Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

[Faun]

Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America

Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?

Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?

Link would be nice.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

yes she wants to get the Jewish backing so I can see her saying that, but Iran does not have a nuke , never had a nuke and would never strike first. We need an enemy and Iran is it. Or is it Afghanistan, or is it Russia. We took out Iraq, Libya, and now working on Syria, what's next, Lebanon , have to take out Lebanon before Iran (threat to Israel), then Iran. Gee soon we will have a US Empire where the sun never sets. Or will it be a Jewish Empire?

Bullshit they would not strike first. Fortunately, we have leaders in place who are not as gullible and trusting as you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not true. As president, he would have that authority. Bear in mind, it still wouldn't establish Jerusalem as Israel's capital and my guess is few other countries, if any, would follow suit; but the president's State Department can decide where it places U.S. embassies.

He can move the embassy but it does not mean the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. No one will recognize it and fully expect it to be attacked.

Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America

Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?

Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?

To wrap this in context ... Hillary said she would be willing to do that if Iran used nukes on Israel, a NATO ally and friend of the U.S..

Trump said he was risk starting a war with Iran because he doesn't like the way Iran sailors look at U.S. sailors.

Now that that's out of the way, why not answer the question I asked ... ? What do you suppose his response might be. If you don't want to speculate, that's fine.

Israel is not a NATO ally and the US and Israel do not have a mutual defense agreement, so there was no legal obligation to do anything. The point is not that she would come to the defense of Israel, but what she threatened to do, not to bring its leaders to justice or to destroy its military but to "obliterate" Iran, destroying an entire civilization and killing 80,000,000, the worst mass murder in human history. What kind of sick, evil mind even contemplates doing such a thing?

 

[Faun]

He can move the embassy but it does not mean the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. No one will recognize it and fully expect it to be attacked.

Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America

Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?

Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?

To wrap this in context ... Hillary said she would be willing to do that if Iran used nukes on Israel, a NATO ally and friend of the U.S..

Trump said he was risk starting a war with Iran because he doesn't like the way Iran sailors look at U.S. sailors.

Now that that's out of the way, why not answer the question I asked ... ? What do you suppose his response might be. If you don't want to speculate, that's fine.

Israel is not a NATO ally and the US and Israel do not have a mutual defense agreement, so there was no legal obligation to do anything. The point is not that she would come to the defense of Israel, but what she threatened to do, not to bring its leaders to justice or to destroy its military but to "obliterate" Iran, destroying an entire civilization and killing 80,000,000, the worst mass murder in human history. What kind of sick, evil mind even contemplates doing such a thing?

You're right, I stand corrected.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Clearly it is the capital of Israel; that's where the Israeli government is located and that's where foreign diplomats go when they have business with the Israeli government. That's where world leaders went without protest for Shimon Peres' funeral.

More nonsense. World leaders went to Peres' funeral to pay respects to Peres, not because anyone considers Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Had Peres been buried in Alaska, that's where world leaders would have traveled.

He was buried in Jerusalem precisely because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and everyone who went there know that.

Again, they went to where his funeral was held. Nothing more, nothing less. They would have gone regardless of where it was. Their respects were to the man, not the city.

They implicitly recognized Israel's right to the city by going there. If it had been a Palestinian city, they would have asked the Palestinians for permission before going and if it had been a neutral city Israel would have had to gain permission to hold the funeral there, but they went without objection because they understand that despite official policy, Jerusalem in an Israeli city.

Looks like you too have gone off the rails. Now you're conflating Israel's access to the city with their ability to unilaterally declare it their capital.

Where have you been? Israel declared it their capital many years ago, and the fact none of these world leaders voiced any caveats about visiting it for a state funeral indicates they acknowledge it to be Israel's capital despite official policy.

 

[Faun]

More nonsense. World leaders went to Peres' funeral to pay respects to Peres, not because anyone considers Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Had Peres been buried in Alaska, that's where world leaders would have traveled.

He was buried in Jerusalem precisely because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and everyone who went there know that.

Again, they went to where his funeral was held. Nothing more, nothing less. They would have gone regardless of where it was. Their respects were to the man, not the city.

They implicitly recognized Israel's right to the city by going there. If it had been a Palestinian city, they would have asked the Palestinians for permission before going and if it had been a neutral city Israel would have had to gain permission to hold the funeral there, but they went without objection because they understand that despite official policy, Jerusalem in an Israeli city.

Looks like you too have gone off the rails. Now you're conflating Israel's access to the city with their ability to unilaterally declare it their capital.

Where have you been? Israel declared it their capital many years ago, and the fact none of these world leaders voiced any caveats about visiting it for a state funeral indicates they acknowledge it to be Israel's capital despite official policy.

It matters not that they declared it. Almost no countries respect that declaration. If I'm not mistaken, there are three in total worldwide and one of them is Israel. Countries do not acknowledge a city to be a capital because they attend a state funeral in one. Even when ours inadvertently did; it was corrected.

 

[toomuchtime_]

He was buried in Jerusalem precisely because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and everyone who went there know that.

Again, they went to where his funeral was held. Nothing more, nothing less. They would have gone regardless of where it was. Their respects were to the man, not the city.

They implicitly recognized Israel's right to the city by going there. If it had been a Palestinian city, they would have asked the Palestinians for permission before going and if it had been a neutral city Israel would have had to gain permission to hold the funeral there, but they went without objection because they understand that despite official policy, Jerusalem in an Israeli city.

Looks like you too have gone off the rails. Now you're conflating Israel's access to the city with their ability to unilaterally declare it their capital.

Where have you been? Israel declared it their capital many years ago, and the fact none of these world leaders voiced any caveats about visiting it for a state funeral indicates they acknowledge it to be Israel's capital despite official policy.

It matters not that they declared it. Almost no countries respect that declaration. If I'm not mistaken, there are three in total worldwide and one of them is Israel. Countries do not acknowledge a city to be a capital because they attend a state funeral in one. Even when ours inadvertently did; it was corrected.

 

[Penelope]

Not true. As president, he would have that authority. Bear in mind, it still wouldn't establish Jerusalem as Israel's capital and my guess is few other countries, if any, would follow suit; but the president's State Department can decide where it places U.S. embassies.

He can move the embassy but it does not mean the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. No one will recognize it and fully expect it to be attacked.

Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America

Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?

Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?

To wrap this in context ... Hillary said she would be willing to do that if Iran used nukes on Israel, a NATO ally and friend of the U.S..

Trump said he was risk starting a war with Iran because he doesn't like the way Iran sailors look at U.S. sailors.

Now that that's out of the way, why not answer the question I asked ... ? What do you suppose his response might be. If you don't want to speculate, that's fine.

Not true. As president, he would have that authority. Bear in mind, it still wouldn't establish Jerusalem as Israel's capital and my guess is few other countries, if any, would follow suit; but the president's State Department can decide where it places U.S. embassies.

He can move the embassy but it does not mean the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. No one will recognize it and fully expect it to be attacked.

Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America

Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?

Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?

To wrap this in context ... Hillary said she would be willing to do that if Iran used nukes on Israel, a NATO ally and friend of the U.S..

Trump said he was risk starting a war with Iran because he doesn't like the way Iran sailors look at U.S. sailors.

Now that that's out of the way, why not answer the question I asked ... ? What do you suppose his response might be. If you don't want to speculate, that's fine.

Israel does not belong to NATO and Israel would never help another country. They have never. We should pick our friends more carefully. We have become birds of a feather with them, and its our Americans who die for them.

 

[Divine Wind]

My, my, my. How times have changed.

The Soviet Union was the first country to recognise Israel de jure on 17 May 1948, followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ireland, and South Africa. The United States extended de jure recognition after the first Israeli election, on 31 January 1949.

I support Israel and find the antisemitic ribbon running through the Democratic party to be appalling.

 

[toomuchtime_]

He was buried in Jerusalem precisely because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and everyone who went there know that.

Again, they went to where his funeral was held. Nothing more, nothing less. They would have gone regardless of where it was. Their respects were to the man, not the city.

They implicitly recognized Israel's right to the city by going there. If it had been a Palestinian city, they would have asked the Palestinians for permission before going and if it had been a neutral city Israel would have had to gain permission to hold the funeral there, but they went without objection because they understand that despite official policy, Jerusalem in an Israeli city.

Looks like you too have gone off the rails. Now you're conflating Israel's access to the city with their ability to unilaterally declare it their capital.

Where have you been? Israel declared it their capital many years ago, and the fact none of these world leaders voiced any caveats about visiting it for a state funeral indicates they acknowledge it to be Israel's capital despite official policy.

It matters not that they declared it. Almost no countries respect that declaration. If I'm not mistaken, there are three in total worldwide and one of them is Israel. Countries do not acknowledge a city to be a capital because they attend a state funeral in one. Even when ours inadvertently did; it was corrected.

They clearly respected the fact that Jerusalem is part of Israel, by attending a state funeral there and going to an Israeli national cemetery. Regardless of anyone's official policy most of the world implicity recognizes Jerusalem is part of Israel. Every time a foreign diplomat travels to government offices in Jerusalem he implicitly acknowledges Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Since all Israeli government offices are in the western part of the city, west of the "green line", why do you suppose it is that none of these countries have moved their embassies there since they all acknowledge it is part of Israel?

 

[toomuchtime_]

He can move the embassy but it does not mean the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. No one will recognize it and fully expect it to be attacked.

Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America

Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?

Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?

To wrap this in context ... Hillary said she would be willing to do that if Iran used nukes on Israel, a NATO ally and friend of the U.S..

Trump said he was risk starting a war with Iran because he doesn't like the way Iran sailors look at U.S. sailors.

Now that that's out of the way, why not answer the question I asked ... ? What do you suppose his response might be. If you don't want to speculate, that's fine.

He can move the embassy but it does not mean the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. No one will recognize it and fully expect it to be attacked.

Which would be an act of war against America that he would have to respond to. This would put the UN in a sticky situation on whether to allow America to take action or not, and would it lead to the demise of the palestinians if they did respond ?

Your post also shows that you are very un-American and would be the first to side with the islamonazi's in their attacks on America

Given Trump's apparent propensity for war (saying he would sink another countries naval vessel for flipping of American sailors), what do you suppose his response would be to such an attack on a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem?

Well, in 2008, Clinton announced plans to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, wiping out a whole civilization and killing 80,000,000 people, so given her propensity for genocide and nuclear war, what do you think her response would be?

To wrap this in context ... Hillary said she would be willing to do that if Iran used nukes on Israel, a NATO ally and friend of the U.S..

Trump said he was risk starting a war with Iran because he doesn't like the way Iran sailors look at U.S. sailors.

Now that that's out of the way, why not answer the question I asked ... ? What do you suppose his response might be. If you don't want to speculate, that's fine.

Israel does not belong to NATO and Israel would never help another country. They have never. We should pick our friends more carefully. We have become birds of a feather with them, and its our Americans who die for them.

Unlike most other US allies, no American soldier has even died defending Israel.

 

[Divine Wind]

Unlike most other US allies, no American soldier has even died defending Israel.

As it should be. OTOH, many US military personnel have died because antisemitic assholes hate the US for supporting Israel. So who is at fault here?: The US for supporting Israel's right to exist or those murdering US citizens?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Unlike most other US allies, no American soldier has even died defending Israel.

As it should be. OTOH, many US military personnel have died because antisemitic assholes hate the US for supporting Israel. So who is at fault here?: The US for supporting Israel's right to exist or those murdering US citizens?

In fact, no US military personnel have died because of US support for Israel.

 

[Divine Wind]

In fact, no US military personnel have died because of US support for Israel.

So Islamic terrorists murdered 17 US Sailors because.....?

The Ft. Hood shootings were because....?

The Marine barracks bombing was because...?

The Air Force housing complex bombing was because....?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In fact, no US military personnel have died because of US support for Israel.

So Islamic terrorists murdered 17 US Sailors because.....?

The Ft. Hood shootings were because....?

The Marine barracks bombing was because...?

The Air Force housing complex bombing was because....?

Because of US intervention in the ME, not because of US support for Israel.

 

[Faun]

Again, they went to where his funeral was held. Nothing more, nothing less. They would have gone regardless of where it was. Their respects were to the man, not the city.

They implicitly recognized Israel's right to the city by going there. If it had been a Palestinian city, they would have asked the Palestinians for permission before going and if it had been a neutral city Israel would have had to gain permission to hold the funeral there, but they went without objection because they understand that despite official policy, Jerusalem in an Israeli city.

Looks like you too have gone off the rails. Now you're conflating Israel's access to the city with their ability to unilaterally declare it their capital.

Where have you been? Israel declared it their capital many years ago, and the fact none of these world leaders voiced any caveats about visiting it for a state funeral indicates they acknowledge it to be Israel's capital despite official policy.

It matters not that they declared it. Almost no countries respect that declaration. If I'm not mistaken, there are three in total worldwide and one of them is Israel. Countries do not acknowledge a city to be a capital because they attend a state funeral in one. Even when ours inadvertently did; it was corrected.

They clearly respected the fact that Jerusalem is part of Israel, by attending a state funeral there and going to an Israeli national cemetery. Regardless of anyone's official policy most of the world implicity recognizes Jerusalem is part of Israel. Every time a foreign diplomat travels to government offices in Jerusalem he implicitly acknowledges Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Since all Israeli government offices are in the western part of the city, west of the "green line", why do you suppose it is that none of these countries have moved their embassies there since they all acknowledge it is part of Israel?

Again... we're not talking about if countries respect Jerusalem, at least half of it, is an Israeli city; we're talking about if countries respect Israel's declaration it's their capital. In the entire world, only 2 besides Israel do.

As far as claiming that countries send their diplomats to Jerusalem is tantamount to acknowledging it's their capital ... ridiculous. That's where Israeli government officials have set up their offices. Foreign nations have no choice but to send their diplomats to Jerusalem if they wish to meet with Israeli government officials. Meanwhile, they still maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, the city they recognize as Israel's capital.

As far as why countries won't move their embassies to Jerusalem, my guess is they don't want to get in the middle of it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Because of US intervention in the ME, not because of US support for Israel.

So why pictures like this?

 

[Faun]

In fact, no US military personnel have died because of US support for Israel.

So Islamic terrorists murdered 17 US Sailors because.....?

The Ft. Hood shootings were because....?

The Marine barracks bombing was because...?

The Air Force housing complex bombing was because....?

Because of US intervention in the ME, not because of US support for Israel.

Because of both.

 

[toomuchtime_]

They implicitly recognized Israel's right to the city by going there. If it had been a Palestinian city, they would have asked the Palestinians for permission before going and if it had been a neutral city Israel would have had to gain permission to hold the funeral there, but they went without objection because they understand that despite official policy, Jerusalem in an Israeli city.

Looks like you too have gone off the rails. Now you're conflating Israel's access to the city with their ability to unilaterally declare it their capital.

Where have you been? Israel declared it their capital many years ago, and the fact none of these world leaders voiced any caveats about visiting it for a state funeral indicates they acknowledge it to be Israel's capital despite official policy.

It matters not that they declared it. Almost no countries respect that declaration. If I'm not mistaken, there are three in total worldwide and one of them is Israel. Countries do not acknowledge a city to be a capital because they attend a state funeral in one. Even when ours inadvertently did; it was corrected.

They clearly respected the fact that Jerusalem is part of Israel, by attending a state funeral there and going to an Israeli national cemetery. Regardless of anyone's official policy most of the world implicity recognizes Jerusalem is part of Israel. Every time a foreign diplomat travels to government offices in Jerusalem he implicitly acknowledges Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Since all Israeli government offices are in the western part of the city, west of the "green line", why do you suppose it is that none of these countries have moved their embassies there since they all acknowledge it is part of Israel?

Again... we're not talking about if countries respect Jerusalem, at least half of it, is an Israeli city; we're talking about if countries respect Israel's declaration it's their capital. In the entire world, only 2 besides Israel do.

As far as claiming that countries send their diplomats to Jerusalem is tantamount to acknowledging it's their capital ... ridiculous. That's where Israeli government officials have set up their offices. Foreign nations have no choice but to send their diplomats to Jerusalem if they wish to meet with Israeli government officials. Meanwhile, they still maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, the city they recognize as Israel's capital.

As far as why countries won't move their embassies to Jerusalem, my guess is they don't want to get in the middle of it.

In every possible way, Jerusalem functions as Israel's capital no one is going to change it, so refusing to recognize this fact, makes the countries who refuse incapable of any productive discourse on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. So while the world behaves as if Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it refuses to say the words.



Get in the middle of what? The same countries refused to move their embassies to the western part of the city before the 1967 war when the eastern part of the city was under Jordan. There simply is no rational basis for refusing to accept the fact that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Because of US intervention in the ME, not because of US support for Israel.

So why pictures like this?

Because they hate America and Israel but for different reasons.

 

[Divine Wind]

Because they hate America and Israel but for different reasons.

Interesting. Please expand on your theory.