Defying warnings of unrest, Trump recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[White Christmas13]

7 hours ago, PatOngo said:

The "Wall" is making great progress since it started on day 1 of his presidency! And who's gonna pay for it.........?  

Well actually the wall cost nothing apart from shifting the reminds from the old Berlin wall over to the US

[Jingthing]

 
Because this bit of hyperbole you posted is exactly the same?
I'm not saying that it was just "a matter of doing something/anythingwhr different".

You got me.
You never know when the Spanish Inquisition will arrive.
I mean the Hyperbole Police.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[Sir Dude]

Maybe Trump is just shaking things up to focus minds and get everyone's attention back on this problem. And, well, it's not as if the status quo has been a resounding success with any tangible progress in the last decade or so. Arafat and Ehud Barak should have bitten-the-bullet and sealed this under the Clinton presidency a long time ago. Sometimes when I read about this problem it almost appears as if the two belligerents in this discourse don't want to make peace ultimately. As has been mentioned, a congressional law was passed long ago on this move and then continually postponed so Trump is hardly doing anything new...just reiterating what already was the case and then signing the waver himself. No big deal really. 

[KKr]

On 12/7/2017 at 6:21 AM, Thorgal said:

 

Judaism also doesn't allow to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of a Jewish state.

 

 

Could you kindly enlighten the uninformed and share the source of that information, or otherwise kindly correct it ?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Maybe Trump is just shaking things up to focus minds and get everyone's attention back on this problem. And, well, it's not as if the status quo has been a resounding success with any tangible progress in the last decade or so. Arafat and Ehud Barak should have bitten-the-bullet and sealed this under the Clinton presidency a long time ago. Sometimes when I read about this problem it almost appears as if the two belligerents in this discourse don't want to make peace ultimately. As has been mentioned, a congressional law was passed long ago on this move and then continually postponed so Trump is hardly doing anything new...just reiterating what already was the case and then signing the waver himself. No big deal really. 

 

Well, "focus minds" is probably not one of them things most people associate with Trump.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Maybe Trump is just shaking things up to focus minds and get everyone's attention back on this problem. And, well, it's not as if the status quo has been a resounding success with any tangible progress in the last decade or so. Arafat and Ehud Barak should have bitten-the-bullet and sealed this under the Clinton presidency a long time ago. Sometimes when I read about this problem it almost appears as if the two belligerents in this discourse don't want to make peace ultimately. As has been mentioned, a congressional law was passed long ago on this move and then continually postponed so Trump is hardly doing anything new...just reiterating what already was the case and then signing the waver himself. No big deal really. 

But it is a big deal, as Trump was warned by his domestic advisers and world leaders. Despite that he still did it needlessly.

 

Why couldn't he have given the upcoming peace talks a chance, and made his embassy/recognition move later.

 

Looks like he may have wrecked negotiations just to please his fan base. Dumb, or maybe that was his intention all along, so he can now blame others for his failure.

[ilostmypassword]

Actually, something very good may have come out of Trump's declaration.  

Did Trump Kill Off a Two-State Solution? He Says No, Palestinians Say Yes

"President Trump, in formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on Wednesday, declared that the United States still supported a two-state solution to settle the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, provided it was “agreed to by both sides.”

For the first time in his 26 years as a peacemaker, the chief negotiator for the Palestinians did not agree...

He embraced a radical shift in the P.L.O.’s goals — to a single state, but with Palestinians enjoying the same civil rights as Israelis, including the vote."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/politics/trump-jerusalem-palestinians.html?

 

  And I don't think that Netanyahu and company ever really wanted a 2 state solution. But what they don't want even more is a 1 state solution.. What they want is the present indefinite situation to continue, well, indefinitely. That way they could go on expanding in the West Bank and keep on making it less and less likely that the Palestinians could have a viable state without ever giving them recourse to genuine empowerment. I've thought for a long time that the 1state solution is the correct course for the Palestinians. And I'm sure that the Israelis are not happy about this change of heart. It's early days yet, and the Palestinians could waffle for a while, but it seems inevitable that ultimately this is the solution they will strive for.

[Thorgal]

Could you kindly enlighten the uninformed and share the source of that information, or otherwise kindly correct it ?

From Bible and Torah:

http://www.truetorahjews.org/qanda/source1


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, KKr said:

Could you kindly enlighten the uninformed and share the source of that information, or otherwise kindly correct it ?

I didnt post it , but he could mean that some Orthodox Jews believe that Israel will only become a Country when the Messiah comes and creates it and therefore they do not recognise the current Israeli state as being legitimate .

[rudi49jr]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Why couldn't he have given the upcoming peace talks a chance,

Because Trump really doesn't give a damn, that's why. He just sits there in the WH playing with his twitter and watching Faux News talk him up. He doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to foreign affairs and he's just winging it.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

From Bible and Torah:

http://www.truetorahjews.org/qanda/source1


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Apparently you believe that these people wield the same theological authority in respect to Judaism as the Pope does in respect to Catholicism.

I've got news for you: they don't.

Edited December 8, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[VocalNeal]

One has to laugh at all this? Supposed to be America first and yet it is Trump first. 

 

Now all Americans who where supposed to be first have been issued a world wide travel advisory!

[sanemax]

17 minutes ago, dexterm said:

But it is a big deal, as Trump was warned by his domestic advisers and world leaders. Despite that he still did it needlessly.

Why couldn't he have given the upcoming peace talks a chance, and made his embassy/recognition move later.

Looks like he may have wrecked negotiations just to please his fan base. Dumb, or maybe that was his intention all along, so he can now blame others for his failure.

The USA stated 20 years ago that it would move their Embassy to Jerusalem , but they held back and waited for peace talks to come to a solution .

   That didnt happen , and it doesnt look likely in the future .

Donald got tired of waiting and made the move happen

[sanuk711]

Hollywood have been quick to cash in on the announcement that Jerusalem will become Israel's new capital.

.

Return of the rabbi will begin filming soon...................

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, something very good may have come out of Trump's declaration.  

Did Trump Kill Off a Two-State Solution? He Says No, Palestinians Say Yes

"President Trump, in formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on Wednesday, declared that the United States still supported a two-state solution to settle the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, provided it was “agreed to by both sides.”

For the first time in his 26 years as a peacemaker, the chief negotiator for the Palestinians did not agree...

He embraced a radical shift in the P.L.O.’s goals — to a single state, but with Palestinians enjoying the same civil rights as Israelis, including the vote."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/politics/trump-jerusalem-palestinians.html?

 

  And I don't think that Netanyahu and company ever really wanted a 2 state solution. But what they don't want even more is a 1 state solution.. What they want is the present indefinite situation to continue, well, indefinitely. That way they could go on expanding in the West Bank and keep on making it less and less likely that the Palestinians could have a viable state without ever giving them recourse to genuine empowerment. I've thought for a long time that the 1state solution is the correct course for the Palestinians. And I'm sure that the Israelis are not happy about this change of heart. It's early days yet, and the Palestinians could waffle for a while, but it seems inevitable that ultimately this is the solution they will strive for.

 

Netanyahu and his coalition partners are not interested in a two-state solution, at least not in any meaningful way. And yes, they are all for a continuation of the current state of things, with ongoing incremental changes fitting their world view. At the same time, none of them offers any reasonable comment (let alone a real solution) as to how to actually address them millions of elephants in the room - the Palestinians.

 

As for the Palestinians having a change of heart, or actually changing course - allow me to be skeptical. This would require a total shift of policy and rhetoric which have been in place for decades. It goes against current diplomatic efforts and achievements, and would imply quite a few Palestinian leaders losing their privileged status. Would the Palestinians let go of their national independence dream? The violent struggle ethos? Could this sort of movement, if it actually emerge, keep it's course? Very doubtful. Much of the commentary in the article linked seems in line  with these doubts.

 

Even if the Palestinian leadership decides on such a shift, and even if the Palestinian public responds en masse, it will be  years before it takes root.

 

I don't think that referencing civil rights movements and struggles without addressing regional, religious and political aspects of the case in hand gives much of an accurate picture. It does play well for PR purposes, that's for sure.

[Morch]

50 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

From Bible and Torah:

http://www.truetorahjews.org/qanda/source1


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

And you imagine this to be an authoritative, unified point of view?

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Netanyahu and his coalition partners are not interested in a two-state solution, at least not in any meaningful way. And yes, they are all for a continuation of the current state of things, with ongoing incremental changes fitting their world view. At the same time, none of them offers any reasonable comment (let alone a real solution) as to how to actually address them millions of elephants in the room - the Palestinians.

 

As for the Palestinians having a change of heart, or actually changing course - allow me to be skeptical. This would require a total shift of policy and rhetoric which have been in place for decades. It goes against current diplomatic efforts and achievements, and would imply quite a few Palestinian leaders losing their privileged status. Would the Palestinians let go of their national independence dream? The violent struggle ethos? Could this sort of movement, if it actually emerge, keep it's course? Very doubtful. Much of the commentary in the article linked seems in line  with these doubts.

 

Even if the Palestinian leadership decides on such a shift, and even if the Palestinian public responds en masse, it will be  years before it takes root.

 

I don't think that referencing civil rights movements and struggles without addressing regional, religious and political aspects of the case in hand gives much of an accurate picture. It does play well for PR purposes, that's for sure.

I think it's the beginning (well, not quite, it's been bruited before)  of a shift in attitudes. It will take the current generation of leaders to be disappear one way or another from the scene for it to gain primacy. 

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Netanyahu and his coalition partners are not interested in a two-state solution, at least not in any meaningful way. And yes, they are all for a continuation of the current state of things, with ongoing incremental changes fitting their world view. At the same time, none of them offers any reasonable comment (let alone a real solution) as to how to actually address them millions of elephants in the room - the Palestinians.

 

As for the Palestinians having a change of heart, or actually changing course - allow me to be skeptical. This would require a total shift of policy and rhetoric which have been in place for decades. It goes against current diplomatic efforts and achievements, and would imply quite a few Palestinian leaders losing their privileged status. Would the Palestinians let go of their national independence dream? The violent struggle ethos? Could this sort of movement, if it actually emerge, keep it's course? Very doubtful. Much of the commentary in the article linked seems in line  with these doubts.

 

Even if the Palestinian leadership decides on such a shift, and even if the Palestinian public responds en masse, it will be  years before it takes root.

 

I don't think that referencing civil rights movements and struggles without addressing regional, religious and political aspects of the case in hand gives much of an accurate picture. It does play well for PR purposes, that's for sure.

You make some good points. But Abbas is in his 80s. New leaders will emerge.

 

Sometimes civil rights struggles take years; sometimes the wall falls overnight.

 

The seed of a one state solution with equal rights for all has now been planted. With the possible demise of a two state solution thanks to Donald's big mouth, the seed of an idea may take root and grow as the only possible/ practical solution. Lots of security, reconciliation, rebuilding social fabric issues..difficult but not insurmountable. But that's what we pay politicians for.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think it's the beginning (well, not quite, it's been bruited before)  of a shift in attitudes. It will take the current generation of leaders to be disappear one way or another from the scene for it to gain primacy. 

 

I think you are extremely optimistic with regard to time frames applicable to such a change, or it being just a matter relating to leadership. And that's without even allowing for circumstances and conditions being far from static on other, sometimes competing, trends as well.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

You make some good points. But Abbas is in his 80s. New leaders will emerge.

 

Sometimes civil rights struggles take years; sometimes the wall falls overnight.

 

The seed of a one state solution with equal rights for all has now been planted. With the possible demise of a two state solution thanks to Donald's big mouth, the seed of an idea may take root and grow as the only possible/ practical solution. Lots of security, reconciliation, rebuilding social fabric issues..difficult but not insurmountable. But that's what we pay politicians for.

 

New leaders will not necessarily subscribe to the point of view offered, nor is it certain that they will enjoy wide popular or international support. New leaders will not necessarily operate under the same political conditions existing today.

 

Civil rights struggles, as a rule, do not achieve things overnight. That some dramatic change happens is usually the result of a lengthy process. And as you're bound to ignore it, let me spell things out for you - them many years are not fun fun fun.

 

There is nothing that recommends this as viable or even a preferred solution. Nada. There is nothing in your posts which suggests how or why. There's nothing which explains how, out of all the conflicts in the world, applying your brand of faux multiculturalism to this one would bear would bear positive results. As for "practical", that would be the element missing from any of your posts on these matters. .

 

All them announcements about the death or demise of the two-state solution, the peace process or negotiations is just the expected political talk. Comes up every time some unfavorable statement/decision/move is on. Taking it at face value is, as is often said in Thailand - "up to you".

[Thorgal]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And you imagine this to be an authoritative, unified point of view?

Would love to hear how you can claim to take Jerusalem as "Eternal Capital" without adhering to basic Judaism principles? As pointed out previously it's not a religious motivation.

 

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Would love to hear how you can claim to take Jerusalem as "Eternal Capital" without adhering to basic Judaism principles? As pointed out previously it's not a religious motivation.

 

 

 

I am not making any such claims. As pointed out previously, you seem to imagine that the bits your quote represent some authoritative ruling which all schools and views in Judaism adhere to.

[Watchful]

Sorry to disappoint all of the Trump haters on TV, but many Dems support Trump's decision.

 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Trump-s-actions-on-Jerusalem-come-with-12414559.php

 

Even Schumer, Senate minority leader, encouraged Trump to do this.  

 

So terribly, terribly sorry that life is more complicated than the simple minded Trump haters would make you believe,

[craigt3365]

36 minutes ago, Watchful said:

Sorry to disappoint all of the Trump haters on TV, but many Dems support Trump's decision.

 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Trump-s-actions-on-Jerusalem-come-with-12414559.php

 

Even Schumer, Senate minority leader, encouraged Trump to do this.  

 

So terribly, terribly sorry that life is more complicated than the simple minded Trump haters would make you believe,

Trump haters come from both sides of the isle.  Sorry to disappoint the Trump lovers, but even many Republicans hate Trump.

 

Keep UP!

 

[Watchful]

17 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Trump haters come from both sides of the isle.  Sorry to disappoint the Trump lovers, but even many Republicans hate Trump.

 

Keep UP!

 

Yes, that's true, but Trump lovers come from both sides as well.

 

Without Dems voting for Trump he would not be president.

 

As for the Trump haters in the GOP, Cooker and Flake are not seeking reelection.  They both know they would NOT survive a primary challenge.

 

The balance of the GOP is pretty much getting on board. The tax cuts will provide tax relief to over 75% of taxpayers. Losers will be upper middle class and wealthy in the high tax states that pretty much vote Democratic.

 

Problem for the GOP will be Roy Moore, but I heard tonight there are 20 to 30 members in Congress being investigated for sexual harassment. If true, this is a mess for both parties.  Further, after supporting Clinton and Ted Kennedy, the Dems can't really claim the moral high ground. 

[craigt3365]

15 hours ago, Watchful said:

Yes, that's true, but Trump lovers come from both sides as well.

 

Without Dems voting for Trump he would not be president.

 

As for the Trump haters in the GOP, Cooker and Flake are not seeking reelection.  They both know they would NOT survive a primary challenge.

 

The balance of the GOP is pretty much getting on board. The tax cuts will provide tax relief to over 75% of taxpayers. Losers will be upper middle class and wealthy in the high tax states that pretty much vote Democratic.

 

Problem for the GOP will be Roy Moore, but I heard tonight there are 20 to 30 members in Congress being investigated for sexual harassment. If true, this is a mess for both parties.  Further, after supporting Clinton and Ted Kennedy, the Dems can't really claim the moral high ground. 

Amazing some still buy into Trump's BS.  This isn't about Dems vs. Republicans. 

[KKr]

On 12/8/2017 at 10:42 AM, sanemax said:

I didnt post it , but he could mean that some Orthodox Jews believe that Israel will only become a Country when the Messiah comes and creates it and therefore they do not recognise the current Israeli state as being legitimate .

thank you for posting that summary, while I still was trying to understand the relevance of the link to the truetorahnews website.
Their point of view is an interesting one though and worth reading, and since it is a strict interpretation of one of the oldest books, could possibly be considered by Christians and Muslims alike as a guideline for those that are believers. Although I have not read the Torah, and cannot comment on how much of the text and thoughts ended up in the Old Testament, I assume that a large part of thoughts and philosophy were carried over.
Nevertheless, it hardly relates to the current issue where a state was created by their occupying forces and then populated, assumably primarily by refugees (some time after the war that made them refugees by the way), anyway, by people from elsewhere.
The state so created is independent, so it can change its Capital as it sees fit.
However, the issue would be whether a State can name a Capital that lies in occupied Territory ?
Following Macchiavelli, it probably should, to make the point that it is the ruler.
That would be part of a strategy though and from the occupiers point of view defendable.
However,  as for the recent recognition of Jerusalem as a capital, so far I did not see the Twittering President having a strategy, other than make a lot of noise to distract attention from economic issues, humanitarian crises, and lack of leadership, so I am wondering in what Tweet the decision making process is elaborated .... 
(For a moment assuming that this is not a result of lobbying by financially interested parties.)

[sanemax]

3 hours ago, KKr said:

The state so created is independent, so it can change its Capital as it sees fit.
However, the issue would be whether a State can name a Capital that lies in occupied Territory ?
 

East Jerusalem is not in occupied territory , East Jerusalem is named Israels Capital in 1948

[sanemax]

3 hours ago, KKr said:

Nevertheless, it hardly relates to the current issue where a state was created by their occupying forces and then populated, assumably primarily by refugees (some time after the war that made them refugees by the way), anyway, by people from elsewhere.
 

Jews have continuously been living on the land for 2-3000 years .

Immigrants do tend to come from elsewhere , immigrants dont usually emigrate to the same country