It’s a new day.

[toomuchtime_]

"Egypt’s 11th-hour decision to pull back its anti-settlement resolution at the UN Security Council on Thursday demonstrates that what was is definitely not what will be from now on in the Middle East diplomatic process.

And the catalyst of change is US President-elect Donald Trump.

Amid all the head-scratching and speculation early Thursday regarding whether President Barack Obama would use the US veto to protect Israel from a UN resolution calling for a clear distinction between the Jewish state and the territories, Trump released the following statement.

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.

While it was not clear whether this message would matter at all to Obama, it does matter to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who will have to work with Trump for the next four years. Obama already pushed through this week one regulation he knew Trump would oppose – a ban on offshore drilling in the US-controlled Arctic and Atlantic seaboard – and there was no reason to believe he would not do the same on this resolution.

But Sisi has a different set of considerations.

Sisi, like Netanyahu, met both Trump and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in September, before the election. Unlike Netanyahu, however, he did not hide his preference for Trump, and in interviews after those meetings made clear he supported Trump. Sisi was the first international leader to call and congratulate the president-elect after his victory, and said he hoped the victory would breathe new life into the Egyptian-American relationship.

Ties between the two countries were strained as a result of what Sisi viewed as Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and because of Washington’s criticism of Sisi’s human rights record. With Trump, Sisi sees the possibility of turning a new page with Washington, and it is clear that following Trump’s statement on the UN resolution on Thursday – and likely messages he received from the Trump team – he realized this would not be the best way to begin afresh."

ANALYSIS: UN saga shows sands shifting

How about that! Trump has not yet been sworn in and he has already made Obama irrelevant.

 

[Coyote]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

 

[toomuchtime_]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

 

[Coyote]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

 

[toomuchtime_]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No, they are not. You simply don't understand the situation.

 

[Coyote]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No, they are not. You simply don't understand the situation.

Given that Jerusalem is a major issue in the negotiations, I don't think it's me that doesn't understand.

I'm guessing that the claim that peace must come through direct negotiations between the mans only when it's favors Israel.

 

[toomuchtime_]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No, they are not. You simply don't understand the situation.

Given that Jerusalem is a major issue in the negotiations, I don't think it's me that doesn't understand.

I'm guessing that the claim that peace must come through direct negotiations between the mans only when it's favors Israel.

Jerusalem is not a major issue for the Palestinians. You probably meant to say eastern Jerusalem is an issue for them but the Israeli government is in the western part of the city, which is west of the green line and that is where the US embassy will go. It is where the US embassy should have gone decades ago. The only reason to object to it is if you object to the existence of Israel, and that has never been the policy of the US.

 

[Coyote]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No, they are not. You simply don't understand the situation.

Given that Jerusalem is a major issue in the negotiations, I don't think it's me that doesn't understand.

I'm guessing that the claim that peace must come through direct negotiations between the mans only when it's favors Israel.

Jerusalem is not a major issue for the Palestinians. You probably meant to say eastern Jerusalem is an issue for them but the Israeli government is in the western part of the city, which is west of the green line and that is where the US embassy will go. It is where the US embassy should have gone decades ago. The only reason to object to it is if you object to the existence of Israel, and that has never been the policy of the US.

So are you saying Jerusalem will be divided again?

No. The reason to object to it is not objecting to the existence of Israel. Embassy's go in a nation's capital. Jerusalem is claimed by both sides and it's status is unresolved. By placing an embassy there, you are stating that you recognize it as Israel's capital. It has nothing to do with the recognition of Israel's right to exist unless you think every country with an embassy in Tel Aviv feels Israel doesn't have the right to exist.

 

[Shusha]

Other States don't get to choose where any given State's capital is. Its a non-issue. The only issue is determining the border between Israel and Palestine. Once that is solved, then everyone gets to have a capital where ever they want and can call the place where their capital is Jerusalem or Al Quds or Zombieland or whatever else they want. The issue is where the border is going to be.

 

[Coyote]

Other States don't get to choose where any given State's capital is. Its a non-issue. The only issue is determining the border between Israel and Palestine. Once that is solved, then everyone gets to have a capital where ever they want and can call the place where their capital is Jerusalem or Al Quds or Zombieland or whatever else they want. The issue is where the border is going to be.

I think until that issue is resolved - and who gets to claim Jerusalem - no nation should be putting it's embassy in contested territory nor should they recognize it.

 

[Shusha]

No. The reason to object to it is not objecting to the existence of Israel. Embassy's go in a nation's capital. Jerusalem is claimed by both sides and it's status is unresolved. By placing an embassy there, you are stating that you recognize it as Israel's capital.

Jerusalem IS Israel's capital. That is never going to change. Its not an issue. The Palestinians don't get a say in where another State's capital is. Palestinians may also choose Jerusalem as their capital. Why not?

 

[Shusha]

Other States don't get to choose where any given State's capital is. Its a non-issue. The only issue is determining the border between Israel and Palestine. Once that is solved, then everyone gets to have a capital where ever they want and can call the place where their capital is Jerusalem or Al Quds or Zombieland or whatever else they want. The issue is where the border is going to be.

I think until that issue is resolved - and who gets to claim Jerusalem - no nation should be putting it's embassy in contested territory nor should they recognize it.

"West" Jerusalem is not contested.

 

[Coyote]

No. The reason to object to it is not objecting to the existence of Israel. Embassy's go in a nation's capital. Jerusalem is claimed by both sides and it's status is unresolved. By placing an embassy there, you are stating that you recognize it as Israel's capital.

Jerusalem IS Israel's capital. That is never going to change. Its not an issue. The Palestinians don't get a say in where another State's capital is. Palestinians may also choose Jerusalem as their capital. Why not?

Yes...they could...and they have claimed it as well. So you think it's feasible for two nations to claim one city? Should it be divided again?

No, I don't think it's a good idea to put an embassy in a contested city like that. Let it be resolved and borders decided first.

 

[Coyote]

Other States don't get to choose where any given State's capital is. Its a non-issue. The only issue is determining the border between Israel and Palestine. Once that is solved, then everyone gets to have a capital where ever they want and can call the place where their capital is Jerusalem or Al Quds or Zombieland or whatever else they want. The issue is where the border is going to be.

I think until that issue is resolved - and who gets to claim Jerusalem - no nation should be putting it's embassy in contested territory nor should they recognize it.

"West" Jerusalem is not contested.

Where is the division?

 

[Shusha]

Shrug. No reason a city can't be divided. Not like it hasn't been done before.

The sooner the Palestinians accept the fact that Jerusalem IS Israel's capital, the better.

 

[Coyote]

Shrug. No reason a city can't be divided. Not like it hasn't been done before.

The sooner the Palestinians accept the fact that Jerusalem IS Israel's capital, the better.

I thought there were considerable objections to dividing the city again. It's as good a solution as any though.

It doesn't matter to me as long as it's settled. Until then, I don't think it's a good idea to put an embassy there...and no one has yet have they?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No, they are not. You simply don't understand the situation.

Given that Jerusalem is a major issue in the negotiations, I don't think it's me that doesn't understand.

I'm guessing that the claim that peace must come through direct negotiations between the mans only when it's favors Israel.

Jerusalem is not a major issue for the Palestinians. You probably meant to say eastern Jerusalem is an issue for them but the Israeli government is in the western part of the city, which is west of the green line and that is where the US embassy will go. It is where the US embassy should have gone decades ago. The only reason to object to it is if you object to the existence of Israel, and that has never been the policy of the US.

So are you saying Jerusalem will be divided again?

No. The reason to object to it is not objecting to the existence of Israel. Embassy's go in a nation's capital. Jerusalem is claimed by both sides and it's status is unresolved. By placing an embassy there, you are stating that you recognize it as Israel's capital. It has nothing to do with the recognition of Israel's right to exist unless you think every country with an embassy in Tel Aviv feels Israel doesn't have the right to exist.

Are you trying to sound stupid? Western Jerusalem is west of the green line and is not claimed by the Palestinians. There simply is no rational reason for not moving the embassy to Jerusalem unless you object to the existence of Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No it isnt, it has no bearing on an future peace talks. If the embassy is moved then the arab muslims will cry foul, if it is not moved then it will be the Jews. So either way it has no bearing on peace and should be discounted from all negotiations. Make Jerusalem wholly arab muslim and you would create a major problem for the rest of the world in the years to come

 

[Phoenall]

IF

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis,” he said.


Then WHY is he calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalum?

Ans: he's a liar.

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No, they are not. You simply don't understand the situation.

Given that Jerusalem is a major issue in the negotiations, I don't think it's me that doesn't understand.

I'm guessing that the claim that peace must come through direct negotiations between the mans only when it's favors Israel.

What possible impact could Jerusalem have on peace talks other than as another reason for the arab muslims to say NO. Make the agenda nothing other than peace and mutual borders and disallow all other factors and the talks will flounder when the arab muslms just say NO for no other reason than the arab league has told them to.

 

[Phoenall]

Because moving the embassy to Jerusalem has nothing to do with any negotiations.

Yes. It very much does. The status of Jerusalem is an integral part of peace negotiations.

No, they are not. You simply don't understand the situation.

Given that Jerusalem is a major issue in the negotiations, I don't think it's me that doesn't understand.

I'm guessing that the claim that peace must come through direct negotiations between the mans only when it's favors Israel.

Jerusalem is not a major issue for the Palestinians. You probably meant to say eastern Jerusalem is an issue for them but the Israeli government is in the western part of the city, which is west of the green line and that is where the US embassy will go. It is where the US embassy should have gone decades ago. The only reason to object to it is if you object to the existence of Israel, and that has never been the policy of the US.

So are you saying Jerusalem will be divided again?

No. The reason to object to it is not objecting to the existence of Israel. Embassy's go in a nation's capital. Jerusalem is claimed by both sides and it's status is unresolved. By placing an embassy there, you are stating that you recognize it as Israel's capital. It has nothing to do with the recognition of Israel's right to exist unless you think every country with an embassy in Tel Aviv feels Israel doesn't have the right to exist.

Yes it will and then you will see the real fighting as the arab muslims find they cant travel freely between nations any more. The attacks on Jews will be stopped and the arab muslims will once again whinge about having their terrorist attacks nulled out.

The problem is the capital of the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians has always been Ramallah, and Jerusalem was just a tool to upset the Jews. So divide Jerusalem and watch the temple mount day and night, once weapons are cached up there show the evidence to the UN and bomb the place flat. That would end the arab muslims claims to Jerusalem once and for all.