Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Kushner in charge of peace in the Middle East


Unusual Tournament

Recommended Posts

Trump to Kushner: If You Can't Produce Middle East Peace, Nobody Can
 

During his speech, Trump thanked members of his family who were in the crowd, including his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. "Ivanka married well," Trump declared, referring to his daughter who is married to Kushner. During the weekend, Trump confirmed in an interview with the Times of London that Kushner, an Orthodox Jew, will be used by his administration to try and broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. "If you can't produce peace in the Middle East, nobody can," he told Kushner at the Union Station event. 
 

Kushner's appointment could face legal difficulties, since anti-nepotism laws in the U.S. specifically forbid government officials to promote or appoint their own sons-in-law within the government agencies they work for. Kushner is considered one of the closest people to the president-elect and played a major role in his election victory. 

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.766226

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank Bill Clinton for this...

A court ruling in 1993 clearing Hillary Clinton’s appointment to her husband Bill Clinton’s administration to work on heath-care reform may give the Trump transition team hope in fighting the law.

Two federal judges said the 1967 anti-nepotism law does not pertain to the White House.

Jamie Gorelick, a lawyer in President Clinton’s Justice Department who has been working with Kushner on clearing his potential ethical conflicts, insisted she was confident the law did not apply to White House positions.

“This is not a close question,” she told The Washington Post, citing another law passed in 1978 that she said lets the president hire White House staffers “without regard” to federal personnel laws, including the anti-nepotism statute.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/why-anti-nepotism-law-might-not-apply-to-kushner-appointment/

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Michelle said:

Thank Bill Clinton for this...

A court ruling in 1993 clearing Hillary Clinton’s appointment to her husband Bill Clinton’s administration to work on heath-care reform may give the Trump transition team hope in fighting the law.

Two federal judges said the 1967 anti-nepotism law does not pertain to the White House.

Jamie Gorelick, a lawyer in President Clinton’s Justice Department who has been working with Kushner on clearing his potential ethical conflicts, insisted she was confident the law did not apply to White House positions.

“This is not a close question,” she told The Washington Post, citing another law passed in 1978 that she said lets the president hire White House staffers “without regard” to federal personnel laws, including the anti-nepotism statute.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/why-anti-nepotism-law-might-not-apply-to-kushner-appointment/

Repercussions and precedents. Apart from ensconcing himself with Trump and all his billions what other real life experience does someone like Kushner have to solve the Middle East problems? I know zilch! I bet the Israelis are doing micky flips at the prospect of such an "impartial" judge and advisor.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the "Experts" haven't had much luck, so how much worse could he be ? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the embassy is relocated to Jerusalem, there will be a war.  Depending on just how intense it is, the Palestinians and surrounding Arab states may finally be ready for peace.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I dunno And Then. I mean,  war with whom ? By what means ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/22/2017 at 10:28 AM, and then said:

If the embassy is relocated to Jerusalem, there will be a war.  Depending on just how intense it is, the Palestinians and surrounding Arab states may finally be ready for peace.  

More like a massive terrorist attack.  It's going to be ugly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, I dunno And Then. I mean,  war with whom ? By what means ? 

Consider it an intifada on steroids then.  Riots in the west bank, rockets and missiles from Gaza and potentially an attack by Hizballah in the north.  Abbas has been cultivating the "two state" solution for years and the movement of the embassy will be seen as proof positive that the idea has died.  A massive flurry of strikes and counter strikes that leave hundreds of dead Palestinians will be seen as a plus for the goal of further isolating Israel.  The broader Arab world cannot be seen to support Israel or even to look the other way.  Even the Jordanian government may become restive.  I think we both know that there was never a good faith negotiation for two states by the Palestinians.  I truly believe that if the Palestinians made such an effort, Israelis would try once more to make peace.  The settler movement would probably start some insurrection but it would not succeed.  If the Hizballah began an attack it could signal regional war.  The IDF spokesman clearly stated that when they attack again it will be the last time, regardless how many Lebanese civilians are killed.  And there's this, also, as Israeli casualties mount there could be a deafening call for annexation.  At some point, a majority of the people in Israel are going to decide they have nothing more to lose and possibly much to gain.  War in that area is a certainty.  The only unknown is the timing and the list of combatants.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21 January 2017 at 10:58 AM, Michelle said:

Thank Bill Clinton for this...

A court ruling in 1993 clearing Hillary Clinton’s appointment to her husband Bill Clinton’s administration to work on heath-care reform may give the Trump transition team hope in fighting the law.

Two federal judges said the 1967 anti-nepotism law does not pertain to the White House.

Jamie Gorelick, a lawyer in President Clinton’s Justice Department who has been working with Kushner on clearing his potential ethical conflicts, insisted she was confident the law did not apply to White House positions.

“This is not a close question,” she told The Washington Post, citing another law passed in 1978 that she said lets the president hire White House staffers “without regard” to federal personnel laws, including the anti-nepotism statute.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/why-anti-nepotism-law-might-not-apply-to-kushner-appointment/

Congrats Michelle... you called it and it seems that the highly prized by Trump "advisor" is free to become Trump's right hand man.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no good reason his son-in-law shouldn't be an advisor.  Apparently, the guy is very accomplished in his own right.  Trump is going to need all the sound council he can find.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2017 at 7:47 AM, and then said:

Consider it an intifada on steroids then.  Riots in the west bank, rockets and missiles from Gaza and potentially an attack by Hizballah in the north.  Abbas has been cultivating the "two state" solution for years and the movement of the embassy will be seen as proof positive that the idea has died.  A massive flurry of strikes and counter strikes that leave hundreds of dead Palestinians will be seen as a plus for the goal of further isolating Israel.  The broader Arab world cannot be seen to support Israel or even to look the other way.  Even the Jordanian government may become restive.  I think we both know that there was never a good faith negotiation for two states by the Palestinians.  I truly believe that if the Palestinians made such an effort, Israelis would try once more to make peace.  The settler movement would probably start some insurrection but it would not succeed.  If the Hizballah began an attack it could signal regional war.  The IDF spokesman clearly stated that when they attack again it will be the last time, regardless how many Lebanese civilians are killed.  And there's this, also, as Israeli casualties mount there could be a deafening call for annexation.  At some point, a majority of the people in Israel are going to decide they have nothing more to lose and possibly much to gain.  War in that area is a certainty.  The only unknown is the timing and the list of combatants.  

Weeeeell.... the USA recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not - in and of itself - kill the two state solution. It DOES make it increasingly likely that Israel will increase its grip on Jerusalem. However, this is ONLY a problem if the PLO keep insisting that ITS capital is East Jerusalem; a position that has zero legal or historical justification, and looks like a spiteful "spoiler" JUST to annoy the Israeli's.

If they abandon that mendacious position, then the US embassy move does NOT present an obstacle to the 2-state solution.

If, on the other hand, the PLO instigates mass riots etc, then they will fall RIGHT into the Israeli hard-liners hands, and in all likelyhood Israel will use the violence as an excuse to evict all Arabs from East Jerusalem (and probably bits of the West Bank as well). At which point at least THOSE bits of "Palestine" will then be peaceful.

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Weeeeell.... the USA recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not - in and of itself - kill the two state solution.

I'm just stating what I've read. 

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2017/1/23/abbas-moving-us-embassy-to-jerusalem-spells-end-of-two-state-solution#d=Wed+Jan+25+2017+11%3A30%3A24+GMT-0600+(Central+Standard+Time)&g=0&.WIjgr_krLIU=

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/10/israel-palestine-dispute-us-embsasy-jerusalem-oslo-peace

There are a few more.  This is, as Joe Biden once said, "a BIG F@#$% deal" for the Palestinians and Israelis.  In fact, it would set the US and the EU on separate paths and lead to all sorts of possible conflicts.  The Palestinians are kind of in shock right now, I suspect.  Everything has been going their way for a few years, slowly maybe, but steadily.  After BHO allowed that abomination of a resolution to pass, they felt the wind at their backs and probably figured 2017 might be their year.  Now Trump seems to be openly siding with Israel and they all seem to be coming unhinged.  At BEST this is seen by them as a tactic (an effective one) to force THEM back to the table and really negotiate, at worst, it's the end of their fantasy of having the world crush Israel for them.  Abdullah is getting nervous in Jordan as well, I suspect.  FTR, there is no way these peoples will ever live side by side in "peace and security".  It's time for that fantasy to end.  Since the nations of the world are about to begin openly sanctioning Israel due to resolution 2334, Israel should make it clear that they will annex all of the disputed territory if their economy is too negatively affected. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if the Palestinians are vexed about the Embassy move, they will positively explode over the next two items. 

Obama tried to rush through an aid package of over $200 million in the last days of his presidency. However, Trump has blocked it. 

https://www.rt.com/usa/375103-trump-freeze-obama-aid-palestine/

More alarming for the Liberals Favourite Cause, a draft executive order would penalise any UN organisation that supports.. well.... 

Quote

...The first of the two draft orders, titled “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations” and obtained by The New York Times, calls for terminating funding for any United Nations agency or other international body that meets any one of several criteria.Those criteria include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, ...

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/united-nations-trump-administration.html

OK, it's only a DRAFT order, but even the self-obsessed PLO must be realising that the free ride may be over. they're going to have to start understanding that extravagant threats ("... moving embassy is a declaration of war on Muslims etc") won't work with Donald Trump; he'll just take umbrage and retaliate ! 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, if the Palestinians are vexed about the Embassy move, they will positively explode over the next two items. 

Obama tried to rush through an aid package of over $200 million in the last days of his presidency. However, Trump has blocked it. 

https://www.rt.com/usa/375103-trump-freeze-obama-aid-palestine/

More alarming for the Liberals Favourite Cause, a draft executive order would penalise any UN organisation that supports.. well.... 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/united-nations-trump-administration.html

OK, it's only a DRAFT order, but even the self-obsessed PLO must be realising that the free ride may be over. they're going to have to start understanding that extravagant threats ("... moving embassy is a declaration of war on Muslims etc") won't work with Donald Trump; he'll just take umbrage and retaliate ! 

American policy, if you can call it that, has long been to try to let time heal the wounds by pressuring both sides with carrots and sticks, to get a negotiated settlement of some sort (probably a two-nation resolution but that was always left open).   Now Trump is taking a hard-line pro-Israel approach, which of course will only harden the more conservative Israelis and make a settlement less likely (not that there was ever much chance anyway -- this just makes it worse and delays any progress until Trump is out of the picture).

In short, instead of trying to keep things cool, Trump has turned up the heat and will involve the US much more deeply than in the past, probably not to the US's safety interest but certainly to Trump's "let's all hate Muslims" program, since this is bound to lead to terrorist acts against the US.  He will then use this to cut off immigration even more.  Seems Machiavellian and shrewed but not very wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps Frank Merton. However, bear in mind that the "carrot and stick" hasn't really worked, has it ? Consider the Oslo Accords that created the basis for the Palestinian State (and the Palestinian Authority). The PLO grabbed the carrot, but where was the stick when they abrogated their promise to ammend the PLO charter in order to formally recognise Israel ? That was in 1993, and the Charter still describes the State of Israel as illegal, and not recognised. 

In one of the follow-on accords (The Wye River Memorandum) the PLO agreed not to incite violence against Israel, or Israeli citizens. Within two years, we had the second Intifada.

The liberal democracies have continuously handled the PLO with kid gloves, and never held them to their promises for fear that they would storm out of the "peace process", and successive Israeli governments went along with this. Presumably the hope was that if the PLO was kept at the negotiating table, then perhaps EVENTUALLY they would moderate their position. 

It hasn't worked. Donald Trump is merely recognising reality, and treating the PLO as adults rather than feral children.  And adults have to recognise that their actions have consequences. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, perhaps Frank Merton. However, bear in mind that the "carrot and stick" hasn't really worked, has it ? Consider the Oslo Accords that created the basis for the Palestinian State (and the Palestinian Authority). The PLO grabbed the carrot, but where was the stick when they abrogated their promise to ammend the PLO charter in order to formally recognise Israel ? That was in 1993, and the Charter still describes the State of Israel as illegal, and not recognised. 

In one of the follow-on accords (The Wye River Memorandum) the PLO agreed not to incite violence against Israel, or Israeli citizens. Within two years, we had the second Intifada.

The liberal democracies have continuously handled the PLO with kid gloves, and never held them to their promises for fear that they would storm out of the "peace process", and successive Israeli governments went along with this. Presumably the hope was that if the PLO was kept at the negotiating table, then perhaps EVENTUALLY they would moderate their position. 

It hasn't worked. Donald Trump is merely recognising reality, and treating the PLO as adults rather than feral children.  And adults have to recognise that their actions have consequences. 

We don't know whether it has "worked" or not.  History is not writ so simple.  Things might have been and I think will become much worse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps FM. However, appeasement of the PLO hasn't worked. Perhaps a more even-handed approach (e.g. expecting them to honour their commitments) may bear fruit ? 

As for "lets hate all muslims"... that is a parody of Donald Trumps position. And regarding ".. lead to more terrorist attacks..", lets recall the statement in the ISIS magazine. It lists six reasons why ISIS hate us. And the primary reason (and also No.'s 2 and 3) are because we are not Muslims. 

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

http://www.clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf

(pages 31-33).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, perhaps FM. However, appeasement of the PLO hasn't worked. Perhaps a more even-handed approach (e.g. expecting them to honour their commitments) may bear fruit ? 

As for "lets hate all muslims"... that is a parody of Donald Trumps position. And regarding ".. lead to more terrorist attacks..", lets recall the statement in the ISIS magazine. It lists six reasons why ISIS hate us. And the primary reason (and also No.'s 2 and 3) are because we are not Muslims. 

 

 

It is pretty hard to parody Trump.  I think that is what he is doing.  By the way, the policy has also included "appeasement" of Israel, and the settlements keep getting built and the PLO keeps getting pushed out and Gaza continues to starve.  You need balance in your assessment or you will never understand.

I do think though that Trump is just inviting terrorism, and I find it not only wrong but close to evil to practice such a hypocritical policy in order to justify an anti-Muslim policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, curiously, Donald Trump has never - so far as I am aware - made a particular stance on criticising Islamic theology or Scripture at any stage in his various careers. So, with that in mind, what makes you think he has an "anti-Muslim" policy, as opposed to an anti-terrorism policy ? 

Let us not forget that ISIS stated their intention to smuggle terrorists into Western nations (mentioning the USA specifically) disguised as refugees; as the residents of Brussels, Berlin, Paris and Nice discovered to their cost.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One biggest problem for the area and possibly for the world is Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If Mr. Trump continues to overlook situation at the field and continues to blindly work against two state solution between Israel and Palestine ( his support for settlements and talks about moving US embassy to Jerusalem ) then he is purposely putting his son in law into bad position.

If he ( Kushner ) is only one who can do it, and we all know that he supports Mr. Trump's politics without question, then i believe that every step forward to making peace which was made by other politicians and administrations will be demolished in the coming years. Pretty illogical claim he made, i hope i am wrong about it but showing middle finger to Palestinians and then talking about peace isn't constructive, it's very destructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

every step forward to making peace which was made by other politicians and administrations will be demolished in the coming years.

HAVE their been any steps forward towards making peace ? Can you give me an example of one that has been successful ? I would suggest that they have all failed. 

Consider article 21 of the PLO charter:

"...

Article 21:

The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

Bear in mind that in their Charter, "Palestine" includes the land currently occupied by the state of Israel. (which they consider illegal anyway). 

The previous internationally brokered attempts at peace have all attempted to find compromises between Israel and the PLO. I would suggest they have all failed. Perhaps the Stick will work better this time ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

PLO keeps getting pushed out and Gaza continues to starve

Not true.  http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/gaza-palestinan-obesity-diseases-diet-fitness.html

From the article:  "In the Gaza Strip, a high proportion of people suffer from obesity. “Only 18% to 25% of the Strip’s residents have a normal weight," he said. "The rest are suffering from obesity because of the nature of our life pattern, in addition to the unbalanced social lifestyle, bad eating habits, food traditions and dessert consumption.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/gaza-palestinan-obesity-diseases-diet-fitness.html#ixzz4X8TrXdkO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

One biggest problem for the area and possibly for the world is Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Why?  The land is just a tiny % of the total area of the 50 Muslim-majority states. 

400px-Muslim_Percent_Population_v2.svg.png

Compared to - 

Image result for map of Israel in the M.E. region

Can you even see it among the neighbors?  Why is it that a dispute over such a tiny piece of land could be among the greatest problems in the world?  Does that seem rational to you?  Just next door there have been more than a quarter-million Arab Muslims slaughtered by other Muslims in Syria, yet the world is FAR more upset about Jews building homes in east Jerusalem.  

This is what the Bible says about the situation:  Zecharia 12:3

"On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it. "

Zecharia wrote this about 2600 years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

HAVE their been any steps forward towards making peace ? Can you give me an example of one that has been successful ? I would suggest that they have all failed. 

Consider article 21 of the PLO charter:

"...

Article 21:

The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

Bear in mind that in their Charter, "Palestine" includes the land currently occupied by the state of Israel. (which they consider illegal anyway). 

The previous internationally brokered attempts at peace have all attempted to find compromises between Israel and the PLO. I would suggest they have all failed. Perhaps the Stick will work better this time ? 

Well you are actually right about success of those peace talks, every peace talks were outshined by situation on the field. Also, there is big difference between Hamas and Palestinian officials in West Bank and they both get the same treatment from Israel. 

We shall see what happens in near future but all in all, what's said by Trump so far surely doesn't sound constructive and that was my point, his statement about Kushner is flawed on many levels.

As for liberation, occupation... It's a long subject and this topic might not be the place to discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and then said:

Why?  The land is just a tiny % of the total area of the 50 Muslim-majority states. 

400px-Muslim_Percent_Population_v2.svg.png

Compared to - 

Image result for map of Israel in the M.E. region

Can you even see it among the neighbors?  Why is it that a dispute over such a tiny piece of land could be among the greatest problems in the world?  Does that seem rational to you?  Just next door there have been more than a quarter-million Arab Muslims slaughtered by other Muslims in Syria, yet the world is FAR more upset about Jews building homes in east Jerusalem.  

This is what the Bible says about the situation:  Zecharia 12:3

"On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it. "

Zecharia wrote this about 2600 years ago.

It's not about land as you try to present here my friend, it's about the right of those who lived there and were forced out of it. It's my opinion that their conflict has far larger consequences than to simply be only about and in that 'tiny piece of land'. Is it so hard to give Palestinians part of Jerusalem for them to have part of it as their capital? Is that such hard thing to do so that we rather choose more insecurity and for what? 

Problem with settlements is that it seems more important to make some European or Asian, American Jewish family ( with no connection to Arab world at all ) can come to Israel and settle in parts of East Jerusalem? Is that more important than to make peace for domestic population? Jews have same right to live and prosper there but it seems that their own security is broken to settle the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.