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

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Looks like you are the only one who didn't notice Trump's dog whistle approval of the brand of indivisible Jerusalem that Netanyahu is currently touting amongst European leaders. The rest of the world, his Evangelical Christian fan base,  and right wing Israelis somehow heard it differently from you, as he was warned they would.

 

So if as you say, no change, why do it?

 

As expected, ignore what was actually said, stick with interpretations and hyperbole. Can't even relate directly to the actual quote. There are actually commentary not in line with your hyped version, and indeed, quite a bit of it is reflected in how many ordinary Israelis reacted to this.

 

There were many possible explanation suggested regarding Trump's motivation(s). I get that you use the occasion to rehash all semi-related issues aired on past topics, pretending they were never discussed. But seriously, analysis of factors involved in Trump's decision making, generally and specifically aren't even cold. Why feign ignorance?

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, KKr said:

absolutely, the Arab / Palestinian side rejected the Partition Plan.
They were living in that area along with quite a number of indigenous Jews.

It is not hard to understand that, taking a ludicrous example, people of New Mexico  would be rather upset if the Native Indian tribes claimed it is their promised land (and the terms upon which it was surrendered were not fair) and New Mexico needs to be vacated within months, or else an Army larger than yours will take care of it ...

There is I think no discussion that the Partition plan was being imposed by Western Forces. 
It seems that, since they let the Nazi's run out of control, it was apparently felt that a "Widergutmachung" was in order. (Hence the statement that there was no Western sponsorship for the Zionist state is imho fictitious)

Also, please note that the Partition Plan was a "Plan of Partition with Economic Union" so whereas with proper compensation of people to be re-settled away from their (Ancestors) land might have lead to some kind of agreement, apparently such offers (if any) were not sufficient.

And now,  of some kind of Economic Union, we are rather faaaar away.
Unfortunately,  politicians (and war lords even more so) seem more interested in exercising power, than in uniting the area into an economic power house. (and make even more money from economic activity than from war).

 

Which argument are you trying to make? A legal or an emotive one?

 

If the point is that the Arab/Palestinian side had a "right" to reject the partition plan, while Israel had an obligation to follow it to the letter, that's not particularly convincing. Irrelevant hypothetical examples notwithstanding.

 

The partition plan garnered rather wide support, which included the then Soviet Union. There was even an arms embargo sanctioned during the war. The musings on Nazi-Allies history are...odd, to say the least, and not quite on topic even. Seem to be conflating the West with allied forces or something. Whatever.

 

Not really sure what your point was with the last comment. That the partition plan was not very feasible and that it ignored or failed to address many problems is obvious, and was so even at the time. Importing and applying concepts which are alien or irrelevant to the circumstances is not always a workable proposition. This holds for the the viability of a present day "economic union". It is simply out of touch with the reality at hand.

 

 

[KKr]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Which argument are you trying to make? A legal or an emotive one?

 

If the point is that the Arab/Palestinian side had a "right" to reject the partition plan, while Israel had an obligation to follow it to the letter, that's not particularly convincing. Irrelevant hypothetical examples notwithstanding.

 

The partition plan garnered rather wide support, which included the then Soviet Union. There was even an arms embargo sanctioned during the war. The musings on Nazi-Allies history are...odd, to say the least, and not quite on topic even. Seem to be conflating the West with allied forces or something. Whatever.

 

Not really sure what your point was with the last comment. That the partition plan was not very feasible and that it ignored or failed to address many problems is obvious, and was so even at the time. Importing and applying concepts which are alien or irrelevant to the circumstances is not always a workable proposition. This holds for the the viability of a present day "economic union". It is simply out of touch with the reality at hand.

 

 

indeed musing on the causes of the problem may not be pleasant, or even relevant at first sight, but should not be ignored when trying to solve the issue and achieve a peace agreement.
Unfortunately however, in my opinion because of ignoring the cause, the situation has been running out of hand completely.
the imperialistic state and the people sent away from their country are unlikely to find peace unless the local politicians do a "Munchhausen" and finally put the interest of the combined population over their interest in power and perceived supremacy, and then unite this massive population to work for a common cause instead of fighting each other.
Want to call me out of touch, "up to you", as the local saying goes.
Alternative solutions have not been found.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, KKr said:

indeed musing on the causes of the problem may not be pleasant, or even relevant at first sight, but should not be ignored when trying to solve the issue and achieve a peace agreement.
Unfortunately however, in my opinion because of ignoring the cause, the situation has been running out of hand completely.
the imperialistic state and the people sent away from their country are unlikely to find peace unless the local politicians do a "Munchhausen" and finally put the interest of the combined population over their interest in power and perceived supremacy, and then unite this massive population to work for a common cause instead of fighting each other.
Want to call me out of touch, "up to you", as the local saying goes.
Alternative solutions have not been found.

 

Problem is that people often prescribe causes according to political views and their own take of historical events (usually interrelated). These sort of pronouncements are not usually grounded in reality, as in having much by way of in depth knowledge of current circumstances and positions, but rather rely on generalizations and truisms.

 

There seems to be a suggestion that the conflict is dissociated from enmity between the people themselves, but rather maintained by the machinations of political leaders. While the latter certainly compound things, the conflict itself is real, and exists on many levels, not merely the economic.

 

Not that it is really clear what "solution" was offered, or how it relates to existing conditions. The same applies for pitting whatever this assumed "solution" is against the claim that "alternative solutions have not been found".

 

[KKr]

On 12/13/2017 at 12:57 PM, Morch said:

 

Problem is that people often prescribe causes according to political views and their own take of historical events (usually interrelated). These sort of pronouncements are not usually grounded in reality, as in having much by way of in depth knowledge of current circumstances and positions, but rather rely on generalizations and truisms.

 

There seems to be a suggestion that the conflict is dissociated from enmity between the people themselves, but rather maintained by the machinations of political leaders. While the latter certainly compound things, the conflict itself is real, and exists on many levels, not merely the economic.

 

Not that it is really clear what "solution" was offered, or how it relates to existing conditions. The same applies for pitting whatever this assumed "solution" is against the claim that "alternative solutions have not been found".

 

Your verbose comment is highlighting the issue.
Apparently we indeed have different sources of information,
such as main stream Western news,
and 10 years of working next to displaced people,
and hence disagree.
Cheers!

[Morch]

6 hours ago, KKr said:

Your verbose comment is highlighting the issue.
Apparently we indeed have different sources of information,
such as main stream Western news,
and 10 years of working next to displaced people,
and hence disagree.
Cheers!

 

Yeah well, if you'd made your posts clearer, it wouldn't take that many words to address. As for having a superior take or understanding or related matter, looking at the posts above makes your comment laughable.

[Opl]

"
Israel is to name a planned new railway station close to Judaism's hallowed Western Wall in annexed east Jerusalem after US President Donald Trump, the transport minister has said.

The station close to the holiest site where Jews are permitted to pray will be called "Donald John Trump", the minister ordered, in tribute to his "historic and courageous decision" on Jérusalem."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/27/israel-name-new-jerusalem-train-station-donald-trump/

 

[Andaman Al]

29 minutes ago, Opl said:

"
Israel is to name a planned new railway station close to Judaism's hallowed Western Wall in annexed east Jerusalem after US President Donald Trump, the transport minister has said.

The station close to the holiest site where Jews are permitted to pray will be called "Donald John Trump", the minister ordered, in tribute to his "historic and courageous decision" on Jérusalem."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/27/israel-name-new-jerusalem-train-station-donald-trump/

 

We must get the same news feed   I was just looking to put the same story up, thanks for doing it. This will play straight to the man child's ego. There will be no stopping him now. Lets hope that trains from this station are not de-railed as much as Trump has de-railed the USA.