Historic shift in US policy on Israel?

[Van Gorp]

On 23-12-2016 at 3:52 PM, and then said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-un-idUSKBN14C1IV?il=0

This had been rumored for months but lately had gotten little press.  Obama wants to give Bibi and Israel the old two finger just as he leaves office.  What better time for a gift to the world than Christmas?  Egypt and 4 other nations sponsored the language but Egypt reversed course after Trump had a chat with Al Sisi.  Apparently, Obama is not to be denied.  If this passes today, people will look back and point to this event as the starting point for a third world war.  If it passes, Europe gains legitimacy to sanction Israel into the ground unless it gives up all settlements and even vacates the Jordan valley with the IDF.  Since they cannot do this, war will follow.  If a guy of average intelligence from Alabama can figure this out, you'd think the PTB would see it coming as well, no?

I don't think there will be an historic shift in policy.  First test would be sending VN troops into Palestina when not following the international law.  If they can do it in other countries why not in Palestina/Israel.

We will see, but think not gonna happen.  War won't come imo either, despite the eagerness to fight or to manifest on both sides from some wicked but loud minority. 

Jews don't want Palestinians to perish, Palestinians don't want Israeli to Perish. 

Not building and taking land of others would be enough, just try it.  Israel has the power to do that, use it for the good instead of the bad.

Hopefully Israel will aknowledge not to be mature enough to handle the occasion 'given' to them by man. Man can take that right back, wellwilling Israelites and/or Jews know this, there is no need for war.  If i see a shift in policy, it will be inside Israel.

Israel need to become a real home for the Palestinians too, what is Israel afraid of, because they are not Jews?  Religion doesn't matter, who are modern Israelites anyway?

Germans and Poles. Let them live in peace with the local population of Palestina and forget history or the view some group has on it.  Build the future together, we will do.

[+and-then]

The historic shift occurred when Obama refused to veto a clearly anti-Israel resolution.  2334 states that the area that encompasses the western wall is, "occupied" territory.  The fantasy you and others speak of where the Palestinians take a piece of land and are satisfied will never come to reality.  Arafat formed the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1963.  Four years prior to any settlements being formed after the six days war.  What "Palestine" did he plan to liberate?  

[Frank Merton]

29 minutes ago, and then said:

The historic shift occurred when Obama refused to veto a clearly anti-Israel resolution.  2334 states that the area that encompasses the western wall is, "occupied" territory.  The fantasy you and others speak of where the Palestinians take a piece of land and are satisfied will never come to reality.  Arafat formed the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1963.  Four years prior to any settlements being formed after the six days war.  What "Palestine" did he plan to liberate?  

I think that is the main reason you are so gung-ho on Trump -- you see him as possibly setting off the apocalypse your religious ideas predict are coming.  Unfortunately, if that happens a lot of people will die -- but that doesn't bother you much, does it?

[Phaeton80]

10 hours ago, and then said:

The historic shift occurred when Obama refused to veto a clearly anti-Israel resolution.  2334 states that the area that encompasses the western wall is, "occupied" territory.  The fantasy you and others speak of where the Palestinians take a piece of land and are satisfied will never come to reality.  Arafat formed the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1963.  Four years prior to any settlements being formed after the six days war.  What "Palestine" did he plan to liberate?  

 

How would you like it if people would not grant you freedom of decades long military oppression because they 'believe' you would pose a threat - as a whole, not just extremist elements (or supposed 'heads of state') - in the future? Isnt that exactly what the Nazi sentiment was, leading them to 'the final solution'? Isnt that all but the complete and utter antithesis of a 'Christian position', of Christ's teachings? You see it seems excessively hypocritical to foment genocide* of a whole ethnocultural population while feigning the victim role based on genocide committed against you in the past. Which is exactly what is happening. The fact countless Thora Jews rage against this Zionist State positioning herself as representing world Jewry, rage against the crimes of this Zionist clique, isnt without reason. These people are not payed by some omni present, well funded Palesintian propaganda machine, however you would undoubtedly want to conveniently believe such. 

So what would your 'solution' be, dear Zionist, but complete genocide of the Palesintian population (given the limited options available besides a two state solution)? Please, indulge me. But lets not fool ourselves in posing these Palesintians need to remove themselves from the land of their ancestors, because that will (and should) not happen.

 

*Genocide: Lemkin defined genocide as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."

 

[GlitterRose]

11 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I think that is the main reason you are so gung-ho on Trump -- you see him as possibly setting off the apocalypse your religious ideas predict are coming.  Unfortunately, if that happens a lot of people will die -- but that doesn't bother you much, does it?

This is a big part of it, I think, for many Christians. 

When Jesus doesn't come, and there is rampant death, then what? Will anyone realize that they have spawned evil, or will they still be waiting? 

[simplybill]

11 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I think that is the main reason you are so gung-ho on Trump -- you see him as possibly setting off the apocalypse your religious ideas predict are coming.  Unfortunately, if that happens a lot of people will die -- but that doesn't bother you much, does it?

I think you're giving us believers too much credit. We don't have the ability to orchestrate an event the size of the biblical apocalypse. Biblical prophecies are described as "unfolding", rather than being "planned". 

 

[+and-then]

14 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I think that is the main reason you are so gung-ho on Trump -- you see him as possibly setting off the apocalypse your religious ideas predict are coming.  Unfortunately, if that happens a lot of people will die -- but that doesn't bother you much, does it?

 

Then you're a fool, as well as a hard left ideologue, Frank.  The fact that you even believe such a thing possible shows your foolishness.  This thread is about the fact that a LEFTIST ideologue U.S. president went against our 70-year history with an ally and chose to roil the region by supporting their worst enemy.  Since you seem a bit piqued over my question, why don't YOU answer it for him?  What "Palestine" needed to be liberated in 1963?  The West Bank was firmly under Jordanian control, Gaza was held by the Egyptians.  This is historical fact.  If you'd like to spew your loathing of my faith and the things I believe are forecast for this world, we can start another thread for that.  Meanwhile, reference a post where I'm "gung-ho on Trump".  I voted Trump because he was NOT the Hildebeast.  The fools on the Left STILL haven't figured that out.  It was ALWAYS about HER.  Idiots.

[Van Gorp]

 

On 23-12-2016 at 10:30 PM, and then said:

Incidentally, I did not start this thread to re-litigate the Palestinian/Israel issue. 

13 hours ago, and then said:

What "Palestine" needed to be liberated in 1963?

lol

i'm not intending to re-litigate the whole issue :-)

 

 

[+and-then]

Just now, Van Gorp said:

 

lol

i'm not intending to re-litigate the whole issue :-)

 

 

 

I thank you for that.  I am curious about your answer to my question, though.  It really is a simple, straightforward query.  I was wrong about the actual date the PLO was formed.  It was 1964, not 1963.  Still, this is 3 years prior to the six-day war.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=when+was+the+plo+formed%3F&oq=when+was+the+plo+formed%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.11567j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The obvious question is that if today we are saying that the settlement issue is hindering the peace (I agree that it does not help) then what was to be "liberated" in 1964?

[Van Gorp]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I thank you for that.  I am curious about your answer to my question, though.  It really is a simple, straightforward query.  I was wrong about the actual date the PLO was formed.  It was 1964, not 1963.  Still, this is 3 years prior to the six-day war.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=when+was+the+plo+formed%3F&oq=when+was+the+plo+formed%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.11567j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The obvious question is that if today we are saying that the settlement issue is hindering the peace (I agree that it does not help) then what was to be "liberated" in 1964?

I can give short my opinion.

you said :" The fantasy you and others speak of where the Palestinians take a piece of land and are satisfied will never come to reality. "

We can pick on words, but i would rather use the word "regain control" instead of take. Soit, bottom line to make myself clear: I'm not talking about the fantasy, in your words, that Palestinians will settle with only a piece of land.  There has to come much more, i agree to be also convinced by that.  It's a legitimate struggle not to settle with that, because for the living conditions this is just not enough.  I'm talking about one federation, where Palestinians have a full vote for/in the governmental body that governs de facto their living areas and supplies.

In that sense there were reasons enough even before 1964 to aim for more self-control and self determination without any interfering of external parties.  The difficulties all didn't start in 1964.  The fact a people start an organisation to 'fight' for their lost rights, should not be equated with the fact that no reason/intend is to be expected from them than total anhilation of the supressors (let all parties, not only Israel, choose when feeling adressed). 

Imo futurewise, Israel will cease to be a dominant Jewish oriented state, it will be a state where Jews are welcome if they want to settle there as it was intended.  Many Jews though, will stay in their real homelands because they feel and experience they are as even welcome there, so no need for an self choosen repatriation.  De facto, Israel is bound to become a Jewish/Palestinian state which will be THE vehicle for the Palestinians to live in peace with their Jewish com-patriots.  If people don't believe in such, i would advise then to go home again and leave the building proces to be one of uniting instead of seperation. 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Van Gorp
typo

[Frank Merton]

This is not viable.  The Jews would not accept it and would not feel safe, nor be treated as equals, in a Muslim dominated state.  Islam is like that and the Jews there know it.

The only really lasting settlement would be a dual state of some sort (where both parties have veto) or a simple separation into separate states.  It will, in my opinion, take generations to get the populations to the view where even that is possible, and what is happening now (the US and Britain supporting the Jewish hard-liners who in reality want to drive the remaining Muslims out) will achieve nothing and at best delay any possible resolution for another generation or so.

Trump seems to be inviting acts of terrorism in the US, I guess so he can use them as excuses for what he is doing.  Gives me the shivers at the Machiavellian criminality of it all.

[RoofGardener]

Well Van Gorp, that is certainly one solution to the ongoing violence. And it is - of course - the one held by the PLO.

You could equally well state that peace could be accomplished by extending the eastern boundary of the State of Israel to the Jordan River, the northern one to the Golan Heights (which it pretty much is ANYWAY, at the moment), the western one to the Mediterranean (including Gaza) and evicting all of the "Palestinians" into Jordan and Syria.

[Van Gorp]

Well, personally I'm not in favor of any eviction.  

I tend to think when one is talking about broadening any boundary or intend to take under control (be it from East to West or West to East, North en South) by a federation or state with governing bodies, this has to be done with the local people not being forced to move or assimilate in any direction, but get the right then to take full participation in that governement that governs/controls the area.  It has been done in Europe and all other nations that were evenly being 'formed' (not always as naturally as wanted) as democratic entities.

About Frank's opinion on the possibilty about living together without fear of the 'other' partie in the conflict: the man in the clip below is allready an example he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grSVuOYR-fA

 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Frank Merton said:

Trump seems to be inviting acts of terrorism in the US, I guess so he can use them as excuses for what he is doing.  Gives me the shivers at the Machiavellian criminality of it all.

When did we reach a point that such attacks are simply the expected outcome when we do something that the Palestinians reject?  What gives them, or anyone else, the right to engage in mayhem because they disagree?  Trump is most likely NOT going to move the embassy but even if he did, the world seems primed to blame the US and Israel for committing some egregious crime for that simple act.  Nothing short of a miracle will keep the end game there from an ugly, near-annihilation of the Palestinians.  It is a foreseeable, tragic future and no one seems to be able to change that outcome.  We all know why they can't.

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, and then said:

When did we reach a point that such attacks are simply the expected outcome when we do something that the Palestinians reject?  What gives them, or anyone else, the right to engage in mayhem because they disagree?  Trump is most likely NOT going to move the embassy but even if he did, the world seems primed to blame the US and Israel for committing some egregious crime for that simple act.  Nothing short of a miracle will keep the end game there from an ugly, near-annihilation of the Palestinians.  It is a foreseeable, tragic future and no one seems to be able to change that outcome.  We all know why they can't.

What is the benefit of moving the embassy to Jerusalem? 

 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

What is the benefit of moving the embassy to Jerusalem? 

 

Sorry for interrupting your conversation but i have to add reply to that, moving it to Jerusalem is just showing off of power and how nothing can be done against US and Israel's interests. It was known already but just making it official now because Trump is at least honest about it.  As i remember no one in the world recognized Jerusalem as Israeli capital, but Tel-Aviv.

There are no other benefits than to make Jerusalem, city with such a rich history and big importance to all Abram religions, exclusively Jewish.

[Farmer77]

Just now, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Sorry for interrupting your conversation but i have to add reply to that, moving it to Jerusalem is just showing off of power and how nothing can be done against US and Israel's interests. It was known already but just making it official now because Trump is at least honest about it.  As i remember no one in the world recognized Jerusalem as Israeli capital, but Tel-Aviv.

There are no other benefits than to make Jerusalem, city with such a rich history and big importance to all Abram religions, exclusively Jewish.

No not an interruption, ive been asking for a couple of days now. What you described is what I thought was happening but i admit to not being fully educated on the issue. 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No not an interruption, ive been asking for a couple of days now. What you described is what I thought was happening but i admit to not being fully educated on the issue. 

Yeah, if there is more to it i would like explanation too, i just can't see anything but that which i mention above.

[RoofGardener]

Let us bear in mind that it is not Trump who has (or may) make the decision to move the US Embassy to Israel to the capital city of Israel. That decision was taken by Congress - following a vote - over 10 years ago. Subsequent presidents have elected to use a clause in the Bill to 'defer' the move on a rolling 6-month basis. 

So Trump doesn't need to make the decision; here merely needs to choose NOT to defer the existing democratic decision any further. 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Let us bear in mind that it is not Trump who has (or may) make the decision to move the US Embassy to Israel to the capital city of Israel. That decision was taken by Congress - following a vote - over 10 years ago. Subsequent presidents have elected to use a clause in the Bill to 'defer' the move on a rolling 6-month basis. 

So Trump doesn't need to make the decision; here merely needs to choose NOT to defer the existing democratic decision any further. 

Thats true but he did stand on the stage and with vitriolic glee declare that the US would move  the embassy if he was elected. 

[RoofGardener]

So he stood up on stage and stated that he would implement the will of Congress if elected ? 

Clearly a dangerous demagogue who should be immediately impeached ! 

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So he stood up on stage and stated that he would implement the will of Congress if elected ? 

Clearly a dangerous demagogue who should be immediately impeached ! 

LOL, if only.

Nah his exact words were "we will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish People, Jerusalem"  with vitriolic glee as the crowd went nuts. 

[RoofGardener]

So a politician seeking election indulged in somewhat hyperbolic language ? 

OUTRAGEOUS. UNHEARD OF !!

Does anyone have the number of the Guild of Assassins ?  

Jesting apart, I guess I'm just saying that it seems unfair to criticise DT for this decision, and to make him out as some sort of radical.

I mean.. he may BE a radical, and worthy of criticism, but hardly on THIS issue. PLUS... it was worthwhile just to wipe the smug grins off Mahmoud Abbass's faces. 

Edited January 29, 2017 by RoofGardener

[GlitterRose]

31 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So a politician seeking election indulged in somewhat hyperbolic language ? 

OUTRAGEOUS. UNHEARD OF !!

Does anyone have the number of the Guild of Assassins ?  

Jesting apart, I guess I'm just saying that it seems unfair to criticise DT for this decision, and to make him out as some sort of radical.

I mean.. he may BE a radical, and worthy of criticism, but hardly on THIS issue. PLUS... it was worthwhile just to wipe the smug grins off Mahmoud Abbass's faces. 

You might believe it was hyperbole.

A lot of people believed it was hyperbole when he spoke of a Muslim ban. And yet, here we are. 

[RoofGardener]

At the risk of swimming against the tide, and being roundly pilloried, I'd just like to throw in a teeny tiny fact. 

He hasn't banned "Muslims", he has put a temporary moratorium on immigrants from seven specific countries. (out of around 50 in the Organisation of Islamic Supremacism Co-Operation). 

And - by a weird co-incidence -  all of them associated with ISIS.You know... the ISIS that promised to flood the USA with Jihadi Terrorist disguised as "Refugees" ? That ISIS ?  

But no... his motive is OBVIOUSLY motivated by a hatred of Muslims. I mean, what other motive could he POSSIBLY have ? 

Edited January 29, 2017 by RoofGardener