Join the Bitchfest >>

Trump misses deadline over moving US embassy to Jerusalem

While I know this would be a huge thumb in the eye to Muslims and would make hardline Israelites happy (both bad things), it would piss off Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which seems like a good thing. Also, "a red line"? What more could they do that they haven't already? If they could have gotten rid of Israel by now, they would have.

----

Donald Trump appears to have missed a deadline for signing a waiver on a US law requiring its embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, in an act of brinkmanship over one of the Middle East’s most fraught issues.

According to diplomats and Palestinians officials, the original deadline was expected to have fallen on Friday at midnight and was pushed to Monday. That deadline passed without an announcement after a White House official said no action would be taken on Monday.

Amid mounting anxiety over Trump’s intentions, the US president was facing a growing chorus of warnings over potential repercussions over a unilateral US decision regarding Jerusalem’s status.

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described the status of Jerusalem as a “red line” for Muslims that could lead to a severing of relations with Israel, while the European Union warned of possible “serious repercussions”.

Saudi Arabia - which has been enjoying a discreet warming of relations with Israel – cautioned against taking any step that would “obstruct the ongoing efforts to revive the peace process”.

Some reports suggest Trump may reluctantly announce the signing of the waiver in the coming days, others that he may also announce that he plans to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The latter move would result in the Palestinian leadership “stopping contacts” with the US, a diplomatic adviser to President Mahmoud Abbas said .

White House says decision will be made in coming days, as Turkey warns that any change to city’s status would be a ‘red line’ for Muslims
the Guardian
--Anonymous
replies 39Dec 5, 2017 12:51 AM +00:00
--Anonymous
replies 1Dec 5, 2017 6:58 AM +00:00

Here's my theory:

Netanyahu: You can come here and I'll give you and Jared and Ivanka asylum. Just move the embassy to Jerusalem. No sane President of either party will ever do that, so you're my one chance.

(Trump does even more weird incriminating shit, and Netanyahu's contacts in Washington tell him Trump's about to go down hard).

Netanyahu: Never mind.

Trump: Well fuck you then!

--Anonymous
replies 2Dec 5, 2017 7:21 AM +00:00

lol r2. I could see that.

--Anonymous
replies 3Dec 5, 2017 7:21 AM +00:00

. [quote]No sane President of either party will ever do that, so you're my one chance.

Ohh please US Presidents have done far more outrageous things on the order of Israel and its lobby than moving embassy to Jerusalem

--Anonymous
replies 4Dec 5, 2017 7:52 AM +00:00
Trump's about to go down hard

You have been dreaming this from past 2 years . but nothing has happened yet ok. No problem in day dreaming though .

--Anonymous
replies 5Dec 5, 2017 7:55 AM +00:00
Trump misses deadline over moving US embassy to Jerusalem

Perhaps he spilled ketchup on his Daily Planner?

--I hate when that happens.
replies 6Dec 5, 2017 7:56 AM +00:00

The Donald's base hates all foreigners. It couldn't care less if Trump pisses them all off.

--Anonymous
replies 7Dec 5, 2017 8:09 AM +00:00
You have been dreaming this from past 2 years . but nothing has happened yet ok.

The capacity of some people for denial is awe inspiring.

Less than one year into his presidency and a special counsel has been appointed ALREADY. Plea bargains from the inner circle of the Trump campaign, in exchange for cooperation, have already been accepted by courts. Trump's bank accounts are currently being investigated. But keep singing that "nothing has happened" yet song, I guess!

Seems to me like a lot has happened, all pretty quickly.

--Anonymous
replies 8Dec 5, 2017 8:47 AM +00:00

By the way, "you have been dreaming this from past 2 years" -- how are things in Smolensk?

--Anonymous
replies 9Dec 5, 2017 8:49 AM +00:00

Dreamy, sounds like.

Or maybe it's such a nightmare, the only hope they have is that our dreams will become nightmares too.

--Dream on.
replies 10Dec 5, 2017 8:52 AM +00:00

Another broken campaign promise. How's that wall going that Mexico will pay for?

--Anonymous
replies 11Dec 5, 2017 9:13 AM +00:00

"Please stop saying you won't pay for the wall, wontcha Mexico? It's killing me here!"

--Donnie the Grifter
replies 12Dec 5, 2017 9:17 AM +00:00

He waived the wall for the tax breaks for himself.

Please, the worse lies are that he's gonna help the "average american" and the "coal miner". He's only interested in helping the I-Got-Miners.

--Anonymous
replies 13Dec 5, 2017 9:22 AM +00:00

Looks like this is happening. Outrage, outrage, outrage, distract, distract, distract!

President calls Abbas to announce break with decades of US diplomacy but Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as capital of future state
the Guardian
--Anonymous
replies 14Dec 5, 2017 9:35 AM +00:00

No one in this thread seems to know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that Trump has failed to move the embassy.

--Anonymous
replies 15Dec 5, 2017 10:02 AM +00:00

I hate Trump and this definitely is a distraction from the Russia stuff of which he is guilty, but I really hope he moves the embassy/recognizes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is long overdue.

Jerusalem became the capital of the Jewish people and their state for 3000 years. When the first kingdom was destroyed by the Babylonians, they quickly re-established it a second time. Then it was destroyed by the Romans, and the majority of the Jews were expelled and cast out into the diaspora.

It too a long time to re-establish Israel once again (2000 years) but the Jews never gave up. And even though they faced expulsions, inquisitions, slavery, pogroms, torture, and yes the Holocaust, they held onto their dream of re-establishing their national homeland, the only place where they are guaranteed freedom and independence.

They did in 1948. Jerusalem had NEVER been divided before then. But Jordan, (in a war trying to destroy Israel) illegally seized and divided half the city, and expelled every Jew from that half. Under Arab control, their was religious oppression. Jews were barred from their holiest sites, ancient synagogues destroyed, Christians were forced to teach the Quran in schools. When Israel won the war in 1967, they reunified that city. Today, under Israeli rule, there is complete religious freedom and pluralism. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have access to their sites, because the Jews respected more than the Muslims, what Jerusalem should represent.

It's their capital, we know it's their capital, and they have earned recognition. Basically, people say it's a bad idea because Palestinians will threaten terrorism and murder (proving only more that it is Israel that can be trusted with Jerusalem more).

--Anonymous
replies 16Dec 5, 2017 10:18 AM +00:00

^pretending no one other than Jews ever lived there,

I wonder how that Mosque got there....

--Anonymous
replies 17Dec 5, 2017 10:21 AM +00:00

It would literally cost millions of American tax dollars to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

--Anonymous
replies 18Dec 5, 2017 10:22 AM +00:00

R17, by building it on top of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism R17.

--Anonymous
replies 19Dec 5, 2017 10:25 AM +00:00

The famous Zionist quote, "A land without a people for a people without a land" was used to eradicate Palestine and displace millions of Palestinians, who aren't really people, right, R16/R19?

--R16 /R19 = Zionist Supremist
replies 20Dec 5, 2017 10:37 AM +00:00

R20, Of course the Palestinians are people. And they are people who I hope someday have a state of their own.

The Palestinians do not think Israel is legitimate country. While they claim they want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, most believe they can still eliminate Israel and not make peace with it.

Not recognizing the capital/moving the embassy reinforces for those Palestinians the idea that Israel is not a legitimate country. And because of that, they don't have to make peace with it. The embassy would be moved to a location in Jerusalem that is not up for dispute. It sends the message to the Palestinians that Israel is not going anywhere and has a legitimate claim to Jerusalem.

They have threatened terrorism for 70 years. And guess what, even without recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, they have still chosen terrorism and never made peace. They use the threat of terrorism to try and scare the United States from doing by law, what it is required to do, which is move the embassy. It's enough.

--Anonymous
replies 21Dec 5, 2017 10:51 AM +00:00

R16 = Matthew Anscher

--Anonymous
replies 22Dec 5, 2017 11:20 AM +00:00

Is that the "goyism is racism" troll R22? Sorry, not him.

--Anonymous
replies 23Dec 5, 2017 11:22 AM +00:00
[R20], Of course the Palestinians are people. And they are people who I hope someday have a state of their own.

... now that they've been booted off all the best land where they used to live.

The Palestinians do not think Israel is legitimate country. While they claim they want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, most believe they can still eliminate Israel and not make peace with it.

That's nonsense. There are many radicals in Palestine (gee, I can't imagine why), but there are many more practical people who just want to live their lives without the Israelis stealing from them any more and harassing them constantly. But they don't get that -- the Israelis steal from them and harass them constantly.

--Anonymous
replies 24Dec 5, 2017 11:24 AM +00:00

The Saudis are against it which means it will never happen.

--Anonymous
replies 25Dec 5, 2017 11:25 AM +00:00

"Jews and Arabs going at each other? And it only takes not signing something? What's not to love!"

--DJT
replies 26Dec 5, 2017 11:36 AM +00:00

I love it when people such as R16 use ancient history to justify their positions, and then get the history wrong.

Jerusalem was not Israel's first or only capital. Jerusalem became the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel under David (the second king of the united kingdom), but it split up again and Jerusalem was the capital of the Kingdom of Judah while the Northern Kingdom of Israel had a few different capitals. The claim to Jerusalem is not that it is Israel's one and only capital for thousands of years, but it is the religious significance of the city--the first temple, the symbol of the united kingdom (which didn't last very long by the way), the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, etc.

Archaeological records say Jerusalem first belonged to the Egyptians. The Old Testament (ironically) claims it was inhabited by Canaanites who were slaughtered or enslaved by invading Israeli tribes.

And yes, while the Babylonians did destroy Jerusalem when they conquered Judah, it was a Persian king, Cyrus the Great, who allowed Jews to return and rebuild it and retain an autonomous province in the empire. However, neither the borders of that province not any of the borders of the ancient kingdoms match the borders of what we now know as the State of Israel. And one of them match the borders of the promise God made to Abraham in Old Testament--those borders are about 10x larger and those extended areas have never been under Jewish control, ever.

The UN resolution that created the borders of the State of Israel is the result of decades of negotiations by several colonial powers. So the idea that Israel is somehow owed Jerusalem as its capital really doesn't make any sense.

Watch this video of the changes in that region over millennia and the absurdity of it all becomes obvious. While Jews (among others) absolutely have a RELIGIOUS claim to the city of Jerusalem, the insistence that they have a political claim to that city or that territory now is just that: politics. Muslims have a significant religious claim to it as well, as do Christians. That's why the compromise was made in the first place. It makes no sense politically to "give" a city with huge significance to 3 of the world's major religious to one of them when the act of creating a Jewish state was entirely political to begin with.

Israel map throughout history
YouTube
--Anonymous
replies 27Dec 5, 2017 12:24 PM +00:00

This is a very rough estimate of the borders of Israel as promised to Abraham. Again, the idea that any of this should be decided according to religious beliefs/practices/principles is absurd.

3.bp.blogspot.com
--Anonymous
replies 28Dec 5, 2017 12:28 PM +00:00

R27, Judaism is the religion of the Jews, but Jews are not just a religion. Christians are only a religious group, Muslims are only a religious group, but Jews are a nation, which sets them apart from the other 2 groups. And they are the only nation for whom Jerusalem was and is their capital.

--Anonymous
replies 29Dec 5, 2017 12:31 PM +00:00

What defines a nation is political, R29. Most of the borders in the Middle East are artificial--carved out by colonial powers. The Pan-Islamic movement regards Muslims as a nation, but they didn't have the political backing of Allied powers after WWII to create one giant State of Islam based on ancient borders and religious principles that included the forced removal of non-Muslims to make way if needed.

There were several Native American nations with their own governments, borders, capitals and the like. Yet no white person has ever been asked to give up anything to restore them, despite a genocide under a Constitution that still remains in effect. In fact, the opposite happened--despite what was supposed to be autonomy, THEY were forcibly removed. There are a slew of other examples around the world where a conquered and oppressed nation would love to restore their historic borders, but we'd scoff at the mere suggestion. Lots of Kurds want to be their own independent nation again, but no one is letting them.

The State of Israel was rightfully created as a necessary response to the Holocaust (among other historic atrocities) but the means and mechanics of it were highly problematic. Pouring gasoline on that fire by handing over Jerusalem makes no sense and has no justification politically.

--Anonymous
replies 30Dec 5, 2017 12:58 PM +00:00

This is blowing up on Twitter right now and has real potential to blow up in the world tomorrow. Cherish these (possibly last) moments of peace.

--Anonymous
replies 31Dec 5, 2017 1:07 PM +00:00

R30,

The notion that Israel was created in response to the Holocaust is a worn out lie. The Holocaust showed the NEED for Israel to exist, but not the right for it to exist. The re-establishment of Israel has been a movement that happened long before the Holocaust.

"For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation." - John Adams "[I believe in the] rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation."- John Quincy Adams Restoring the Jews to their national home is a “a noble dream and one shared by many Americans.”- Abraham Lincoln "It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist State around Jerusalem."- Teddy Roosevelt

There were Arabs in the land that is true. Most came in the result of the early 20th century when Jews began revitalizing the land and removing the swamps with malaria. The Arabs never had an independent nation in that land, they were always ruled by other powers- Ottomans, British, etc. The Jews were willing to share the land, the Arabs were not. The Arabs have rejected opportunities for statehood 7 times, more than Kurds, Tibetans, Assamese, Basques, Baloch or others. Why? Because they have never been driven by wanting a state, but wanting the Jews dead. You can't blame Israel for the bloody Hebron massacre in which Arabs killed the Jews of Hebron and cut off the breasts of the women. Israel wasn't even re-established yet.

It's gotten old. There was a war, Israel won. The Palestinian Arabs have refused to accept that and it has only caused them more unhappiness.

--Anonymous
replies 32Dec 5, 2017 1:12 PM +00:00

Didn't the Hebrews steal the land from the Caananites in the first place? I don't care if they claim God promised it to them or not, it's a disputed area and just a pile of rock. Historic rock, but rock nonetheless. And the same to the Islamic claims in the land. Israel won the war but according to the Geneva convention they are foreign occupiers. Why should the Geneva convention apply to everyone but them?

--Anonymous
replies 33Dec 5, 2017 1:16 PM +00:00

R32, don't even try and lecture me about history. I'm well aware of and well read up on the long historical Eretz Yisrael movement. When I said "The State of Israel was rightfully created as a necessary response to the Holocaust" that was MY opinion of the necessity of the actual 1948 creation of the State. And the re-establishment of Israel began as a mostly academic movement by a small minority of Jews that was co-opted as a POLITICAL strategy developed by colonial powers. The Brits took it on as a cause in order to get a foothold in the region, and it worked. The Brits got control of the region after WWI under the guise of carving out the Palestinian and Jewish states.

And you can stop with your inflammatory "the Arabs weren't willing to share the land" crap. The Arabs are no more selfish than the Americans who weren't/aren't willing to share with indigenous peoples. How many do you know who are willing to give up their house and community to restore Native American nation borders that existed hundreds of years before they were born? Not to mention that you can't honestly discuss the problems with the creation of the State OUTSIDE of the colonial context. For fuck's sake, you're talking about colonized peoples who were also fighting for their own independence. The hostility wasn't just about "sharing land"--the Zionist movement was linked to oppressive British rule in the minds of Palestinian Arabs. The Allies promised Arab independence if they revolted against the Turks in WWI. That promise was reneged, the region was divided among the Allied powers instead. At the same time, Zionists are moving in with British support and resources, and, to the eyes of the Arabs, are poised to take over. Between WWI and WWII, the British were absolutely stoking violence between Arabs and Jews to keep the region unstable and justify their extensive controI.

By the way, it wasn't Arabs who halted Jewish refugees trying to reach Palestine during the Holocaust, that was the Brits. Their rationale: oh, there's too much violence between the Arabs and Jews there and we need to appease those Arabs so they'll go along with our plan. Oh the fucking irony.

--R32
replies 34Dec 5, 2017 2:05 PM +00:00

R33, that's according to the Torah/Old Testament, but there's actually not much archaeological evidence of that.

--Anonymous
replies 35Dec 5, 2017 2:11 PM +00:00

R34, you prove my point.

You made the comparison with Native Americans and Americans from immigration. That is a good comparison. I know that it is weird for some people to see an indigenous nation re-establish their nation ( I believe the Jews are the only ones who have actually done it). It took 2000 years, but god dammit, they accomplished something no one else seems to. I deeply admire that. The Aztecs, the Babylonians, all of these ancient peoples disappeared. For some reason, the Jews were able to survive all this time and managed to regain independence. The difference is the land itself that the Jews settled in was mostly desert and swamps. They built on deserted desert or purchased land from Arabs who didn't want it. When they started changing the land into more of an agricultural miracle, the Arabs got angry and wanted that land back.

Britain (repulsively) limited Jewish immigration to appease the Arabs. (Let's not move more Jews to the land so the Arabs won't kill them). This decision condemned untold thousands if not millions of Jews to the gas chambers.

This is the exact same policy when it comes to Jerusalem. This is what the Arabs have always done. They threaten violence so the world caves and appeases them with decisions that are wrong. I have had it.

--Anonymous
replies 36Dec 5, 2017 2:19 PM +00:00

That's all right if he missed this deadline. He's got 7 more years.

--Anonymous
replies 37Dec 5, 2017 2:46 PM +00:00

Even their own leaders admit there has never been a people called "Palestininans:. They are simply Jordanians, syrians who moved to the territory renamed by the Romans in 135 AD as "palestine", former Judea.

If there had been, the'red be a language and culture and historical records.

"palestinian" common family names: Just like "Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti" born in "tikrit iraq" The family names(Nisbah ????) of Arabs who?? now occupy? judea...
YouTube
--Anonymous
replies 38Dec 5, 2017 2:58 PM +00:00

R36, no Native Americans have re-established their nations with the same or even similar borders, capitals or control in any way that's remotely comparable to what was done in the creation of modern Israel. There are no Cherokee reservations, for example, in Georgia.

And you're absolutely wrong (or lying) that the land Jews settled and built on was mostly desert and swamps. They were buying up land held and occupied by Arabs and by the British government at prices so exorbitant that the British actually had to intervene and regulate the market. That's also in the context of a huge problem of poor Arabs losing land to predatory creditors. So, AGAIN, in this context, you have relatively wealthy Jews coming in and buying up agrarian land (with money from an international fund created expressly for this purpose) with the express and actual support of an oppressive colonial power and forcing out poor oppressed people who have been there at this point for centuries. Despite all this, at the time of the establishment of the State, Jews owned less than 10% of the land and were less than 50% of the population. The larger settlements began in earnest AFTER the State was created, bolstered by laws that allowed the fund to buy up "absentee" land but also only allow Jews to buy, lease or occupy that land.

You're not bringing any facts to this discussion, only spewing propaganda.

en.wikipedia.org
--Anonymous
replies 39Dec 5, 2017 3:14 PM +00:00