the US backing them.

 

Their security needs are in fact met.

 

This is without mentioning their nuclear and biological arsenal to which I have no doubt Satan-Yahoo would not hesitate to use 

 

The security needs they need to meet are the protests and occasional rocket attack.  Both of which stem from the endless annexation of Palestine and the subjugation of and apartheid treatment of its people.

 

Simply put, if Israel would just back the hell up to pre 6 day war territory 90% of those issues would stop.  But they won't.

 

Hard to meet your security needs when you cause 95% of the problem

[taxi]

15 hours ago, DarthNinja said:

Like what security needs? Weapons? Fighter planes? Tanks? Assault helicopters? Missiles? 

 

I think you have things sickly twisted and backwards. Israel is the occupier and the oppressor. They are the very cause and reason of the injustice. Zionism is the scourge on humanity that has cause incalculable suffering for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Israel civilians are under threat from constant attacks. You can argue against that all you want, but if Israel were to stop defending itself, it would be a massacre. The Palestinians also use every opportunity Israel does give them to further their attacks. Israel left Gaza and the Palestinians destroyed the farms and elected Hamas. There's supposedly a shortage of building materials, yet Hamas can spend millions building networks of tunnels into Israel. 

 

The Palestinians will be a lot better off when they cease their pointless military campaign and focus on their own well being. 

 

Also the Israel /Palestine conflict is one of the smallest currently occurring in the middle east. The conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc have all resulted in far more casualties and suffering. You're clearly trying to blame Israel for all of the problems in the middle east. This constant blaming of Israel is a tactic used by Hamas and Iran, and only makes the conflict worse and things worse for the Palestinians. 

[Dral]

9 hours ago, Warhippy said:

They have the most advanced rsenal in the ME capable or literally wiping whole countries off of the map.  And they have the US backing them.

 

Their security needs are in fact met.

 

This is without mentioning their nuclear and biological arsenal to which I have no doubt Satan-Yahoo would not hesitate to use 

 

The security needs they need to meet are the protests and occasional rocket attack.  Both of which stem from the endless annexation of Palestine and the subjugation of and apartheid treatment of its people.

 

Simply put, if Israel would just back the hell up to pre 6 day war territory 90% of those issues would stop.  But they won't.

 

Hard to meet your security needs when you cause 95% of the problem

 

You can't honestly believe this Warhippy...

 

I mean, I don't think anyone here is denying that Israel needs to take some of the responsibility for whats going on, but they aren't the ones continually saying that a certain group needs to be destroyed... they aren't the ones that consistently talk about genocide of their neighbors... these issues would most certainly not stop if they backed up... history has given no indication this claim is even remotely possible and every indication to the opposite...

 

I would really argue that given the circumstances and whats happened over the last 70 years, the Israeli's have quite often shown an impressive amount of restraint in their reactions... no other country has ever had to deal with anything as close to what they are dealing with and been so even handed in their response...

 

 

8 hours ago, taxi said:

Israel civilians are under threat from constant attacks. You can argue against that all you want, but if Israel were to stop defending itself, it would be a massacre. The Palestinians also use every opportunity Israel does give them to further their attacks. Israel left Gaza and the Palestinians destroyed the farms and elected Hamas. There's supposedly a shortage of building materials, yet Hamas can spend millions building networks of tunnels into Israel. 

 

The Palestinians will be a lot better off when they cease their pointless military campaign and focus on their own well being. 

 

Also the Israel /Palestine conflict is one of the smallest currently occurring in the middle east. The conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc have all resulted in far more casualties and suffering. You're clearly trying to blame Israel for all of the problems in the middle east. This constant blaming of Israel is a tactic used by Hamas and Iran, and only makes the conflict worse and things worse for the Palestinians. 

This needs more +1s

[CBH1926]

23 hours ago, Dral said:

 

You can't honestly believe this Warhippy...

 

I mean, I don't think anyone here is denying that Israel needs to take some of the responsibility for whats going on, but they aren't the ones continually saying that a certain group needs to be destroyed... they aren't the ones that consistently talk about genocide of their neighbors... these issues would most certainly not stop if they backed up... history has given no indication this claim is even remotely possible and every indication to the opposite...

 

I would really argue that given the circumstances and whats happened over the last 70 years, the Israeli's have quite often shown an impressive amount of restraint in their reactions... no other country has ever had to deal with anything as close to what they are dealing with and been so even handed in their response...

 

 

This needs more +1s

Lot of people on these boards and around the world condem Israel for being very aggressive with the Palestine.

They say that Israel uses heavy handed tactics, occupies Palestinian land, tortures people, racially profiles etc.

People in Europe, North America, Australia etc. very often condem Israeli regime.

 

Now, it always made me think why do they act this way?

Could it be that terrorists have targeted Israelis in Israel, United States, Argentina, Germany, France etc.

Pehaps the fact that some 171 suicide attacks have been carried out against Israel, resulting in almost 2000 killed and wounded.

How many times Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine have attacked Israel?

 

Could be that millions of Jews were executed by the Nazis in WW2?

Or tens of thousands of Jews that were killed in pogroms in former Soviet Union.

There were rumors that Stalin was going to send Jews to gulags but he died before that happened.

 

In the 19th century so much anti Semitic literature was distributed in UK, Germany, France etc.

Even 100 years later, people still think that Protocols of the elders of the Zion is an actual book that Jews wrote.

So many places in the USA, had clubs/towns where Jews were not allowed, Darien CT, Palm beach FL etc.

For KKK, list of enemies included blacks, Jews and Catholics.

 

Even before this, in Middle Ages and crusades so many Jews were killed and forcefully converted by Christians.

Spanish Queen Isabella expelled Sephardic Jews from Spain in the 14th century.

Jews are accused of controlling the world, media, banks, causing Bolshevik Revolution, pornography, 9/11, abortions, recession in Germany etc.

 

The only time when Muslims, white supremacists, communists and far left wingers come together, is when they talk about Israel.

I am not Jewish, but when I see how many people hate Jews, I begin to understand, why they act the way they do.

I feel for the Palestinians because they have been suffered a lot, but I wish few people would walk in the shoes of an Israeli or a Jewish person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DarthNinja]

On 12/30/2017 at 7:52 PM, Dral said:

Like not having to worry about their neighbors threatening to wipe them off the face of the map every time there's an election in the region because saying that kinda stuff is incredibly popular and will get you a ton of votes...

And while you regurgitate that nonsense have a look at how much of Israel has been wiped off the map compared to how much other nations have had their land wiped off the map, starting with Palestine.

 

"There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village." ­(Moshe Dayan)

 

Next you're probably going to use the term "drive them into the sea" right?

[kingofsurrey]

On 1/1/2018 at 7:21 PM, CBH1926 said:

Lot of people on these boards and around the world condem Israel for being very aggressive with the Palestine.

They say that Israel uses heavy handed tactics, occupies Palestinian land, tortures people, racially profiles etc.

People in Europe, North America, Australia etc. very often condem Israeli regime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trying reading up on it...

 

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/israel/palestine

[DarthNinja]

On 12/31/2017 at 11:32 AM, taxi said:

Israel civilians are under threat from constant attacks. You can argue against that all you want, but if Israel were to stop defending itself, it would be a massacre. The Palestinians also use every opportunity Israel does give them to further their attacks. Israel left Gaza and the Palestinians destroyed the farms and elected Hamas. There's supposedly a shortage of building materials, yet Hamas can spend millions building networks of tunnels into Israel. 

 

The Palestinians will be a lot better off when they cease their pointless military campaign and focus on their own well being. 

 

Also the Israel /Palestine conflict is one of the smallest currently occurring in the middle east. The conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc have all resulted in far more casualties and suffering. You're clearly trying to blame Israel for all of the problems in the middle east. This constant blaming of Israel is a tactic used by Hamas and Iran, and only makes the conflict worse and things worse for the Palestinians. 

Israel is to blame because Israel is the cause. It's really that simple. It's called cause and effect. Israel exists and this is a reality but don't try to act as if they were created with any shred of legitimacy. Israel is an illegitimate state that was created from Eastern European Zionism through the bribery and extortion of the US on much weaker nations at the UN. This is why the problem exists. Israel was founded on the bombing of the King David Hotel where Zionists tried to blame Arabs.

 

Yitzhak Shamir proudly boats that they were "proud to be called terrorists".

 

You would never accept it if you were Palestinian or if such a thing happened to you but because you are Jewish and misled, you are biased obviously. Israel is not a Jewish state. Jews also suffered at the hands of the Zionists in order for Israel to be created.If only you could see this.

[DarthNinja]

2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Trying reading up on it...

 

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/israel/palestine

Not only that, numerous times Israel has intentionally murdered journalists and peace activists from other nations. Rachel Corrie, Ton Hurndall, James Miller etc. Snipers firing on diplomats travelling through the West Bank etc.

 

http://ifamericaknew.org/

[Lancaster]

9 minutes ago, DarthNinja said:

Israel is to blame because Israel is the cause. It's really that simple. It's called cause and effect. Israel exists and this is a reality but don't try to act as if they were created with any shred of legitimacy. Israel is an illegitimate state that was created from Eastern European Zionism through the bribery and extortion of the US on much weaker nations at the UN. This is why the problem exists. Israel was founded on the bombing of the King David Hotel where Zionists tried to blame Arabs.

 

Yitzhak Shamir proudly boats that they were "proud to be called terrorists".

 

You would never accept it if you were Palestinian or if such a thing happened to you but because you are Jewish and misled, you are biased obviously. Israel is not a Jewish state. Jews also suffered at the hands of the Zionists in order for Israel to be created.If only you could see this.

Aren't you the same type of folks that uses the UN non-binding condemnation as some leverage against Israel.... yet disregard an actual UN resolution establishing the state of Israel?

 

Either UN's resolution is legitimate or you believe it has no legitimacy... thus might = right..... which in this case, Israel has the might, thus has the legitimacy to exist.  

[DarthNinja]

1 minute ago, Lancaster said:

Aren't you the same type of folks that uses the UN non-binding condemnation as some leverage against Israel.... yet disregard an actual UN resolution establishing the state of Israel?

 

Either UN's resolution is legitimate or you believe it has no legitimacy... thus might = right..... which in this case, Israel has the might, thus has the legitimacy to exist.  

That is a very naive and ignorant way to look at it. The UN is essentially a corrupt body that provides an illusion of legitimacy and what you suggest is a perfect example.

 

The recommendation for Israel in 1947 at the UN was actually a non-binding recommendation that was passed after smaller, weaker nations were threatened and extorted. The security council resolutions against Israel are often binding; however they get vetoed by the US.

 

Your comment about might = right is probably the most realistic; however, it should be more appropriately be: might = "right". This doesn't really make it right or legitimate though. It's like saying if China invaded Canada and forced us to become Communist this is legitimate since they have the might and all we can do is throw hockey pucks at them, they are right? 

[Lancaster]

Just now, DarthNinja said:

That is a very naive and ignorant way to look at it. The UN is essentially a corrupt body that provides an illusion of legitimacy and what you suggest is a perfect example.

 

The recommendation for Israel in 1947 at the UN was actually a non-binding recommendation that was passed after smaller, weaker nations were threatened and extorted. The security council resolutions against Israel are often binding; however they get vetoed by the US.

 

Your comment about might = right is probably the most realistic; however, it should be more appropriately be: might = "right". This doesn't really make it right or legitimate though. It's like saying if China invaded Canada and forced us to become Communist this is legitimate since they have the might and all we can do is throw hockey pucks at them, they are right? 

Yet nowadays with a voting bloc instigating "lawfare", I'm assuming you're against that too then?

 

The China vs Caanda analogy doesn't really work as the borders of Canada are well defined (unless China goes on with their "territory since ancient times").  It will be one nation invading another nation.  

 

The Levant at that time wasn't a country, it was pretty much no man's land administered by the British (and France).  If you're protesting the existence of Israel, there are many neighbouring countries that should also be criticized under the same principle.  Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon... I guess they aren't legitimate countries either.  I mean.. they were also set up and established by the European powers.