Jump to content

US Potentially Moving Embassy To Jerusalem


Soxbadger

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kushner bets he can have it both ways on Jerusalem move

The presidential son-in-law, whose influence has waned since John Kelly arrived, believes recognizing the Israeli capital won’t threaten his peace deal.

 

 

From Kushner’s perspective, according to people familiar with his thinking, the hope was that the announcement would fulfill a long-standing promise but do little damage to the relationships he has forged with players in the Middle East, like the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman, widely referred to as “MBS.”

 

“I think [Trump] and Jared figure that after all the posturing and a few days of riots, things go back to normal when it comes to the negotiations,” said a person close to the administration.

 

Failson real estate developers with no idea what they're doing igniting a powder keg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first I thought the common thought of "well crap, people are gonna get pissed over there, there goes a chance at peace."

 

There will never be peace. There will always be pissed off Palestinians pissed off about Israel's existence, and rightfully so. So maybe this move is a good thing. It does SOMETHING. It says "This site is not holy to you, we're taking it. So let's not fight over Jerusalem anymore." Letting everyone have their holy lands is a good place to start.

 

And f*** the UN and their meeting and thinking another 100 years of nothing would do something.

 

We'll see how this plays out. There will be initial rioting and unrest and hopefully not many people get hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What "good deals" has Trump actually negotiated so far?

 

For someone who argued that his business background was one of his key advantages as a candidate, there's almost no evidence to support this.

 

No bilateral trade agreements, for example. TPP up in smoke.

NAFTA? Mexico and Canada aren't giving in to US demands.

North Korea?

Iran?

ISIS?

Syria/Russia/Assad?

Lowering prescription drug costs or getting insurance companies to take a lesser profit?

 

Now we're almost deliberately setting the entire Middle East on fire...along with our travel ban being enforced, finally.

And you can guarantee Trump won't take responsibility for a single death that this policy reversal is going to bring about.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 6, 2017 -> 10:23 PM)
At first I thought the common thought of "well crap, people are gonna get pissed over there, there goes a chance at peace."

 

There will never be peace. There will always be pissed off Palestinians pissed off about Israel's existence, and rightfully so. So maybe this move is a good thing. It does SOMETHING. It says "This site is not holy to you, we're taking it. So let's not fight over Jerusalem anymore." Letting everyone have their holy lands is a good place to start.

 

And f*** the UN and their meeting and thinking another 100 years of nothing would do something.

 

We'll see how this plays out. There will be initial rioting and unrest and hopefully not many people get hurt.

 

 

Where the old temple was is considered the 3rd holiest site in the Muslim religion.

 

So it's simply inaccurate to say it's not holy to them. But it would be fair to say it's much more holy to Jewish people.

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 12:04 AM)
Where the old temple was is considered the 3rd holiest site in the Muslim religion.

 

So it's simply inaccurate to say it's not holy to them. But it would be fair to say it's much more holy to Jewish people.

 

Which of course, the UN ruled it not a holy site for Jews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 02:25 PM)
If this would cause so much upheaval, why would this unanimously be voted on by the Senate? Genuinely curious.

 

Political games. They can home to their base and say "We did it!" and then pass the buck onto the President to sign the waiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 02:25 PM)
If this would cause so much upheaval, why would this unanimously be voted on by the Senate? Genuinely curious.

Because the waiver keeps getting exercised over and over and you dont want to be the one senator who "loves muslims"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 02:32 PM)
Full disclosure: I know next to nothing about this situation. But Israel owning most of Congress probably has something to do with it.

 

You got this way backwards.

 

Evangelicals, Sheldon Aldeson etc have way more influence than Israel. Sheldon Adelson allegedly spent about $200 million to support Republican candidates. One of his biggest issues is Israel.

 

Rich people drive policy, not countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 03:53 PM)
Because Sheldon Adelson is the reason 90 senators voted one way. It seems you have things backwards.

 

Actually I listed multiple reasons.

 

 

How can Israel "own" congress?

 

(edit)

 

To go back to the multiple reasons. There are very different reasons why people support Israel in congress. Some support it due to their Evangelical base, some support it because they receive large donations, some support it because it is personal to them. Or as Rock pointed out, nobody wants to run as the candidate who supports "terrorists."

 

 

 

 

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 04:43 PM)
The Israeli lobby has a significant effect on American foreign policy. I thought that was common knowledge.

 

What specific lobby are you talking about. There is no lobby that is supported by the state of "Israel", there are different lobbies that support Israel that receive donations from Americans. Are you talking AIPAC, Christians United for Israel, or IAC?

 

One of IAC's biggest supporters is Adelson.

 

Which is why I brought up Adelson, because IAC has been pretty active with Trump/Haley and other people who were at the forefront of this decision. And it seems to be a change of policy from when AIPAC was the main donor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 06:09 PM)
The Kochs, Mercers and Adelsons all pull in different directions.

 

Fwiw, this was passed all the way back in 1995, when Bill Clinton was president. It's just that they haven't thought it was beneficial to the peace process to go forward with the actual physical move.

 

Im not sure the Mercers or Kochs are involved in these pacs. There isnt a good way to see donor lists, but I seriously doubt Koch brothers are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 7, 2017 -> 07:45 PM)
"The boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely."

 

Why do you write coded messages instead of owning the theories of Mearsheimer and Walt.

 

I figured you knew I remembered your previous Rothschild posts, and you could have realized the implication of my Koch brother comment as they invited the authors to speak.

 

In my opinion they already had a conclusion and used selective facts to support it. So put me in the Chomsky and Joseph Massad critique side, as compared to the David Duke support.

 

Not the first time you've dabbled in peddling theories that some may consider anti-Semitic.

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...