Should A Woman Be Allowed to hold the office of President of the USA?

[webfact]

U.S. ambassador at U.N. says Trump supports two-state solution

By Ned Parker

REUTERS

 

Newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley makes a statement upon her arrival at U.N. headquarters in New York City, NY, U.S. January 27, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Segar

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on Thursday the United States still supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a day after President Donald Trump suggested he is open to new ways to achieve peace.

 

"First of all, the two-state solution is what we support. Anybody that wants to say the United States does not support the two-state solution - that would be an error," Haley told reporters at the United Nations.

 

"We absolutely support the two-state solution but we are thinking out of the box as well: which is what does it take to bring these two sides to the table; what do we need to have them agree on."

 

Haley's comments came after Trump said on Wednesday that he was open to ideas beyond a two-state solution, the longstanding bedrock of Washington and the international community's policy for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

"I'm looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like," Trump told a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "I can live with either one."

 

Trump said that the United States would work towards peace but said he was leaving it up to the parties themselves ultimately to decide on the terms of any agreement. He said such a deal would require compromises from both Israelis and Palestinians.

 

Trump’s announcement appeared to loosen the main tenet of U.S. Middle Eastern policy dating back three administrations and stunned the international community, which has crafted it diplomacy based on the premise of a Palestinian state co-existing alongside Israel.

 

Haley also echoed Trump in her remarks Thursday, stressing that a peace deal was not for Washington to impose but could only come from the parties themselves.

 

"The solution to what will bring peace in the Middle East is going to come from the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority," Haley said. "The United States is just there to support the process."

 

Haley, a Republican who previously served as South Carolina governor, also criticized the United Nations and the Security Council on Thursday for what she called a bias against Israel.

 

She described the day's scheduled Security Council meeting on the Middle East as "focused on criticising Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East."

 

Haley said the United States would not support any U.N. resolutions like the one approved by the Security Council in December calling for an end to Israeli settlement building, that passed only after the administration of former President Barack Obama chose not to wield its veto.

 

"I am here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore," Haley said. "I am here to emphasise that the United States is determined to stand up to the U.N.'s anti-Israel bias."

 

French and British diplomats also repeated their longstanding support of the policy, in a show of how Trump's remarks on Wednesday had caused confusion.

 

"The UK continues to believe that the best solution for peace in the Middle East is the two-state solution," said British ambassador to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft.

 

On Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had warned during a visit to Cairo that was no viable way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than the establishment of a Palestinian state co-existing alongside Israel.

 

(Reporting by Ned Parker; Editing by Dan Grebler and Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-17

[dexterm]

Ahh...back on script.Trump's eye must have glanced away from the auto cue when he announced yesterday he would not insist on a two state solution.

 

Back to the smoke and mirrors of pretending to support a two state solution while schizophrenically supporting and financing Israeli facts on the ground to create a one state solution. But of course Trump told us settlements are not an obstacle to peace, though they might not be helpful to it either and other such nonsense. 

 

Bottom line is: After 24 years of negotiation since Oslo, and 50 years of illegal occupation.. If USA, the  most powerful country on earth,  really wanted a two state solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict we would have had two states by now.

[mtls2005]

U.S. ambassador at U.N. says Trump supports two-state solution

 

 

Today.

 

Tomorrow, who the <deleted> knows.

[Jonmarleesco]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump said ... such a deal would require compromises from both Israelis and Palestinians.

Not a hope while Netanyahu is Israeli PM. 

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. ambassador at U.N. says Trump supports two-state solution

Ppsst you better check back with the boss I think he flip flopped on this one. I think he is still pulling daisy petals on this so it might take time to get a "real" answer. 

[Jingthing]

One state solution really can't work. 

 

-- If Palestinians don't have full citizenship rights in a one state solution, then the charge of Israeli apartheid will become reality, and Israel wouldn't be able to handle the blowback.

 

-- If Palestinians do have full citizenship, they'll take over the government and the reason Israel existed in the first place goes away, and constant ethnic division violence almost certain. 

 

Sure there is a teeny tiny chance such a plan with full Palestinian citizenship "works" and doesn't result in constant civil war type violence, but it's seriously doubtful there is the political desire on EITHER side to give that wild chance a real try.

 

Two state solution is the ONLY way. 

 

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

One state solution really can't work. 

 

-- If Palestinians don't have full citizenship rights in a one state solution, then the charge of Israeli apartheid will become reality, and Israel wouldn't be able to handle the blowback.

 

-- If Palestinians do have full citizenship, they'll take over the government and the reason Israel existed in the first place goes away, and constant ethnic division violence almost certain. 

 

Sure there is a teeny tiny chance such a plan with full Palestinian citizenship "works" and doesn't result in constant civil war type violence, but it's seriously doubtful there is the political desire on EITHER side to give that wild chance a real try.

 

Two state solution is the ONLY way. 

 

As I have been saying for the last 2 plus years on this forum:  there will come a time when Israel will be begging the Palestinians for a two state solution, if they wish to live peacefully in a nation with a predominantly Jewish character.

 

But hopefully the fool in the White House, Bibi the political survivalist at all costs, and his fanatical nationalist cabinet will sleepwalk Israel into a one state solution by creating so many irreversible facts on the ground, which will ultimately prove the end (through the train of events you point out) of the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism. Good.

Edited February 17, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Ahh...back on script.Trump's eye must have glanced away from the auto cue when he announced yesterday he would not insist on a two state solution.

 

Back to the smoke and mirrors of pretending to support a two state solution while schizophrenically supporting and financing Israeli facts on the ground to create a one state solution. But of course Trump told us settlements are not an obstacle to peace, though they might not be helpful to it either and other such nonsense. 

 

Bottom line is: After 24 years of negotiation since Oslo, and 50 years of illegal occupation.. If USA, the  most powerful country on earth,  really wanted a two state solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict we would have had two states by now.

 

Nope, that's just how the Trump administration is. He states (or tweets) stuff, usually ambiguous, controversial or offending - and his underlings attempt to interpret and make sense of it for the rest of the world. Pretty much how things are since he hit the campaign trail.

 

It would be much wiser to accept that US policy and political stance was never aligned with your own extreme views. Not even when you tried to claim otherwise when quoting partial bits of specific addresses. Nor it is likely that the US policy will significantly change anytime soon. The US, by the way, does not finance the Israeli illegal settlement effort.

 

Rather pathetic how you always gloss over the part Palestinian rejectionism and leadership played in their own predicament. There could have been no 1967 occupation, and negotiations could have been started way before the illegal settlements became the issue that they are today. The current situation is not solely the responsibility of Israel and the US.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Not a hope while Netanyahu is Israeli PM. 

Whereas there's a Palestinian leadership in place able and willing to make peace?

[Jingthing]

The real things trump has done which are not helpful --

 

He made it clear he's not ever going to apply any REAL pressure on Israel not to expand settlements. 

 

He made it OK for Israel to change the line that they are open to negotiations with no conditions to we're open to negotiations only AFTER you accept our hardened conditions.

 

Mazel tov with that B.S.

 

Under trump we won't see a one state or two state solution. We'll see the messy status quo with of course expanded settlements. 

 

Of course Bibi and Israeli right wingers are thrilled. He's got a total patsy now in Washington. Obama may not have been effective over time but the pressure he was applying was in the long term interest of Israel rather than the short term interest of the political career of Bibi. 

 

I do get the concept of looking at the past and concluding the old approaches haven't worked so why not try a new approach. That's great as long as the new approach isn't totally MORONIC. That sadly is the Israel policy of the FAILING donald trump. 

 

No of course I'm not brilliant enough to know what new approach actually would work ... but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know trump's approach certainly won't. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Jingthing

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, dexterm said:

As I have been saying for the last 2 plus years on this forum:  there will come a time when Israel will be begging the Palestinians for a two state solution, if they wish to live peacefully in a state with a predominantly Jewish character.

 

And as usual, your focus got nothing to do with the Palestinians, but with Israel bashing. Even if one was to take above seriously, how does that reflect on the Palestinian cause? Is the greater aim establishing a Palestinian state or sticking it to Israel? Sometimes hard to tell.

[dexterm]

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nope, that's just how the Trump administration is. He states (or tweets) stuff, usually ambiguous, controversial or offending - and his underlings attempt to interpret and make sense of it for the rest of the world. Pretty much how things are since he hit the campaign trail.

 

It would be much wiser to accept that US policy and political stance was never aligned with your own extreme views. Not even when you tried to claim otherwise when quoting partial bits of specific addresses. Nor it is likely that the US policy will significantly change anytime soon. The US, by the way, does not finance the Israeli illegal settlement effort.

 

Rather pathetic how you always gloss over the part Palestinian rejectionism and leadership played in their own predicament. There could have been no 1967 occupation, and negotiations could have been started way before the illegal settlements became the issue that they are today. The current situation is not solely the responsibility of Israel and the US.

>>The US, by the way, does not finance the Israeli illegal settlement effort.

... the US subsdizes Israel's miltary to the tune of $38 billion over the next 10 years, freeing up Israeli funds to expand their illegal colonies in the occupied West Bank. While Trump's son-in-law Kushner who stands beside him in the Oval Office and his ambassador Friedman finance illegal settlements. Not counting of course the huge amounts of American Jewish and Zionist Christian financial support from the likes of Sheldon Adelson, and the Rev Hagee.

 

Since 1967, it was not the Palestinians but Israel who chose to expand illegal Jewish only settlements under the guise originally of military security. ...which has proved just the opposite. That deliberate choice is coming back to bite them now. Palestinians can rarely get building permits from the illegal occupiers to build homes on their own land!

Edited February 17, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And as usual, your focus got nothing to do with the Palestinians, but with Israel bashing. Even if one was to take above seriously, how does that reflect on the Palestinian cause? Is the greater aim establishing a Palestinian state or sticking it to Israel? Sometimes hard to tell.

Sticking it to the hateful racist ideology of Zionism for sure.

 

Israel will end up as a single binational state. Israelis can do it the easy way gradually building trust via a two state solution, or the hard way via apartheid...the fanatical Zionist nationalists' way.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The real things trump has done which are not helpful --

 

He made it clear he's not ever going to apply and REAL pressure on Israel not to expand settlements. 

 

He made it OK for Israel to change the line that they are open to negotiations with no conditions to we're open to negotiations only AFTER you accept our hardened conditions.

 

Mazel tov with that B.S.

 

Under trump we won't see a one state or two state solution. We'll see the messy status quo with of course expanded settlements. 

 

Of course Bibi and Israeli right wingers are thrilled. He's got a total patsy now in Washington. Obama may not have been effective over time but the pressure he was applying was in the long term interest of Israel rather than the short term interest of the political career of Bibi. 

 

You're conflating your anti-Trump stance with what actually happened - which was next to nothing. He did not make anything "clear", and I've no idea what accounts for "real" (or even "REAL") pressure in your book. If anything, it was surprising - and Netanyahu was obviously caught off-guard, when Trump addressed these issues.

 

The no pre-conditions things is a myth. There were never negotiations between the sides which did not include them to a certain extent - and that refers both to Israeli and Palestinians. Most, if not all, are well known to the sides, and are no secret.

 

Trump's BS wasn't different from the usual fare, just less elegantly presented, that's all. The status quo would have been there, one way or another, even if HRC would have won the elections.

 

A total patsy? Of course Israeli right wing politicians are portraying it as a victory, can't do otherwise after investing that much political effort in promoting it. But in effect, it falls short of what they expected. There was a direct acknowledgement that both sides will have to make concessions, there was, again acknowledgment that the illegal settlements are a problem.

 

Not the Trump is good news when it comes to the conflict and chances for its resolution, just that so far - he isn't as bad as expected. Granted, if you'll give him time, he might be.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>The US, by the way, does not finance the Israeli illegal settlement effort.

... the US subsdizes Israel's miltary to the tune of $38 billion over the next 10 years, freeing up Israeli funds to expand their illegal colonies in the occupied West Bank. While Trump's son-in-law Kushner who stands beside him in the Oval Office and his ambassador Friedman finance illegal settlements. Not counting of course the huge amounts of American Jewish and Zionist Christian financial support from the likes of Sheldon Adelson, and the Rev Hagee.

 

Since 1967, it was not the Palestinians but Israel who chose to expand illegal Jewish only settlements under the guise originally of military security. ...which has proved just the opposite. That deliberate choice is coming back to bite them now. Palestinians can rarely get building permits from the illegal occupiers to build homes on their own land!

Yeah, that goes back to the part where the US policy does not align with your extreme views. In your view, anything that is somehow beneficial to Israel is inherently wrong. Of course, you will object to any withholding of funds from the Palestinians on grounds that these are used to finance terrorist activities.....just the usual double standard prevalent in your posts. Again, the US does not fund the Israeli illegal settlement effort - other than in convulsed and one-sided mind such as yours. And neither Kushner, nor Friedman financed anything as representatives of the US administration - same goes for other donors. Guess no objections for donations to Palestinians, though.

 

The Palestinians could have dropped their rejectionism prior to 1967, accept more than they would get nowadays and build their state. They could have done so at anytime between 1967 and prior to the Oslo Accords, and still deal with a less complicated reality. Notice that I do not deny Israel's part in creating this mess, simply addressing that it is not the sole party. That your refuse to even acknowledge any shred of Palestinian accountability and responsibility for their own predicament is pathetic, at best.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Sticking it to the hateful racist ideology of Zionism for sure.

 

Israel will end up as a single binational state. Israelis can do it the easy way gradually building trust via a two state solution, or the hard way via apartheid...the fanatical Zionist nationalists' way.

 

May want to wipe some of that foam...and actually address the point.

 

What is the goal of the Palestinian struggle? Creating an independent state of their own or achieving a Western liberal construct? Is the main aim of the Palestinian struggle focused on building their own future or on destroying that of the Israelis?

[TerrylSky]

I hope it's true, but 99% of anything that comes out of Trump's mouth is bullshit.

 

[Jingthing]

33 minutes ago, TerrylSky said:

I hope it's true, but 99% of anything that comes out of Trump's mouth is bullshit.

 

A relevant question is whether both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have the political will and leadership to honestly negotiate any time soon for a two state solution, and the clear answer is NEITHER side does. 

trump's position (see the conference with Bibi) regardless of the cleanup at the UN makes it even less likely that the Israel side will feel any pressure from Washington to try harder at this. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

What is the goal of the Palestinian struggle? Creating an independent state of their own or achieving a Western liberal construct? Is the main aim of the Palestinian struggle focused on building their own future or on destroying that of the Israelis?

Better ask the Palestinians that, not me.

Personally, I would like Palestinians and Israelis to have the life opportunities that I have growing up in the west...living healthily in peace with my neighbors, free from fear with equal human and civil rights in a just society , and the chance to achieve all my aspirations. 

 

If that happens in a one state solution or two states is irrelevant IMHO.

Edited February 17, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Yeah, that goes back to the part where the US policy does not align with your extreme views. In your view, anything that is somehow beneficial to Israel is inherently wrong. Of course, you will object to any withholding of funds from the Palestinians on grounds that these are used to finance terrorist activities.....just the usual double standard prevalent in your posts. Again, the US does not fund the Israeli illegal settlement effort - other than in convulsed and one-sided mind such as yours. And neither Kushner, nor Friedman financed anything as representatives of the US administration - same goes for other donors. Guess no objections for donations to Palestinians, though.

 

The Palestinians could have dropped their rejectionism prior to 1967, accept more than they would get nowadays and build their state. They could have done so at anytime between 1967 and prior to the Oslo Accords, and still deal with a less complicated reality. Notice that I do not deny Israel's part in creating this mess, simply addressing that it is not the sole party. That your refuse to even acknowledge any shred of Palestinian accountability and responsibility for their own predicament is pathetic, at best.

>>Yeah, that goes back to the part where the US policy does not align with your extreme views. 
...my views are far from extreme, compared with the current incumbents of the White House and the Israeli cabinet.

>>In your view, anything that is somehow beneficial to Israel is inherently wrong.
...please don't put words in my mouth. Anything that is beneficial to the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism is inherently wrong.

 

As for your last paragraph, I am surprised at you. You normally leave the off topic pseudo history stuff to the usual suspects.

20:20 hindsight vision is wonderful counsel. We have been here many times before. Israel has made some huge tragic mistakes too, and of course today, like the Palestinians, it still does not have permanent peace.

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Better ask the Palestinians that, not me.

Personally, I would like Palestinians and Israelis to have the life opportunities that I have growing up in the west...living healthily in peace with my neighbors, free from fear with equal human and civil rights in a just society , and the chance to achieve all my aspirations. 

 

If that happens in a one state solution or two states is irrelevant IMHO.

 

The usual cop out. Simply unable to address anything that might reflect negatively on the Palestinian side.

 

What you claim to wish, has very little to do with Middle East reality. That you insist on turning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a social engineering project is all very fine, but perhaps better to have some knowledge of said people, societies and the rest of the baggage beforehand.

 

Funny how when Trump says he doesn't mind one state or two state solution that's bad.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Yeah, that goes back to the part where the US policy does not align with your extreme views. 
...my views are far from extreme, compared with the current incumbents of the White House and the Israeli cabinet.

>>In your view, anything that is somehow beneficial to Israel is inherently wrong.
...please don't put words in my mouth. Anything that is beneficial to the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism is inherently wrong.

 

As for your last paragraph, I am surprised at you. You normally leave the off topic pseudo history stuff to the usual suspects.

20:20 hindsight vision is wonderful counsel. We have been here many times before. Israel has made some huge tragic mistakes too, and of course today, like the Palestinians, it still does not have permanent peace.

 

That Israeli cabinet members hold extreme views (don't know that Trump can be said to have such....that's too fixed), does not detract from your own opinions being extreme as well. They are just different extremes, that's all.

 

Spare your nonsense. You're simply using your misguided inflammatory anti-Zionist rants (which are, on this discussion and most other times, off topic) as a pretext to oppose anything to do with Israel. This was shown numerous times on previous topics.

 

You are not "surprised" but deflecting. The one who brought up years of negotiations and occupation was yourself. As you cannot, for agenda purposes, discuss these in any mode that's not anti-Israel, you simply dodge. I did not and do not deny Israel made many mistakes, and I do not think it always makes the right choices. That does not amount to a free pass for the Palestinian side regarding their own decisions.

[boomerangutang]

"First of all, the two-state solution is what we support. Anybody that wants to say the United States does not support the two-state solution - that would be an error," Haley told reporters at the United Nations.

 

         Yesterday, Trump was vacillating, so is Haley saying he's wrong?  Either way, no one can count on US opinions on int'l affairs for at least the next four years.  The top banana and Bannon are all over the map.  Trump doesn't know what he stands for because he's flummoxed on int'l issues. And he doesn't read more than a few sentences at a time - not intelligence reports nor books. He just likes to watch TV.  That's why he changes his ideas from day to day.  Other countries' leaders are going to take the lead, while Trump and Bannon fiddle with getting their trouser zippers unstuck.

[dexterm]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The usual cop out. Simply unable to address anything that might reflect negatively on the Palestinian side.

 

What you claim to wish, has very little to do with Middle East reality. That you insist on turning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a social engineering project is all very fine, but perhaps better to have some knowledge of said people, societies and the rest of the baggage beforehand.

 

Funny how when Trump says he doesn't mind one state or two state solution that's bad.

>>Funny how when Trump says he doesn't mind one state or two state solution that's bad.
... I never said Trump's statement was bad. Other commentators may have said so, not I. Netanyahu definitely looked disturbed by his words.

 

I certainly regard Trump's flippant indifference and ignorance as bad. Along with his hypocrisy of supposedly supporting a two state solution (if we are to believe his UN damage control ambassador that is), while actively encouraging a one state solution.

But if the clowns bring about a one state solution, as looks more likely, so be it. Eventual win win for Palestinians, eventual lose lose for Zionism.

 

I wouldn't call living without fear in a just and free society a social engineering project. It's called normal living where I and many posters on this forum come from.

Edited February 17, 2017 by dexterm
eliminate ambiguity

[rijb]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

A relevant question is whether both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have the political will and leadership to honestly negotiate any time soon for a two state solution, and the clear answer is NEITHER side does. 

trump's position (see the conference with Bibi) regardless of the cleanup at the UN makes it even less likely that the Israel side will feel any pressure from Washington to try harder at this. 

Anti-Trump & Anti-Israel  (a summary of your position)

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Funny how when Trump says he doesn't mind one state or two state solution that's bad.
... I never said Trump's statement was bad. Other commentators may have said so, not I. Netanyahu definitely looked disturbed by his words.

 

I certainly regard Trump's flippant indifference and ignorance as bad. Along with his hypocrisy of supposedly supporting a two state solution, while actively encouraging a one state solution.

But if the clowns bring about a one state solution, as looks more likely, so be it. Eventual win win for Palestinians, eventual lose lose for Zionism.

 

Trump did not actively encourage anything, that's your own interpretation. There were at least two instances in his speech which reflected an understanding that a certain give-and-take is in order. Wouldn't make a mountain out of that too - just pointing out that like many of his public statements, there's something for everyone.

 

And still you cannot address anything pertaining to the Palestinian side. Telling.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, rijb said:

Anti-Trump & Anti-Israel  (a summary of your position)

 

Not really.

There is no full convergence between the current Israeli government (or rather, Israeli right wing views) and Israel as a whole. Same as being opposed to Trump does not make someone anti-US.

[Thorgal]

 
The usual cop out. Simply unable to address anything that might reflect negatively on the Palestinian side.
 
What you claim to wish, has very little to do with Middle East reality. That you insist on turning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a social engineering project is all very fine, but perhaps better to have some knowledge of said people, societies and the rest of the baggage beforehand.
 
Funny how when Trump says he doesn't mind one state or two state solution that's bad.

Your quote : "Funny how when Trump says he doesn't mind one state solution that's bad".

=> I've provided previously a link to the whole speech of Trump and Netanyahu. Many pro-Israeli subjects were explained and how Trump is willing to give support.

Some of the subjects were :
- the move of the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem ;
- the 'laissez faire' attitude of Trump concerning the construction of more illegal settlements in occupied Palestine ;
- to reject the Iran nuclear deal/pact ;
- the continued improvement of the US-Israeli relationship, which means further mult-billion financial donations for military aid, read contracts, while a few millions of US citizens live in poverty ;
- Israel suffered so many in the past, and that it deserved a better future, excluding validity of previous UN condemnations ;
- and many more...

In short, this presentation was just a summary of the core Zionist agenda.
And for me, it's the first time that a US president in history endorses this publicly without diplomatic feeling.

Many of Trumps' advisers are pro-Israeli and/or pro-Zionist lobbyists. Idem dito for his private real estate emperium.

Your post is again an attempt to cherry picking in the the wrong season and in the wrong garden...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

@Thorgal

 

Trump acted as he acts on many a foreign policy issues - not showing much insight, knowledge or caution. That's far from unique to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and can be observed in most other public statements on global affairs.

 

Those paying attention will note that Trump's current positions are somewhat less cavalier than those expressed earlier - the embassy move is to be considered, further settlement expansion in the West Bank is not encouraged, the Iran nuclear agreement will not be cancelled. Compared with his previous decisive statements, his current take seems less all-in. Guess a measure of reality does trickle in after all.

 

The US military aid to Israel was granted under Obama's term, not Trump's. It's also to be spent completely on US made hardware, which essentially means American jobs. Presenting it as money given to Israel is inaccurate. If you have political objections to this aid, write your representatives in DC, and let them know about it.

 

Trump's words with regard to the connection and relationship between the two countries was the usual political fair. Similar speeches were given by US presidents in the past. Trying to make it into an extraordinary one does not conform to reality.

 

Now, I understand that some of you cannot resist putting Zionism (or Zionist, whatever) in every discussion - even if it got very little to do with the topic itself. Your mentions ain't different.

 

My post, far from cherry-picking, was actually about your fellow poster's failure to discuss anything that might reflect on the Palestinian side in a negative manner. And addressed his usual utopian out of touch fantasies with regard to the future.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.