- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #41
A white supremacist and racist would recognize a "homeland" for Jews in Israel, yes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He didn't play the game correctly. He was supposed to feed the masses more bullshit. He didn't. He broke the bullshit protocol.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.
Huh, the libs were cheering their messiah for that.
Huh...
Now listen to them.
Because they all knew it was total bullshit.The issue passed the Senate 90-0.
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.
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
I have a tendency to break things down into common-speak. I should know better, especially here.
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?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.
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?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.
Normally, I would agree that compromise is the best solution.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.
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?
How can anyone be a balanced arbitrator when one side vows to destroy the other and refuses to say there will ever be peace?What's it to you lefties? Your life going to change because America recognizes a nations capital?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.
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.
Fact is before 1967 Jews were prohibited from even entering Jerusalem in violation of the UN.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.How can anyone be a balanced arbitrator when one side vows to destroy the other and refuses to say there will ever be peace?
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?
Yes, because, were you well informed on the matter, you'd know that genocide is not among the Palestinian demands.Disregard one sides call for genocide?
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.AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:
ISRAELIS:
- A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
- Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
- The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
- The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
- 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
- Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
- Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
- A demilitarized State of Palestine
- Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
- An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations
Huh, the libs were cheering their messiah for that.
Huh...
Now listen to them.
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:
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.AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:
ISRAELIS:
- A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
- Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
- The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
- The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
- 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
- Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
- Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
- A demilitarized State of Palestine
- Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
- An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations
[The enumerated requirements], even without the Jerusalem issue, is so far off that there is no hope for ever getting peace.
amen.Good Lord, this fuck is blaming Trump for following through with his promise.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.
If only all liberals would just fucking die already.
So what you are saying is that Israel is the only country in the world that unjustly imprisons fake terrorists.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:
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.AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:
ISRAELIS:
- A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
- Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
- The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
- The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
- 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
- Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
- Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
- A demilitarized State of Palestine
- Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
- An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations
[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.
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 meYour
Ya know, this is but just one reason why so many folks here think you’re an abject imbecile...Jewish vote started swinging Republican last year. Momentum now.
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:
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.AFAIK, the most recent concessions desired by the two sides are as follows:
PALESTINIANS:
ISRAELIS:
- A halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on land beyond the 1967 borders
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries
- Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
- The release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including those convicted of acts of terror
- The recognition of a right of return for all Palestinians living in the diaspora
- 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
- Sovereignty over Jerusalem, including the Old City
- Negotiated borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with land swaps taking into account the major West Bank settlement blocs
- Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
- A demilitarized State of Palestine
- Right of return for Palestinian refugees only to Palestine, not to Israel
- An assortment of other smaller issues, such as no unilateral moves vis-á-vis international organizations
[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.