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

[forkup]

The fact that Israel has taken over East Jerusalem over international objections might be unchangeable but it is be no means morally right. The fact that they have encroached on more of the Palistinian territory is equally if not more reprehensible.

The mere presence of Jews (or even Israeli citizens) on a particular plot of soil is neither morally wrong, nor legally an encroachment on sovereign territory belonging to another, nor an eventual determination of sovereignty (unless you believe that Palestine MUST be Judenrien). The border has not yet been determined. That is the source of the conflict -- determining the border between the State of Israel and the nascent State of Palestine. The whole point of reaching an agreement is to decide which territory will be Palestinian and which will remain Israel.

The sooner the international community recognizes this basic fact and stops with the cry of "but its Palestinian territory" the sooner we will be over the conflict. And the sooner the international community recognizes that neither the existence of Jews in Palestine nor the existence of Arab Muslims or Christians in Israel prevents sovereignty of those States the sooner we will be over the conflict.

In 1980, Israel officially absorbed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. That's something completely different from what amounts to people migrating from 1 sovereign country to another. That's saying this place is ours. And they have the military presence to prove it.

 

[forkup]

The fact that Israel has taken over East Jerusalem over international objections might be unchangeable but it is be no means morally right. The fact that they have encroached on more of the Palistinian territory is equally if not more reprehensible.

The mere presence of Jews (or even Israeli citizens) on a particular plot of soil is neither morally wrong, nor legally an encroachment on sovereign territory belonging to another, nor an eventual determination of sovereignty (unless you believe that Palestine MUST be Judenrien). The border has not yet been determined. That is the source of the conflict -- determining the border between the State of Israel and the nascent State of Palestine. The whole point of reaching an agreement is to decide which territory will be Palestinian and which will remain Israel.

The sooner the international community recognizes this basic fact and stops with the cry of "but its Palestinian territory" the sooner we will be over the conflict. And the sooner the international community recognizes that neither the existence of Jews in Palestine nor the existence of Arab Muslims or Christians in Israel prevents sovereignty of those States the sooner we will be over the conflict.

To make an analogy. What you are claiming would be like claiming that the US shouldn't be allowed to control it's own immigration policy. Not for nothing I'm guessing you would probably have objections to that.

 

[RoccoR]

forkup, et al,

Yes, this decision is a mess. Of course, I don't think that Donald Trump can be any worse as a President that any of the mainstream professional political candidates. While I don't think he is the best that America can offer, most of the better qualified potential leaders have find politics as somewhat nasty and unappealing.

In 1980, Israel officially absorbed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. That's something completely different from what amounts to people migrating from 1 sovereign country to another. That's saying this place is ours. And they have the military presence to prove it.

(COMMENT)

The US Policy in refusing to recognize any Jewish or Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem was thought to be an incentive to Israelis and Palestinians resolve the matter under the parameters of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations. The Question of Jerusalem would have been answered if both sides had come to the negotiations.

But the ability for the diplomatic officers, at any level, has been --- to say the least --- disappointing. The US has spend millions (and millions) on Shuttle Diplomacy over the last quarter century --- all for not. This is primarily because the US State Department has not been able to muster the little gray cells to formulate a viable strategy. Similarly, US Diplomatic performance has not been able to keep the UN Membership on track with the intent expressed by the Great War Allied Powers, or the WWII Allied Powers that supported A/RES/181(II) in the formation of the States through self-determination.

Since the US Department of State has not been able to flush the poorly equipped Foreign Service with the competence and proficiency necessary to meet today's challenges, the Department of State needs to back away from the failed concepts behind Secretary Kerry's efforts, and shift all its efforts into supporting the Government of Israel.

You cannot always compromise the integrity and create a lasting peace. Sometimes you just have to say: That is just the way it is going to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.

Yep. The Jews are evil. How DARE they have their capital in the place, you know, where their capital has been for thousands of years?! The NERVE of them. I tell you, they are evil.

You got that right. The British made a huge mistake to let them move there.

“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.”

 

[forkup]

forkup, et al,

Yes, this decision is a mess. Of course, I don't think that Donald Trump can be any worse as a President that any of the mainstream professional political candidates. While I don't think he is the best that America can offer, most of the better qualified potential leaders have find politics as somewhat nasty and unappealing.

In 1980, Israel officially absorbed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. That's something completely different from what amounts to people migrating from 1 sovereign country to another. That's saying this place is ours. And they have the military presence to prove it.

(COMMENT)

The US Policy in refusing to recognize any Jewish or Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem was thought to be an incentive to Israelis and Palestinians resolve the matter under the parameters of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations. The Question of Jerusalem would have been answered if both sides had come to the negotiations.

But the ability for the diplomatic officers, at any level, has been --- to say the least --- disappointing. The US has spend millions (and millions) on Shuttle Diplomacy over the last quarter century --- all for not. This is primarily because the US State Department has not been able to muster the little gray cells to formulate a viable strategy. Similarly, US Diplomatic performance has not been able to keep the UN Membership on track with the intent expressed by the Great War Allied Powers, or the WWII Allied Powers that supported A/RES/181(II) in the formation of the States through self-determination.

Since the US Department of State has not been able to flush the poorly equipped Foreign Service with the competence and proficiency necessary to meet today's challenges, the Department of State needs to back away from the failed concepts behind Secretary Kerry's efforts, and shift all its efforts into supporting the Government of Israel.

You cannot always compromise the integrity and create a lasting peace. Sometimes you just have to say: That is just the way it is going to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think that Donald Trump can be any worse as a President that any of the mainstream professional political candidates.

I have to disagree with this assertion. You seem pretty well informed of international politics and history so I hope you bear with me. The way I interpret the last 70 years is that peace was mostly kept by the fact that nations ( world leaders) can be counted on to be rational. I'm of course not claiming that the world has become peaceful, but large scale conflict has become rare. The few exceptions can be usually boiled down to leaders not thinking things all the way through. This is the reason, I find professional politicians reassuring, because by and large they all play by the same rules, this creates a certain predictability in world politics, reduces misunderstanding and in general helps to keep the world safe. Trump speaks off the cuff, is petty and in my view doesn't seem to act rational all the time. And he sure as hell is no typical politician. This breeds uncertainty and not a bit of fear. My point is, I might be wrong and Trump might be putting out an act to get elected, I don't know for sure, but Roccor neither do you. So I rather go by the devil I know, at least I can be pretty sure, Clinton will think before she acts.
On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

 

[Shusha]

To make an analogy. What you are claiming would be like claiming that the US shouldn't be allowed to control it's own immigration policy. Not for nothing I'm guessing you would probably have objections to that.

Not so. States have the privilege of determining their own immigration policy over the areas within their territorial borders as long as those rights do not infringe upon the basic human rights against discrimination based on race, gender, age, ability, ethnicity or religion. In order for Palestine to have those rights -- they must first become a State and second make a peace treaty with Israel defining the borders between them.

Palestine will NEVER have the right to set an immigration policy which forbids Jews from living in their territory (that is against IHL).

Palestine does not have the right to determine immigration policy in land that it only wants to eventually have sovereignty over.

 

[Shusha]

On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

Did the OP say that the Palestinians shouldn't be given anything? I seem to have missed that. How is acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel denying Palestinians "anything"?

 

[IsaacNewton]

So dipshit trump looks at the book 'How to get people to attack us' and he picks number 3 on the list. For no other reason than a few political points. Why doesn't he just promise to bomb the golden dome of the rock? I'm sure the evangelical fake kristians in the US and the selfish side of the jews in Israel would love that.

This is why you can't have people with the mental power of an 8 year old in authority. Much like Kim Jung Un they threaten real human beings with mass death because of their selfish ignorance.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Well, that's nice. I'm sure he checked the feasibility and examined the possible backlash, from the Muslim world. He has a plan so it won't turn into another intifada, he has considered and talked about it with the European allies and was able to reassure them, that doing so won't turn more of the European Muslim community to extremism. My point is this is why a Trump presidenty is such a bad idea. He thinks his instincts are a substitute for informed decisions.

It is a fact that the undivided city of Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, and it is a fact that no one is going to do anything to change it, and it is a fact that refusing to acknowledge unchangeable facts only prolongs this conflict,

The Jerusalem Embassy Act passed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in Congress and it requires the President to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the embassy there unless the President certifies every six months that it wants to delay this move for national security reasons. All President Trump has to do is not certify there are national security reasons to delay this move and it is done. Europeans may grumble and Muslims may rant and rave but at the end of the day, it will have settled one of the most important issues in the conflict and that will mean progress toward ending the conflict.

How do you see it ending the conflict? You just admitted to both the Muslim world and Europe would look at it unfavorably and possibly violently in the case of the Muslim world. What to you is the end of the conflict?

The end of the conflict when every Arab still on Jewish soil recognize the Jewish state as the supreme law of the land.

 

[Penelope]

On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

Did the OP say that the Palestinians shouldn't be given anything? I seem to have missed that. How is acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel denying Palestinians "anything"?

Jerusalem was to be a neutral zone, but when has anything mattered to the Jews in Israel. They are above international law. Its a police country, with Israel in charge. Its not a democracy, except for the secular jews who can do whatever they want, and the orthodox seem to get away with their zealot ways. Never have the zealots got along with the seculars.

 

[Penelope]

This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.

Yep. The Jews are evil. How DARE they have their capital in the place, you know, where their capital has been for thousands of years?! The NERVE of them. I tell you, they are evil.

You got that right. The British made a huge mistake to let them move there.

“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.”

The British moved them in to protect he Suez Canal.

 

[forkup]

On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

Did the OP say that the Palestinians shouldn't be given anything? I seem to have missed that. How is acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel denying Palestinians "anything"?

recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel

There is no mention of what the Palestinians would get. Undivided Jerusalem implies that Palestine would need another capital. And this he also said clearly stating the posters preference.

refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs

 

[Shusha]

On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

Did the OP say that the Palestinians shouldn't be given anything? I seem to have missed that. How is acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel denying Palestinians "anything"?

recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel

There is no mention of what the Palestinians would get. Undivided Jerusalem implies that Palestine would need another capital. And this he also said clearly stating the posters preference.

refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs

So, by "anything" you meant Jerusalem -- that the Palestinians won't get Jerusalem as part of their State.

 

[forkup]

On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

Did the OP say that the Palestinians shouldn't be given anything? I seem to have missed that. How is acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel denying Palestinians "anything"?

recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel

There is no mention of what the Palestinians would get. Undivided Jerusalem implies that Palestine would need another capital. And this he also said clearly stating the posters preference.

refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs

So, by "anything" you meant Jerusalem -- that the Palestinians won't get Jerusalem as part of their State.

you saw the last quotes right?
refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs
What does that leave on the table for the Palestinians?

 

[forkup]

I'm going to call it quits for now. I want to thank everybody who I talked to tonight.It's fun to be able to stay on message and a conversation not turning into a profane shouting match. Goodnight everybody.

 

[Shusha]

... questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs
What does that leave on the table for the Palestinians?

How much of the above are the Palestinians responsible for? If the Palestinian people, as a PEOPLE, are not capable of leadership, of government, of peace with their neighbors -- then they should not have a State. States come into being through the driving force of the people to establish one and then putting their resources into managing one. If they are unable to do that .... shrug.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is a fact that the undivided city of Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel, and it is a fact that no one is going to do anything to change it, and it is a fact that refusing to acknowledge unchangeable facts only prolongs this conflict.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act passed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in Congress and it requires the President to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the embassy there unless the President certifies every six months that it wants to delay this move for national security reasons. All President Trump has to do is not certify there are national security reasons to delay this move and it is done. Europeans may grumble and Muslims may rant and rave but at the end of the day, it will have settled one of the most important issues in the conflict and that will mean progress toward ending the conflict.

How do you see it ending the conflict? You just admitted to both the Muslim world and Europe would look at it unfavorably and possibly violently in the case of the Muslim world. What to you is the end of the conflict?

I didn't say it would end the conflict, I said it would be a step in that direction. The conflict ends when all the important issues are settled, so settling this issue will be a step toward ending the conflict. Holding out unrealistic expectations for the Muslims by refusing to acknowledge unchangeable facts only prolongs the conflict. Europeans and Muslims may not like it, but there is nothing they can do about it, and before too long the Trump administration will move on to the next issue, refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs, and these moves collectively will put pressure on the Palestinians to try to get their act together so that credible negotiations can be held some time in the future that will reach some sort of realistic agreement.

You seem to be saying that the end of the conflict would be, throwing the full support of the US behind Isreal, completely screwing the Palistinians and hoping everybody will accept it? What in the last 60 years or so of this conflict makes you think this will happen? I'll tell you what happens in the real world. Israel emboldened by US support will start settling all what is left of the Palistinian territory, creating huge resentment from the rest of the international community and for sure will start the next intifada, probably supported by the entire Muslim world. It will make protecting US interests in the region nearly impossible. Strengthen IS again and probably cause other negative effects I can't even begin to foresee.

No, I said acknowledging unchangeable facts is a step toward ending the conflict. It is a fact that Jerusalem is he capital of Israel and that is not going to change. It is a fact that all of the Israeli communities in the West Bank take up less than 2% of the West Bank, and it is a fact that the Israeli plans drawn up in the 1980's and virtually unchanged today for developing the West Bank designate only 6.8% of the land for development, all of it in area C. It is a fact that a Palestinian state is not feasible in the near future because their entire leadhership is made up of warring terrorist gangs. There simply is no rational basis for believing acknowledging all of these facts would lead to more trouble and turmoil than denying them for all these years has.

The fact that Israel has taken over East Jerusalem over international objections might be unchangeable but it is be no means morally right. The fact that they have encroached on more of the Palistinian territory is equally if not more reprehensible. You suggest to give these actions an acceptance and try to sell it, as in some weird way a solution to something. I'll ask it again. How does giving Israel everything and the Palestinians nothing solve this conflict? You keep on rephrasing without answering that simple question.

I never suggested giving Israel everything and the Palestinians nothing. The very concept you are stating is bizarre - who has the right to give anything to either side? No one, certainly not the Europeans or the US or the UN.

By recognizing unchangeable facts, it is possible to move on to issues that can be negotiated, but much of the world continues to refuse to acknowledge these facts, then no progress is possible and while you may fancy yourselves an advocate for the Palestinians, what you are really advocating is a continuation of the status quo, which is not in their best interests.

 

[Bleipriester]

Actually, it could be the beginning of the end of the conflict. The undivided city of Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, and no one is going to do anything to change that fact, so refusing to recognize facts that cannot be changed, only prolongs the conflict.

Actually, the Jews must share the city with the Muslims. I don´t care about which city should be capital according to whomever. Equality is the key to the end of the conflict. Zion servants usually get very bloody hands and Trump´s statement that his USA wants to befriend everyone can only suffer from Zionism and not benefit. Trump must stay away from Zionism or all his statements are null and void. However, Putin gave a symbolic tank to Netanyahu and nobody shouted that Zionism took over Russia, so it is very early to determine anything.

IDF tank held by Russia since 1982 returns to Israel

Israel is playing Russia and the US.

That´s not the truth. Russia does not serve Israeli interests.

Really , Putin and Bibi have a private line. Israel will be on the side of who gives it more.

Maybe, but doesn´t prove your claim. Putin was also a friend to former chancellor Schröder but Germany didn´t control Russia or spook like that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

Did the OP say that the Palestinians shouldn't be given anything? I seem to have missed that. How is acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel denying Palestinians "anything"?

recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel

There is no mention of what the Palestinians would get. Undivided Jerusalem implies that Palestine would need another capital. And this he also said clearly stating the posters preference.

refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs

So, by "anything" you meant Jerusalem -- that the Palestinians won't get Jerusalem as part of their State.

you saw the last quotes right?
refusing to condemn Israeli construction in the West Bank, and then to the next step, questioning the feasibility of a Palestinian state in the near future since their leadership is fragmented among various warring terrorist gangs
What does that leave on the table for the Palestinians?

What it leaves for the Palestinians is the opportunity to get their act together by forming a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel and be willing to compromise.

 

[Eloy]

East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.

There is no international law requiring Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem or any other specific territory. In fact, there are a fair number of treaties which explicitly negate any assumptions of eventual boundaries and require the conflict to end through negotiation and mutual agreement and treaty between the parties.

IF Palestine ends up with some parts of Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty -- THEN the Palestinians can make their capital anywhere they want within their territory.

You are misinformed;
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)