U.S. in 'beginning stages' of talks on Jerusalem embassy move -spokesman

By Warren Strobel and Matt Spetalnick

REUTERS

 

Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivers a statement at the press briefing room of the White House in Washington U.S., January 21, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Sunday that it is only in the early stages of talks to fulfill President Donald Trump's pledge to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, an action that would likely spark anger in the Arab world.

 

"We are at the very beginning stages of even discussing this subject," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said in a statement. Aides said no announcement of an embassy move was imminent.

 

Washington's embassy is in Tel Aviv, as are most foreign diplomatic posts. Israel calls Jerusalem its eternal capital, but Palestinians also lay claim to the city as part of an eventual Palestinian state. Both sides cite biblical, historical and political claims.

 

Trump, who vowed during the 2016 presidential campaign to move the embassy, was due to speak by phone on Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, their first call since the U.S. businessman-turned-politician took office on Friday.

 

Any decision to break with the status quo is likely to prompt protests from U.S. allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Washington relies on those countries for help in fighting the Islamic State militant group, which the new U.S. president has said is a priority.

 

The U.S. Congress passed a law in 1995 describing Jerusalem as capital of Israel and saying it should not be divided, but successive Republican and Democratic presidents have used their foreign policy powers to maintain the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and to back negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on the status of Jerusalem.

 

In early December, then-President Barack Obama renewed the presidential waiver until the beginning of June. It is unclear whether Trump would be able to legally override that waiver and go ahead with relocation of the embassy.

 

U.S. diplomats say that, despite the U.S. legislation, Washington's foreign policy is in practice broadly aligned with that of the United Nations and other major powers, which do not view Jerusalem as Israel's capital and do not recognize Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem after its capture in the 1967 Middle East war.

 

Israel approved building permits on Sunday for hundreds of homes in three East Jerusalem settlements in expectation that Trump will row back on the previous administration's criticism of such projects.

 

(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe, Warren Strobel and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-23

....and just how is this going to help eradicating ISIS from the face of the earth?

Good move. P1ss off your allies that actually have boots on the ground fighting ISIS.

It looks like Trump's temporary Get Out Of The Poop free card is Obama's waiver in December.

from the OP...

"In early December, then-President Barack Obama renewed the presidential waiver until the beginning of June. It is unclear whether Trump would be able to legally override that waiver and go ahead with relocation of the embassy."

 

Whatever. A move of the US embassy to Jerusalem (whenever it happens) is a game changer, undermining one of the final status matters supposedly to be agreed upon in a two state solution. They could fudge it...the embassy plaque stays on the wall in Tel Aviv while the US ambassador works from the present consulate in Jerusalem.

 

So with the two state solution in its death throes, if I were one of the 4.8 million Palestinian refugees, I'd allow Israel to annex completely the West Bank, keep my head down, practise non violent passive resistance as I agitate for equal citizenship, make the world aware through the social media of the de jure apartheid situation I would then be living under rather than the de facto one now. Become the Trojan horse that eventually destroys the hideous racist ideology of Zionism from within.

 

As some commentators on this forum will no doubt point out:  I am not a Palestinian. So probably vested interests will manipulate hotheads to protest against this move in order to continue same same managing the conflict, and maintain the charade of negotiating a two state solution....for the time being.

 

All I want is for the two peoples ultimately to live together in peace, and an end to racist Zionism. Trump and his right wing nationalist Israeli buddies may be inadvertently hastening that process. Good.

Edited January 23, 20179 yr by dexterm

It's a bad move. It would be a security risk for anyone going to a embassy in Jerusalem. It's potentially dangerous and a ludicrous to contemplate relocating the embassy.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

That's right Trump, light the fuse, you've already p1ssed of the Chinese why not get the Arabs annoyed as well, you still have a few plates to smash in the the shop, it's Ok you wont have to pay everyone else will. 

Great move should be in the Capital 

Why? Israel isn't going to move its capital from Tel Aviv is it?

 

Or does the Donald know something very few other do and is getting ready to make a property killing?

The 2 state solution boat has sailed. The Israelis had their opportunity but decided to miss the boat. 2 people, 1 state let the chips fall. As for moving the embassy Canada had a dim wit conservative PM who declared he was going to do that. Before he could he  triggered a quick election and got thumped. Known as Joe Who?

7 hours ago, webfact said:

prompt protests from U.S. allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

Except for Saudi Arabia I doubt if they want to bit the hand that feeds them. A mild protest at best to justify their positions. 

16 hours ago, dexterm said:

It looks like Trump's temporary Get Out Of The Poop free card is Obama's waiver in December.

from the OP...

"In early December, then-President Barack Obama renewed the presidential waiver until the beginning of June. It is unclear whether Trump would be able to legally override that waiver and go ahead with relocation of the embassy."

 

Whatever. A move of the US embassy to Jerusalem (whenever it happens) is a game changer, undermining one of the final status matters supposedly to be agreed upon in a two state solution. They could fudge it...the embassy plaque stays on the wall in Tel Aviv while the US ambassador works from the present consulate in Jerusalem.

 

So with the two state solution in its death throes, if I were one of the 4.8 million Palestinian refugees, I'd allow Israel to annex completely the West Bank, keep my head down, practise non violent passive resistance as I agitate for equal citizenship, make the world aware through the social media of the de jure apartheid situation I would then be living under rather than the de facto one now. Become the Trojan horse that eventually destroys the hideous racist ideology of Zionism from within.

 

As some commentators on this forum will no doubt point out:  I am not a Palestinian. So probably vested interests will manipulate hotheads to protest against this move in order to continue same same managing the conflict, and maintain the charade of negotiating a two state solution....for the time being.

 

All I want is for the two peoples ultimately to live together in peace, and an end to racist Zionism. Trump and his right wing nationalist Israeli buddies may be inadvertently hastening that process. Good.

 

So far, no embassy was moved, as usual jumping ahead of yourself with doomsday prophecies.

 

And yes, not only are you not a Palestinian, you also lack any semblance of knowledge as to prevailing trends within Palestinian society and how Palestinian political goals are framed. As a result, you offer things which are alien and objectionable to most Palestinians - their idea of self-determination does not include your kumbaya one-state solution, nor anything resonating of your long term effort to subvert Israel "from within" fantasy.

 

All you want is for two groups of people whom you know little about (and, arguably, have little care for), to fulfill your left wing fantasies by foisting off the shelf ideological and political concepts which do not necessarily apply, or indeed, are not even welcome by either side. That your misplaced ideas and hateful agenda are bound to inflict additional suffering is, seemingly, not a worry - but a worthy price to pay for achieving some faux ideal. Of course, being a keyboard warrior, this will have no bearing on your well being.

 

And for the sake of accuracy - not all of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are refugees. Just another fact tossed aside as to not stand in the way of the mandatory rant.

13 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Why? Israel isn't going to move its capital from Tel Aviv is it?

 

Or does the Donald know something very few other do and is getting ready to make a property killing?

According to Israel the capital of Israel IS Jerusalem! 

13 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Why? Israel isn't going to move its capital from Tel Aviv is it?

 

Or does the Donald know something very few other do and is getting ready to make a property killing?

 

Quote

Why? Israel isn't going to move its capital from Tel Aviv is it?

 

Umm...what?

 

Quote

Or does the Donald know something very few other do and is getting ready to make a property killing?

 

Well...not exactly "a few", and doubt it's directly related. Perhaps more relevant with regard to Trump's son-in-law and the future ambassador to Israel.

 

End of Church Leases Sparks Real Estate Storm in Jerusalem
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.723415

11 hours ago, pegman said:

The 2 state solution boat has sailed. The Israelis had their opportunity but decided to miss the boat. 2 people, 1 state let the chips fall. As for moving the embassy Canada had a dim wit conservative PM who declared he was going to do that. Before he could he  triggered a quick election and got thumped. Known as Joe Who?

 

The "boat" was missed by both sides (if indeed it was missed). There was not deliberate decision accepted by either side to give it a miss. 

11 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

Except for Saudi Arabia I doubt if they want to bit the hand that feeds them. A mild protest at best to justify their positions. 

Would place US forces fighting in Iraq at a difficult position vs. their allies. And Erdogan will throw a fit again. Can see Russia and Iran milking this for all its worth.

16 hours ago, Motown239 said:

It's a bad move. It would be a security risk for anyone going to a embassy in Jerusalem. It's potentially dangerous and a ludicrous to contemplate relocating the embassy.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

  The Western part of Jerusalem is 100 % Jewish Israeli , no security risk at all , no more than Tel Aviv anyway

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So far, no embassy was moved, as usual jumping ahead of yourself with doomsday prophecies.

 

And yes, not only are you not a Palestinian, you also lack any semblance of knowledge as to prevailing trends within Palestinian society and how Palestinian political goals are framed. As a result, you offer things which are alien and objectionable to most Palestinians - their idea of self-determination does not include your kumbaya one-state solution, nor anything resonating of your long term effort to subvert Israel "from within" fantasy.

 

All you want is for two groups of people whom you know little about (and, arguably, have little care for), to fulfill your left wing fantasies by foisting off the shelf ideological and political concepts which do not necessarily apply, or indeed, are not even welcome by either side. That your misplaced ideas and hateful agenda are bound to inflict additional suffering is, seemingly, not a worry - but a worthy price to pay for achieving some faux ideal. Of course, being a keyboard warrior, this will have no bearing on your well being.

 

And for the sake of accuracy - not all of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are refugees. Just another fact tossed aside as to not stand in the way of the mandatory rant.

First paragraph. Pure pedantry.
The OP itself "beginning stages" invites comment on the topic

 

>>As a result, you offer things which are alien and objectionable to most Palestinians - their idea of self-determination does not include your kumbaya one-state solution, nor anything resonating of your long term effort to subvert Israel "from within" fantasy.
..sounds to me as though you are the one presuming to know how a Palestinian feels.

 

And not only that, you are the one who seems to be out of touch!
"Many Palestinians and some Israelis now advocate a “one-state solution”, with the focus turning to a civil rights campaign for Palestinians – who would soon be a majority in a binational state. This would effectively be the end of the Jewish homeland, and thus unacceptable to the vast majority of global Jews and many others."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/28/the-two-state-solution-in-the-middle-east-all-you-need-to-know

 

>>All you want is for two groups of people whom you know little about (and, arguably, have little care for)

"arguably"..what a weasel word..dressing up your opinion as pseudo  fact..typical of your style.

..Again in your sheer sarcastic arrogance you presume to know how I feel: as though I do not care for the welfare  and future of Israelis and Palestinians. You are beyond belief. So pray do tell us what is so bad about two peoples living together in peace? Or do you prefer the status quo...perpetual conflict, suffering and forever looking over one's shoulder?

 

Israel has had 50 years to come up with a formula for peaceful co-existence with their Palestinian neighbors. Instead they have done entirely the opposite...flooding the West Bank with illegal colonies, that causes nothing but more friction and hardship for Palestinians.

 

>> your misplaced ideas and hateful agenda are bound to inflict additional suffering 

... Why should that be so? It cannot be any worse than the suffering Palestinians have endured and still do facing the daily brutality of illegal occupation. Of course, you would have more of this as preferable to a one state solution, because your agenda is to promote the continued charade of negotiations towards a two state solution, which according to the OP is about to be knifed in the back.

 

So, if I am fantasizing,  what in your opinion are the prospects of a two state solution acceptable to both sides under the present Israeli and US administrations? What diplomatic moves do you see halting the runaway train from a one state solution?

 

Edited January 23, 20179 yr by dexterm

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

First paragraph. Pure pedantry.
The OP itself "beginning stages" invites comment on the topic

 

>>As a result, you offer things which are alien and objectionable to most Palestinians - their idea of self-determination does not include your kumbaya one-state solution, nor anything resonating of your long term effort to subvert Israel "from within" fantasy.
..sounds to me as though you are the one presuming to know how a Palestinian feels.

 

And not only that, you are the one who seems to be out of touch!
"Many Palestinians and some Israelis now advocate a “one-state solution”, with the focus turning to a civil rights campaign for Palestinians – who would soon be a majority in a binational state. This would effectively be the end of the Jewish homeland, and thus unacceptable to the vast majority of global Jews and many others."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/28/the-two-state-solution-in-the-middle-east-all-you-need-to-know

 

>>All you want is for two groups of people whom you know little about (and, arguably, have little care for)

"arguably"..what a weasel word..dressing up your opinion as pseudo  fact..typical of your style.

..Again in your sheer sarcastic arrogance you presume to know how I feel: as though I do not care for the welfare  and future of Israelis and Palestinians. You are beyond belief. So pray do tell us what is so bad about two peoples living together in peace? Or do you prefer the status quo...perpetual conflict, suffering and forever looking over one's shoulder?

 

Israel has had 50 years to come up with a formula for peaceful co-existence with their Palestinian neighbors. Instead they have done entirely the opposite...flooding the West Bank with illegal colonies, that causes nothing but more friction and hardship for Palestinians.

 

>> your misplaced ideas and hateful agenda are bound to inflict additional suffering 

... Why should that be so? It cannot be any worse than the suffering Palestinians have endured and still do facing the daily brutality of illegal occupation. Of course, you would have more of this as preferable to a one state solution, because your agenda is to promote the continued charade of negotiations towards a two state solution, which according to the OP is about to be knifed in the back.

 

So, if I am fantasizing,  what in your opinion are the prospects of a two state solution acceptable to both sides under the present Israeli and US administrations? What diplomatic moves do you see halting the runaway train from a one state solution?

 

 

Calling "pedantry" is how you do away with pesky details, which others know to be reality.

 

I'm not presuming to know how each and every Palestinian feels, but I'm more attuned than yourself to the relevant political and social trends. For example, I do not go on and quote the representative of a left wing UK newspaper as an authoritative source. I also note that Sherwood does not expand on this - which is not altogether surprising. As far as I'm aware, support for one-state solutions is usually polled at about 25% (on good days) among both sides. This seems promising, but should be qualified by the question rarely involving much beyond a generalized peaceful version of such a solution, without getting into details (and yes, I know you abhor these) of how this could work out. When taken in conjunction with other polling items and the demographics of respondents, the outlook is dismal.

 

My take on your views is not formed by your current post, but by reading thousands (literally) of the same over the years you've been a member of this forum. You have, on numerous occasions, justified violence, expressed desire for things to come to a head (apparently

without much thought given to the consequences), and did your best to promote animosity and antagonism by vilifying one side, while ignoring all the faults of the other. Allow me to continue doubting your supposed interest in well-being, peace or harmony as they relate a solution for this conflict.

 

I have nothing against people living together in peace, but enough experience with the ME and a healthy dose of realism which does not support much of your notions regarding the likelihood or the plausibility of such solutions. That you see your fantasies, imported ideals and social engineering as legitimate and realistic propositions does not make them so. As to how things could go wrong or get worse - easy: have a look around the ME and find a place where brotherly love, peace and co-existence are present. Even more to the point, multiculturalism is hardly a solid proposition even in inherently peaceful regions of the world. Playing with social engineering is perhaps better practiced in safer surroundings than the ME.

 

My "agenda", if it could be called that, is to promote things which contribute to toward better understanding and trust between the sides, lower levels of animosity and antagonism, while focusing on attainable objectives, even if they are less than ideal. Pretty much counter to everything your posts stand for.

 

Your assertion that things could not It was not only up to Israel to come up with ways to co-exit with the Palestinians. Palestinian rejectionism is well documented and that you ignore it, or justify it will not make the Palestinians less accountable for past decisions taken and choices made. In the same manner, your take addresses only US and Israeli leaderships, without any discernible reference to the Palestinian leadership (or rather, leaderships). They cannot be absolved of their contribution to the sorry state of things.

 

The current political situation is certainly unfavorable for the two-state solution. There is no denying this, even if one does not apply a narrow interpretation for the causes. That said, this is not a new development but a another stage in a gradual process. As posted on other topics, the problem is still less a question of dealing with the actual obstacles to peace, and more to do with the lack of will and leadership on both sides to pull it through. There are no magic solutions, and no easy answers - but that does not mean all hope should be abandoned, nor does it recommend embracing the views you propagate.

 

The immediate worries, as far as Israeli political moves are concerned, are not so much related to a wholesale annexation, but rather to ongoing piecemeal steps which will eventually lead to it. Pretty much along the lines of the whole illegal settlement effort. I believe that Netanyahu's current corruption investigations might play a role in determining the outcome of such political maneuvering. Similarly, on the Palestinian side, a whole lot could change (and generally, for the worse, with regard to conflict resolution) when Abbas steps down. How this would play out is still early to tell, but doubt it will be pretty. Most of the supposed "successors" promote a more aggressive agenda, for ideological and populist reasons. And despite ongoing efforts, the Fatah-Hamas divide is still there. So a known measure of uncertainty exists on this front too. Trump being Trump is an unknown variable. I don't think he personally holds much of an by way of an ideological stance on the conflict, doesn't care a whole lot about details and could get bored with the issue and move on to other things. This isn't a positive proposition in the sense that he is less likely to play anything like checks and balances with regard to Israel, even if his administration will not live up to the fantasies of Israel's right wing.

 

The bottom line of the above paragraph - leadership issues on all sides, which might lead to even more volatile conditions in the short term. One way to look at it is to try and stem the tide, the other is to embrace chaos and despair.

Face it folks, Morch's input on Israel / Palestinian issues has more value than all other posters here combined. 

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Calling "pedantry" is how you do away with pesky details, which others know to be reality.

 

I'm not presuming to know how each and every Palestinian feels, but I'm more attuned than yourself to the relevant political and social trends. For example, I do not go on and quote the representative of a left wing UK newspaper as an authoritative source. I also note that Sherwood does not expand on this - which is not altogether surprising. As far as I'm aware, support for one-state solutions is usually polled at about 25% (on good days) among both sides. This seems promising, but should be qualified by the question rarely involving much beyond a generalized peaceful version of such a solution, without getting into details (and yes, I know you abhor these) of how this could work out. When taken in conjunction with other polling items and the demographics of respondents, the outlook is dismal.

 

My take on your views is not formed by your current post, but by reading thousands (literally) of the same over the years you've been a member of this forum. You have, on numerous occasions, justified violence, expressed desire for things to come to a head (apparently

without much thought given to the consequences), and did your best to promote animosity and antagonism by vilifying one side, while ignoring all the faults of the other. Allow me to continue doubting your supposed interest in well-being, peace or harmony as they relate a solution for this conflict.

 

I have nothing against people living together in peace, but enough experience with the ME and a healthy dose of realism which does not support much of your notions regarding the likelihood or the plausibility of such solutions. That you see your fantasies, imported ideals and social engineering as legitimate and realistic propositions does not make them so. As to how things could go wrong or get worse - easy: have a look around the ME and find a place where brotherly love, peace and co-existence are present. Even more to the point, multiculturalism is hardly a solid proposition even in inherently peaceful regions of the world. Playing with social engineering is perhaps better practiced in safer surroundings than the ME.

 

My "agenda", if it could be called that, is to promote things which contribute to toward better understanding and trust between the sides, lower levels of animosity and antagonism, while focusing on attainable objectives, even if they are less than ideal. Pretty much counter to everything your posts stand for.

 

Your assertion that things could not It was not only up to Israel to come up with ways to co-exit with the Palestinians. Palestinian rejectionism is well documented and that you ignore it, or justify it will not make the Palestinians less accountable for past decisions taken and choices made. In the same manner, your take addresses only US and Israeli leaderships, without any discernible reference to the Palestinian leadership (or rather, leaderships). They cannot be absolved of their contribution to the sorry state of things.

 

The current political situation is certainly unfavorable for the two-state solution. There is no denying this, even if one does not apply a narrow interpretation for the causes. That said, this is not a new development but a another stage in a gradual process. As posted on other topics, the problem is still less a question of dealing with the actual obstacles to peace, and more to do with the lack of will and leadership on both sides to pull it through. There are no magic solutions, and no easy answers - but that does not mean all hope should be abandoned, nor does it recommend embracing the views you propagate.

 

The immediate worries, as far as Israeli political moves are concerned, are not so much related to a wholesale annexation, but rather to ongoing piecemeal steps which will eventually lead to it. Pretty much along the lines of the whole illegal settlement effort. I believe that Netanyahu's current corruption investigations might play a role in determining the outcome of such political maneuvering. Similarly, on the Palestinian side, a whole lot could change (and generally, for the worse, with regard to conflict resolution) when Abbas steps down. How this would play out is still early to tell, but doubt it will be pretty. Most of the supposed "successors" promote a more aggressive agenda, for ideological and populist reasons. And despite ongoing efforts, the Fatah-Hamas divide is still there. So a known measure of uncertainty exists on this front too. Trump being Trump is an unknown variable. I don't think he personally holds much of an by way of an ideological stance on the conflict, doesn't care a whole lot about details and could get bored with the issue and move on to other things. This isn't a positive proposition in the sense that he is less likely to play anything like checks and balances with regard to Israel, even if his administration will not live up to the fantasies of Israel's right wing.

 

The bottom line of the above paragraph - leadership issues on all sides, which might lead to even more volatile conditions in the short term. One way to look at it is to try and stem the tide, the other is to embrace chaos and despair.

I will dismiss your attack on the UK Guardian newspaper as one of my sources, established in 1821, named Newspaper of the Year four times at the annual British Press Awards,  along with many other accolades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Awards.

 

Thank you for your considered opinion in your last 3 paragraphs.

 

I too would like to see a just and viable two state solution. It would inevitably lead to the two peoples in time (after a couple of generations of peaceful co-existence) to intermingle their economies and societies. My fervent hope is that one way or another one day they live side by side in peace.

 

I differ from you when you say "this is not a new development but a another stage in a gradual process."

 

The goalposts are being well and truly moved.

 

I think 4 more years at least of Trump supporting the nationalists in Israel will make a one state solution almost an inevitability. Can you see the fanatical nationalists abandoning Jerusalem as  their eternal capital, or 100% land swaps for settlements, or evacuations of some, especially with all the current legislation on the table formally annexing the first of maybe more large settlement blocs, and the retroactive legalization of illegal ouposts, all to be dealt with in the next few months.

 

Then throw into the mix the Donald factor of moving embassy locations, his choice of ultra natiionalist ambassador, and rubber stamping and encouraging everything the current Israeli governement does.

 

I think it will all eventuate in a fait accomplit, too entrenched to unravel.

 

Time will tell
 

19 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I will dismiss your attack on the UK Guardian newspaper as one of my sources, established in 1821, named Newspaper of the Year four times at the annual British Press Awards,  along with many other accolades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Awards.

 

Thank you for your considered opinion in your last 3 paragraphs.

 

I too would like to see a just and viable two state solution. It would inevitably lead to the two peoples in time (after a couple of generations of peaceful co-existence) to intermingle their economies and societies. My fervent hope is that one way or another one day they live side by side in peace.

 

I differ from you when you say "this is not a new development but a another stage in a gradual process."

 

The goalposts are being well and truly moved.

 

I think 4 more years at least of Trump supporting the nationalists in Israel will make a one state solution almost an inevitability. Can you see the fanatical nationalists abandoning Jerusalem as  their eternal capital, or 100% land swaps for settlements, or evacuations of some, especially with all the current legislation on the table formally annexing the first of maybe more large settlement blocs, and the retroactive legalization of illegal ouposts, all to be dealt with in the next few months.

 

Then throw into the mix the Donald factor of moving embassy locations, his choice of ultra natiionalist ambassador, and rubber stamping and encouraging everything the current Israeli governement does.

 

I think it will all eventuate in a fait accomplit, too entrenched to unravel.

 

Time will tell
 

 

You can praise The Guardian all you like. It wouldn't make it less of left-wing oriented publication. I was not discounting all it publishes of course, but it does have a certain track record with regard to reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and with its representatives in the area. In the same way, it wouldn't make an argument based on a less than specific comment any more credible.

 

No idea why you imagine intermingling after two generations, most of the ME practices segregation of one sort or the other, however things may seem to outsiders. Your "fervent hope" as evidenced on many a topic amounts to the dissolution and destruction of the state of Israel. Call it by any name you like. That's the bottom line of all your fantasies.

 

Apart from the 1947 partition plan, there wasn't a whole lot by way of serious two-state solution paradigms discussed and negotiated up until the early 1990's. In that sense, the process (call it peace, or whatever) is a rather recent development. To assert that it is off the table, or that there weren't difficult times (with regard to conflict resolution) in the past is incorrect.

 

I think that the Trump administration's supposed support will be less than hoped for by some on Israel's right wing. Both for practical considerations (relations with other regional allies, for example) and because ultimately, as with previous administrations, the initial enthusiasm to deal with the conflict will be decline.

 

In case you haven't noticed, the previous proposed "retroactive" legislation was buried in a committee, the recent limited annexation legislation proposal delayed (at the "price" of approving building permits in East Jerusalem), and the current Trump administration statement on moving the US embassy somewhat more cautious. The intended choice for US ambassador in Israel is indeed regretful, and does send a wrong message, IMO - but ultimately, he is not the one setting policy on either end. As for the Trump administration rubber-stamping and encouraging everything the Israeli government does - that remains to be seen, hardly a fact.

 

I do not expect the current Israeli government to reach an agreement. But then I do not expect the same government to stay in power indefinitely. Political circumstances and alliances are fluid. Fulfilling some of the obvious items which will appear in any form of peace agreement will never be easy or non-controversial. But settlements have been taken down in the past, land was traded for peace and seemingly unthinkable compromises were accepted. All had their fervent opposers.  

 

 And, of course, as is your habit - not a word about the Palestinian side, nothing about their own internal issues and leadership crisis. These are immaterial only for someone who is intent on ignoring reality in favor of an ideological stance, no matter how far removed it is from facts.

I imagine Netanyahu's phone call to Trump went something like this...

 

Look Donald, let me put you straight: these are the rules of the game. 

 

We call for direct negotiations with the Palestinians as the only way of achieving peace. We say there are no preconditions. But at the same time, we say Jerusalem is our eternal capital, and that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state....both conditions we know they will never agree to. So meanwhile we can continue the charade of negotiating a two state solution while we keep building facts on the ground.

 

Got it, Donald? Good. Now please give me a call in future before opening your mouth, so we can make sure we are on the same page.

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

I imagine Netanyahu's phone call to Trump went something like this...

 

Look Donald, let me put you straight: these are the rules of the game. 

 

We call for direct negotiations with the Palestinians as the only way of achieving peace. We say there are no preconditions. But at the same time, we say Jerusalem is our eternal capital, and that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state....both conditions we know they will never agree to. So meanwhile we can continue the charade of negotiating a two state solution while we keep building facts on the ground.

 

Got it, Donald? Good. Now please give me a call in future before opening your mouth, so we can make sure we are on the same page.

I think you have a very vivid imagination.

 

If anything, Netanyahu was the urging his ministers to exercise caution and restraint with regard to their statements and legislation attempts. Obviously, some did just the opposite - mostly from a party routinely challenging Netanyahu's leadership.

 

The tone you suggest simply does not exist in this context. That's just another of your hate mongering posts.