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

[Phoenall]

Donald Trumptold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that as president he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his campaign said on Sunday.

The statement, which was made during a meeting that lasted over an hour at Trump Tower in New York, would mark a shift in American foreign policy as the U.S.— as well as almost every other country in the world— does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because its status has not been resolved since Israel established itself in West Jerusalem in 1948 and then effectively annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War.

Trump told the leader that under his administration the U.S. will “recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel,” the campaign statement read, repeating his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Tel Aviv.

Hillary Clinton also met Netanyahu for less than an hour in Manhattan,CBS reports. Reporters were barred from covering either event.

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

Finally we may have a US president who is bold enough to take a fresh look at this conflict and smart enough to realize that US hedging on this issue only prolongs the conflict.

He's kissing up for votes, so what?

Regardless of why you think he is doing it, he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy there in compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Refusing to recognize unchangeable facts makes progress impossible. This is an essential step if there is ever to be a negotiated end to the conflict.

He does not have that authority. He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.

He does have the authority to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and he does have the authority to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, he will merely bring US policy in alignment with reality.

If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why does Israel allow foreign governments to establish their respective embassies in Tel Aviv?

Because it is not up to them to dictate were an embassy will be built

 

[Faun]

He's kissing up for votes, so what?

Regardless of why you think he is doing it, he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy there in compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Refusing to recognize unchangeable facts makes progress impossible. This is an essential step if there is ever to be a negotiated end to the conflict.

He does not have that authority. He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.

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?

 

[Faun]

First off, it's silly to talk about and final status negotiations until the Palestinians form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and that is not going to happen in the near future, but even if it were, Jerusalem is simply not negotiable, so refusing to recognize that fact leaves nothing but the status quo. Even worse, when Obama and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that are not possible, it produces more violence and that prevents changes that would make day to day life for the Palestinians better.

It's not for you to decide what is or is not negotiable. That's for the parties directly involved to decide. If either side makes unilateral decisions which obliterate the possibility of earnest negotiations, there will be no negotiations and the status quo you speak of will persist indefinitely. If the two sides don't resolve their disagreements in a fair, equitable, and peaceful manner, it will ultimately end with the destruction of both.

In every negotiation some things are non negotiable. Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

I guess when one steals another's property , it becomes theirs.

Nothing was stolen. That's where you went off the rails.

 

[Faun]

He does not have that authority. He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.

He does have the authority to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and he does have the authority to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, he will merely bring US policy in alignment with reality.

If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why does Israel allow foreign governments to establish their respective embassies in Tel Aviv?

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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

First off, it's silly to talk about and final status negotiations until the Palestinians form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and that is not going to happen in the near future, but even if it were, Jerusalem is simply not negotiable, so refusing to recognize that fact leaves nothing but the status quo. Even worse, when Obama and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that are not possible, it produces more violence and that prevents changes that would make day to day life for the Palestinians better.

It's not for you to decide what is or is not negotiable. That's for the parties directly involved to decide. If either side makes unilateral decisions which obliterate the possibility of earnest negotiations, there will be no negotiations and the status quo you speak of will persist indefinitely. If the two sides don't resolve their disagreements in a fair, equitable, and peaceful manner, it will ultimately end with the destruction of both.

In every negotiation some things are non negotiable. Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

There are no negotiations taking place at the moment. And yes, both sides agree to what is and what is not negotiable.If one side firmly disagrees with the other's side over something they deem is non-negotiable, all negotiations are at risk of failing.

 

[toomuchtime_]

First off, it's silly to talk about and final status negotiations until the Palestinians form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and that is not going to happen in the near future, but even if it were, Jerusalem is simply not negotiable, so refusing to recognize that fact leaves nothing but the status quo. Even worse, when Obama and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that are not possible, it produces more violence and that prevents changes that would make day to day life for the Palestinians better.

It's not for you to decide what is or is not negotiable. That's for the parties directly involved to decide. If either side makes unilateral decisions which obliterate the possibility of earnest negotiations, there will be no negotiations and the status quo you speak of will persist indefinitely. If the two sides don't resolve their disagreements in a fair, equitable, and peaceful manner, it will ultimately end with the destruction of both.

In every negotiation some things are non negotiable. Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

There are no negotiations taking place at the moment. And yes, both sides agree to what is and what is not negotiable.If one side firmly disagrees with the other's side over something they deem is non-negotiable, all negotiations are at risk of failing.

That simply isn't true. There is little agreement about what will be on the table and what will not. A major reason for this is that the US and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that simply are unobtainable.

 

[Penelope]

It's not for you to decide what is or is not negotiable. That's for the parties directly involved to decide. If either side makes unilateral decisions which obliterate the possibility of earnest negotiations, there will be no negotiations and the status quo you speak of will persist indefinitely. If the two sides don't resolve their disagreements in a fair, equitable, and peaceful manner, it will ultimately end with the destruction of both.

In every negotiation some things are non negotiable. Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

I guess when one steals another's property , it becomes theirs.

Nothing was stolen. That's where you went off the rails.

Jerusalem was to be neutral for all, and the Palestinians have more right to it than the Israelis, who have no right to it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Regardless of why you think he is doing it, he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy there in compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Refusing to recognize unchangeable facts makes progress impossible. This is an essential step if there is ever to be a negotiated end to the conflict.

He does not have that authority. He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.

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?

 

[Penelope]

He does not have that authority. He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.

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?

Link would be nice.

 

[toomuchtime_]

He does have the authority to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and he does have the authority to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, he will merely bring US policy in alignment with reality.

If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why does Israel allow foreign governments to establish their respective embassies in Tel Aviv?

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.

 

[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?

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

 

[Faun]

He's kissing up for votes, so what?

Regardless of why you think he is doing it, he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy there in compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Refusing to recognize unchangeable facts makes progress impossible. This is an essential step if there is ever to be a negotiated end to the conflict.

He does not have that authority. He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.

He does have the authority to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and he does have the authority to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, he will merely bring US policy in alignment with reality.

If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why does Israel allow foreign governments to establish their respective embassies in Tel Aviv?

Because it is not up to them to dictate were an embassy will be built

That's not exactly true. While host countries can't dictate to others where to place their embassies, they can refuse to have them placed in any city of their choosing.

 

[Penelope]

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?

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?

 

[Faun]

It's not for you to decide what is or is not negotiable. That's for the parties directly involved to decide. If either side makes unilateral decisions which obliterate the possibility of earnest negotiations, there will be no negotiations and the status quo you speak of will persist indefinitely. If the two sides don't resolve their disagreements in a fair, equitable, and peaceful manner, it will ultimately end with the destruction of both.

In every negotiation some things are non negotiable. Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

There are no negotiations taking place at the moment. And yes, both sides agree to what is and what is not negotiable.If one side firmly disagrees with the other's side over something they deem is non-negotiable, all negotiations are at risk of failing.

That simply isn't true. There is little agreement about what will be on the table and what will not. A major reason for this is that the US and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that simply are unobtainable.

Of course it's true. For argument's sake ... Israel unilaterally decides the status of Jerusalem is non-negotiable ... if Palestinians won't agree, they could walk away from the negotiating table and nothing gets accomplished.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

In 2008, Clinton did see Iran as an enemy that would likely have nukes soon and would strike strike Israel first and she threatened a genocidal attack on Iran as appropriate if it did. What kind of sick, evil mind threatens to destroy a whole civilization and kill 80,000,000 people because of the actions of its leaders regardless of what they did? What makes Clinton's statement sicker and more bizarre is that Israel is perfectly capable of preventing Iran from ever having nuclear weapons without any help from the US, so this was just an insane statement by Clinton.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In every negotiation some things are non negotiable. Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

There are no negotiations taking place at the moment. And yes, both sides agree to what is and what is not negotiable.If one side firmly disagrees with the other's side over something they deem is non-negotiable, all negotiations are at risk of failing.

That simply isn't true. There is little agreement about what will be on the table and what will not. A major reason for this is that the US and others encourage the Palestinians to insist on things that simply are unobtainable.

Of course it's true. For argument's sake ... Israel unilaterally decides the status of Jerusalem is non-negotiable ... if Palestinians won't agree, they could walk away from the negotiating table and nothing gets accomplished.

If they walk away from the table, they get nothing, but if they accept that Jerusalem will remain part of Israel, then they have the possibility of gaining other things. All of this presupposes the Palestinians will have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen any time in the near future.

 

[Faun]

In every negotiation some things are non negotiable. Jerusalem is one of these things. Of course, it's silly to talk about final status negotiations until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and that is not going to happen in the near future.

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

I guess when one steals another's property , it becomes theirs.

Nothing was stolen. That's where you went off the rails.

Jerusalem was to be neutral for all, and the Palestinians have more right to it than the Israelis, who have no right to it.

And what happened to Jerusalem, which you say was to be neutral, between the years 1948 and 1967?

 

[Faun]

He does not have that authority. He can recognize all he wants, but that does not make it so.

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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Again... and I can't emphasis this enough ... that's for the parties involved to decide, not you. Even items that are "non-negotiable" have to be accepted as such by all parties directly involved.

First off, Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital, not me. Non negotiable items are designated as such by one side or the other, not by an agreement between the two sides.

I guess when one steals another's property , it becomes theirs.

Nothing was stolen. That's where you went off the rails.

Jerusalem was to be neutral for all, and the Palestinians have more right to it than the Israelis, who have no right to it.

And what happened to Jerusalem, which you say was to be neutral, between the years 1948 and 1967?

It was illegally occupied by Jordan.

 

[Faun]

If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why does Israel allow foreign governments to establish their respective embassies in Tel Aviv?

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.