Obama making promise that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

[JakeStarkey]

A white supremacist and racist would recognize a "homeland" for Jews in Israel, yes.

 

[whitehall]

Another promise Hussein never intended to keep. The media loved it at the time but strangely enough the media is critical of President Trump for actually going through with it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Another promise Hussein never intended to keep. The media loved it at the time but strangely enough the media is critical of President Trump for actually going through with it.

He didn't play the game correctly. He was supposed to feed the masses more bullshit. He didn't. He broke the bullshit protocol.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Huh, the libs were cheering their messiah for that.


Huh...

Now listen to them.

More deep state political bullshit.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The issue passed the Senate 90-0.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The issue passed the Senate 90-0.

Because they all knew it was total bullshit.



I really hate politicians.

 

[usmbguest5318]

TY for offering something immensely less ambiguous than your initial remark.

I have a tendency to break things down into common-speak. I should know better, especially here.

Those who enacted the Jerusalem law should have expected it to eventually happen. Trump may be doing this because he is a dumbass, but I would have done it to further reveal the bullshit we got from the Clintons, Bushes, and the like (AKA the establishment).

And, yes, I do believe it is worth the security risk to expose that shit. We are being robbed of resources by our own motherfucking government Is it wrong to interrupt a burglar in the act?

I do believe it is worth the security risk to expose that shit.

Absent knowing what specifically "that sh*t," by your conception, be, I can only say that in all likelihood there are myriad ways to expose "that sh*t" (???) without risking or indeed diminishing anyone's, particularly our people's, security and without diminishing our leadership stance, which in this instance is part and parcel to the U.S.' ability to be an apt intermediary in effecting solutions to various problems to which we are but one party. Quite simply, one cannot at once dissemble and expect to be trusted, yet in that unenviable position is exactly that where Trump's pronouncement (some pun intended; did you hear him make the announcement...) has placed the U.S. and its emissaries.

Also, if you respond to my remarks just above, would you please do it with the following in mind?

I have a tendency to break things down into common-speak. I should know better, especially here.

We are being robbed of resources by our own motherfucking government

What? Would you please explain what you see as the correlation between your assertion above and the following: recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and continuing the process of deferring the move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Also, if you do so, would you please do it with the following in mind?

I have a tendency to break things down into common-speak. I should know better, especially here.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What? Would you please explain what you see as the correlation between your assertion above and the following: recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and continuing the process of deferring the move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Do you know how much it costs to be a part of this "peace" charade? Do you know how much money we give BOTH sides? I bet if we pull all funding on both sides, this whole disagreement will magically go away. You know why?

Absent knowing what specifically "that sh*t," by your conception, be, I can only say that in all likelihood there are myriad ways to expose "that sh*t" (???) without risking or indeed diminishing anyone's, particularly our people's, security and without diminishing our leadership stance, which in this instance is part and parcel to the U.S.' ability to be an apt intermediary in effecting solutions to various problems to which we are but one party.

This was action taken by our government to make it appear as though we are making progress, but 20 years later, we're still giving a SHITTON of money to both sides and the "problem" persists. Do you know why?

I would bet that if we told them to just go ahead and fight it out, they would soon find peace. We're artificially delaying peace by interfering.

 

[J.E.D]

Fucking moron

You're diploma is showing lefty

Your

 

[usmbguest5318]

By disregarding "death to them all" attestations and proposing and offering specific conflict resolution solution options that deliver proportionately balanced and legally enforceable gains and losses to each side.

Normally, I would agree that compromise is the best solution.

But, this has been going on for how long? Mediation is over. The parties are at an impasse. It's time for war and a decisive victor, and we should get the fuck out of the way and let it happen.

Normally, I would agree that compromise is the best solution.

But, this has been going on for how long?

Well, for as long as negotiations have been going on, what exactly that reasonable (i.e., not the ones who insist on nothing other the obliteration of Israel and Jews) Palestinians want and that Israel can deliver has been proffered and agreed to in both letter and spirit?

AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:

PALESTINIANS:

1. A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
3. Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
4. The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
5. The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
6. A series of smaller, specific issues, such as permission to build an airport in the Ramallah district and the right to issue visas as part of a tourism initiative

ISRAELIS:

1. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
3. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
4. A demilitarized State of Palestine
5. Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
6. An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations

As you can see, if there is to be a two-state solution, the status of Jerusalem is mutually exclusive. Trump's proclamation necessarily throws that point, as far as the U.S. is concerned, to Israel. In making that decision while garnering from Israel no concession on any two of the Palestinians' other requirements, Trump disabused all parties involved (directly and indirectly) of any notions that the U.S. is interested in an equitable solution.

In and of itself, it matters not to me which group gets Jerusalem. What matters to me is the process of effecting peace. Insofar as Trump, POTUS of Israel's greatest defender (literally as well as figuratively), unilaterally granted the Jerusalem point to Israel, thus in effect forcing Palestinians to make that concession, the right thing to do would have been to acknowledge unilaterally one of the Palestinians' requirements other than the one about the 1967 borders. (That one already is substantively agreed upon by both sides.) The problem, of course, is that the U.S. has no authority and insufficient influence to effect anything other than recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of one or the other of the two sides.

Some time back, Trump attested to his indifference for a one or two state solution. His action has given the lie to that attestation. With the U.S. having acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the prospects for a two-state solution are greatly diminished; moreover, AFAIK, neither side wants a one-state solution, which isn't surprising and which is a good thing insofar as both are dogma-driven polities/cultures that, at this juncture, have no more business being politically and governmentally conjoined than do fire and ice.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No idiot, he is just pointing out that, as usual, Trump the Moron is completely unable to assimilate or understand any new information presented to him, which was apparently a basic trait possessed by even the most incompetent Presidents before him.

What's it to you lefties? Your life going to change because America recognizes a nations capital?
Just driven by your racial hatred of Jews is all.

Your life going to change because America recognizes a nations capital?

There's no way to be absolutely sure. Who thought Gavrilo Princip would effect a war? What's certain is that the most contentious and potentially destabilizing and certainly polarizing things about the Middle East are Israeli-Palestinian enmity and the resulting discord.

A material impact of Trump's move -- and especially the terms by which he conducted it, gives the lie to any notions one may have had that Trump, thus the U.S., has any desire to be a balanced arbiter and fomenter of peace between the two antagonists -- is that it disabuses Palestinians of their key diplomatic lever, thus pushing them into a corner as goes the prospects of they and Israelis conducting and arriving at an equitable peace solution. People are like every other creature: when pushed into a corner, they don't run; they don't hide; they bite.

And what does the U.S. get as a result of moving its embassy to the newly recognized Jerusalem capital? Nothing.

How can anyone be a balanced arbitrator when one side vows to destroy the other and refuses to say there will ever be peace?
Fact is before 1967 Jews were prohibited from even entering Jerusalem in violation of the UN.

How can anyone be a balanced arbitrator when one side vows to destroy the other and refuses to say there will ever be peace?

By disregarding "death to them all" attestations and proposing and offering specific conflict resolution solution options that deliver proportionately balanced and legally enforceable gains and losses to each side.

Disregard one sides call for genocide? You're thick as a brick.
Palestinians have stated they do not want peace while one Jew lives in the region. You can disregard all you want, but that is a show stopper for any peace process.

This has the left tied in knots. Trump has been painted that he’s a white supremacist and racist. What type of white supremacist or racist would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel strengthening the Jewish homeland?

Disregard one sides call for genocide?

Yes, because, were you well informed on the matter, you'd know that genocide is not among the Palestinian demands.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I hear you. It took an issue off the table at the expense of the Palestinians and left them in a weaker negotiating position, but this:

AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:

1. A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
3. Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
4. The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
5. The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
6. A series of smaller, specific issues, such as permission to build an airport in the Ramallah district and the right to issue visas as part of a tourism initiative

ISRAELIS:

1. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
3. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
4. A demilitarized State of Palestine
5. Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
6. An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations

even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace. This is the very definition of an impasse.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The more I think about it, I believe I am seeing some reason in Trump's move (or maybe he is just blindly finding a nut, who knows?).

The Palestinians will NEVER agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, nor would they agree to a demilitarized Palestinian State. But, if the Jews got Jerusalem, they MUST give on those two points.

MAYBE, this was a move to break the stalemate?

 

[Aletheia4u]

Huh, the libs were cheering their messiah for that.


Huh...

Now listen to them.

They are lost sheep without a shepherd. They always looking for someone to lead them. They cannot think for themselves. They need someone to do the thinking for them, and probably needs someone to wipe their bottoms.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I hear you. It took an issue off the table at the expense of the Palestinians and left them in a weaker negotiating position, but this:

AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:

1. A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
3. Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
4. The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
5. The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
6. A series of smaller, specific issues, such as permission to build an airport in the Ramallah district and the right to issue visas as part of a tourism initiative

ISRAELIS:

1. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
3. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
4. A demilitarized State of Palestine
5. Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
6. An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations

even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace. This is the very definition of an impasse.

[The enumerated requirements], even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace.

Well, I'm neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish. As such, I don't have the historic, political, emotional, religious or ideological baggage those folks do. Accordingly, much of what's clear in the first five requirements, save for the Jerusalem pair, seems quite reasonable to me. The Jerusalem one isn't reasonable because it's mutually exclusive; it forces a "winner and loser" outcome rather than a "win-win" outcome.

Admittedly, releasing convicted terrorists is a bit too much to expect; however, I suspect there are a number of "convicted terrorists," that is, folks who are imprisoned as terrorists yet who are instead guilty of no such thing. (I don't think that about terrorists jailed for terrorism in every country, but I do think that there are some hyperbolically charged and convicted folks, Palestinians, thus incarcerated in Israel.) People who are, in effect, political (verbal, if you will) rather than physical (people who blew up things, shot people, etc.) terrorists should be released.

As goes the sixth point, beyond the two noted terms, I don't know all the detailed elements that both sides have indicated they desire. It's certainly possible that there are some unreasonable expectations (on both sides) in "Group 6" of the requirements.

 

[koshergrl]

Every POTUS since the passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 has semiannually signed a waiver, citing security concerns, whereby the U.S. refrained from acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Additionally, Clinton chided Bush I for not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Bush II chided Clinton. Obama chided neither but merely asserted that he'd see the embassy moved and Jerusalem recognized as the capital. (Source)

IMO, using the matter of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital was a political talking point made either in full awareness that they weren't going to actually follow through or made sincerely while the candidates were in a state of ignorance with regard to the full set of factors involved.

Trump, in what is par for the course with him, is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Though he's proclaimed that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital and move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, yet, according to Fox News, he's also going to continue signing the very same waivers Clinton, Bush II and Obama signed, thereby keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv. It remains to be seen whether he orders that the scope of under-construction consulate in Jerusalem be expanded to make it the new embassy.

Good Lord, this fuck is blaming Trump for following through with his promise.

If only all liberals would just fucking die already.

amen.

 

[koshergrl]

I hear you. It took an issue off the table at the expense of the Palestinians and left them in a weaker negotiating position, but this:

AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:

1. A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
3. Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
4. The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
5. The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
6. A series of smaller, specific issues, such as permission to build an airport in the Ramallah district and the right to issue visas as part of a tourism initiative

ISRAELIS:

1. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
3. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
4. A demilitarized State of Palestine
5. Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
6. An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations

even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace. This is the very definition of an impasse.

[The enumerated requirements], even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace.

Well, I'm neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish. As such, I don't have the historic, political, emotional, religious or ideological baggage those folks do. Accordingly, much of what's clear in the first five requirements, save for the Jerusalem pair, seems quite reasonable to me. The Jerusalem one isn't reasonable because it's mutually exclusive; it forces a "winner and loser" outcome rather than a "win-win" outcome.

Admittedly, releasing convicted terrorists is a bit too much to expect; however, I suspect there are a number of "convicted terrorists," that is, folks who are imprisoned as terrorists yet who are instead guilty of no such thing. (I don't think that about terrorists jailed for terrorism in every country, but I do think that there are some hyperbolically charged and convicted folks, Palestinians, thus incarcerated in Israel.) People who are, in effect, political (verbal, if you will) rather than physical (people who blew up things, shot people, etc.) terrorists should be released.

As goes the sixth point, beyond the two noted terms, I don't know all the detailed elements that both sides have indicated they desire. It's certainly possible that there are some unreasonable expectations (on both sides) in "Group 6" of the requirements.

So what you are saying is that Israel is the only country in the world that unjustly imprisons fake terrorists.

Nauseating and abject display.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Your

saw that after I posted...thought for sure I would be riddled with derision ...touche, kudos to you and a pox on my house for allowing my lazy nature to expose me

 

[Faun]

Jewish vote started swinging Republican last year. Momentum now.

Ya know, this is but just one reason why so many folks here think you’re an abject imbecile...

Obama: 69%
Romney: 30%

Clinton: 71%
Trump: 23%

 

[usmbguest5318]

I hear you. It took an issue off the table at the expense of the Palestinians and left them in a weaker negotiating position, but this:

AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:

1. A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
3. Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
4. The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
5. The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
6. A series of smaller, specific issues, such as permission to build an airport in the Ramallah district and the right to issue visas as part of a tourism initiative

ISRAELIS:

1. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
2. Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
3. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
4. A demilitarized State of Palestine
5. Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
6. An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations

even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace. This is the very definition of an impasse.

[The enumerated requirements], even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace.

Well, I'm neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish. As such, I don't have the historic, political, emotional, religious or ideological baggage those folks do. Accordingly, much of what's clear in the first five requirements, save for the Jerusalem pair, seems quite reasonable to me. The Jerusalem one isn't reasonable because it's mutually exclusive; it forces a "winner and loser" outcome rather than a "win-win" outcome.

Admittedly, releasing convicted terrorists is a bit too much to expect; however, I suspect there are a number of "convicted terrorists," that is, folks who are imprisoned as terrorists yet who are instead guilty of no such thing. (I don't think that about terrorists jailed for terrorism in every country, but I do think that there are some hyperbolically charged and convicted folks, Palestinians, thus incarcerated in Israel.) People who are, in effect, political (verbal, if you will) rather than physical (people who blew up things, shot people, etc.) terrorists should be released.

As goes the sixth point, beyond the two noted terms, I don't know all the detailed elements that both sides have indicated they desire. It's certainly possible that there are some unreasonable expectations (on both sides) in "Group 6" of the requirements.

So what you are saying is that Israel is the only country in the world that unjustly imprisons fake terrorists.

Nauseating and abject display.

Why TF would you infer that from what I wrote?

Please do us both a favor and add me to your ignore list.

I ask that of you because I know that in my writing, every word and punctuation mark and organizational structure attribute (absent typos) matters if a reader is to fully comprehend what I write, and I know from your emboldened statement above that you either cannot or simply don't (I have no idea of which) incorporate every word and punctuation mark into your distillation of what you read that I wrote. I don't mind that you don't closely read and interpret what I write; I mind that you don't closely read and interpret what I write and then proceed to post your ill considered notions of what I wrote, thereby obliging me to respond to such drivel.

FWIW, I'm according to you the same favor I'm asking of you. Consequently, you need not, for my edification, answer the question I posted at the outset of this post.