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 -
Setton

Trump to recognise Jerusalem

537 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I don't think that is accurate, ExpandMyMind ? 

The US is not ".. the only country standing in the way of the resolution". 

Israel has withdrawn from all territory occupied during the '67 war, where that territory was taken from countries or entities that have acknowledged the principle of article (ii) of the resolution. (Jordan and Egypt). The two remaining are Syria (the Golan Heights) and the PLO (The West Bank). Syria has never cancelled its state of war with Israel, and the PLO (in defiance of their commitments in the Oslo Accords) is still constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel as a state. Accordingly, Israel is NOT obliged to withdraw from those territories under the terms of the Resolution. 

Well, that last bit is debatable, but if Israel WAS to withdraw, then the Resolution would STILL not be fulfilled due to the intransigence and belligerence of Syria and the PLO. So it seems odd to characterise Israel - let alone President Trump - as being the ones standing in the way of peace ? (or at least, standing in the way of Res242). 

Wow. You're actually attempting to lawyer your way out? That's pretty low, though pretty easily dismantled by applying many of the basic laws and international agreements that I have already brought up in this thread - if you want to keep it just legal and not look at the morality of the situation, that is.

Look, regardless of whether or not you think they can still occupy the Territories due to a technicality, this is not how it is interpreted by literally the entire rest of the World. Any land acquired by the use of force through the course of war is illegitimate - there is no way to "legally" claim it, as you seem to suggest, and Israel are required to withdraw. But, like I said, even if you think they have a right to it - they don't. Let's just keep ramming that one home for both yourself and anyone who might have thought what you said sounded anywhere near legitimate - the resolution has been reaffirmed multiple times throughout the years, along with others having been introduced. If Israel had done as you seem to suggest, and withdrawn from all the territory they were supposed to, then there would be no problem, would there? You seem to be... confused? No, that's not it.

Both Israel - and no doubt yourself - can try to employ all the use of intellectual dishonesty you wish in an attempt to try to legitimise a claim to the land belonging to another people - the indigenous population - all while ignore the calls and demands by practically every other country in the World (I always forget the likes of Micronesia and the like - who can blame me?). You no doubt have debated similar in the past with people who maybe weren't up for doing the research or perhaps thought that what you were claiming sounded legitimate, but you're quite simply lying - you're not mistaken, because you can clearly see that the right to self determination and the demise of the right of conquest make everything you say legally impossible (not to mention the multiple resolutions passed exposing the lie), so the only alternative is that you are actually lying and spreading false propaganda. 

and the PLO (in defiance of their commitments in the Oslo Accords) is still constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel as a state. Accordingly, Israel is NOT obliged to withdraw from those territories under the terms of the Resolution. 

I truly wonder if you try to say this with a straight face. You realise that all throughout the Accords, Israel were expanding the land- grab (not to mention since). They continued and even quickened the expansion of the settlements, so let us not try to claim that those "agreements" are in any way more binding to the Palestinians as or the PLO or other Palestinian factions, than they are to Israel. You don't come to an agreement, break the agreement, and then try to claim the other party is still somehow beholden to said agreement. What a completely ridiculous notion.

The Oslo Accords are not what binds Israel to the duty of having to leave the Occupied Territories - international law dictates this and there is no controversy anywhere else in the world with the interpretation of this, other than with religious extremists and online Israeli apologists. 

Well, that last bit is debatable, but if Israel WAS to withdraw, then the Resolution would STILL not be fulfilled due to the intransigence and belligerence of Syria and the PLO

Israel refuse to withdraw from the Occupied Territories (and Syria), therefore they are, by definition, the ones standing in the way of peace. This is about as simple as anything else I can imagine and I'm not sure how you think you can somehow try to reverse cause and effect? It is, in a dark, morally bankrupt way, actually quite comical. You're another who is attempting to blame the victim. Good luck with that.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

THings are a broiling and a churning towards the ugly and uglier now ...
 

Quote

 

~

Trump 'didn't seem to have a full understanding' of his decision to ...

www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics

2 days ago - US President Donald Trump is said to have not fully understood the consequences of his decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and that "the decision wasn't driven by the peace process...the decision was driven by his campaign promise.”

~

Egypt's Coptic Church rejects meeting with U.S.'s Pence over ...

29 mins ago - Egypt's Coptic Church has rejected a meeting requested by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during his visit later this month in protest against Washington's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, MENA state news agency reported on Saturday.

~

Heads of Jerusalem churches deliver last-minute plea to Trump | The ...

3 days ago - The letter goes on, “Our solemn advice and plea is for the US to continue recognizing the present international status of Jerusalem. Any sudden changes would cause irreparable harm.” The letter is signed by the heads of the Greek, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox patriarchates, the Latin ...

~

 

 

Looks like #45 played his ignoramus card one too many times this time ...

~

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Can we trust that this idea of his has finally put to bed that old calumny that was thrown around during the election campaign and afterwards towards the Trump of "anti-Semitism" , at least?

He owned a copy of Mein Kampf :lol:

There has, throughout the course of history, been a lot of anti-semitic Zionists, including Hitler himself. I don't think Trump did this to help Israel, rather he was pandering to his Christian extremist base. Y'know, the ones who think he has just ushered in the apocalypse (not naming any names, but there have been a few of them in these very forums over the years).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

If he hadn't done what Israel wanted, it'd be proof that he hates the Jews.

If he does do what Israel wants he still hates the Jews.

But, as I'm sure you'll agree, he also hates Muslims too. So he hates the Jews and the Muslims? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

So much, in fact, does he hate the Jews that he has one as a son-in-law, who, despite his experience being in the realm of real estate, is now his advisor on Middle Eastern affairs, God help us all. And he allowed his daughter to convert to Judaism when she married said gentleman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

If he hadn't done what Israel wanted, it'd be proof that he hates the Jews.

If he does do what Israel wants he still hates the Jews.

But, as I'm sure you'll agree, he also hates Muslims too. So he hates the Jews and the Muslims? 

Those aren't the only two options though. The third is that regardless of policy with Israel, he has a history of racism and you don't just renounce being a racist. If he had helped overthrow Mugabe or something, would that have then made him any less racist towards black people? Not in my book.

You can support Israel and be anti-semitic or you can not support Israel and be anti-semitic. The same as you can condemn Israel and be not anti-semitic and you can choose not to condemn Israel and not be anti-semitic (I think that's right? I just confused myself). None of these combinations require any of the others to be true. In other words, his actions are not predicated on hating or not hating Jews.

I do understand what you're saying though. The thing is, I had already made up my mind about his racism regardless of anything he now does, because he has a documented history of being one. The support or non support of Israel doesn't change this.

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So much, in fact, does he hate the Jews that he has one as a son-in-law, who, despite his experience being in the realm of real estate, is now his advisor on Middle Eastern affairs, God help us all. And he allowed his daughter to convert to Judaism when she married said gentleman. 

Surely you cannot be saying that there is only one form of racism? That there aren't levels that go right from casual racism through to outright KKK? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Montmorency the Dog
22 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The thing is, I had already made up my mind about his racism regardless of anything he now does

That seems to sum up a lot of people. "I've made up my mind, he's an evil and vile monster, and whatever he does it'll somehow prove my argument." 

 

Sorry if that sounded argumentative. 

Quote

Surely you cannot be saying that there is only one form of racism? That there aren't levels that go right from casual racism through to outright KKK? 

Yes, and the kind of racism we were talking about here was anti-Semitism .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
11 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

That seems to sum up a lot of people. "I've made up my mind, he's an evil and vile monster, and whatever he does it'll somehow prove my argument." 

 

Sorry if that sounded argumentative. 

Yes, and the kind of racism we were talking about here was anti-Semitism .

I had made my mind up on his personality because it was well established long before he won. 

But there are all sorts of levels of anti-Semitism, just like any other prejudices. You have people who simply believe they are tight, money-hoarders (people think the same about us Scots), all the way to people who think they are responsible for every conspiracy theory in the history of man, all through to people who hate them for religious reasons and simply because they are a different race.

I think Trump is closer to the casual sort of racism like the example Farmer provided - like a racist grandpa. And to be fair, I think most racists are guilty of this sort of racism more than any other. It's basically ignorant racism.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
2 hours ago, third_eye said:

THings are a broiling and a churning towards the ugly and uglier now ...
 

 

Looks like #45 played his ignoramus card one too many times this time ...

~

Yes, I just read about the cancelled meeting. The UN, EU, Pope, christian leaders from all arround the world are against it, besides the outrage of muslims. That should tell us something.

As much as I hate religion this proves that when it comes to a greater cause people can stand together even in religious differences.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 hours ago, third_eye said:

THings are a broiling and a churning towards the ugly and uglier now ...

Looks like #45 played his ignoramus card one too many times this time ...

From the first link: 

Quote

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis were among senior officials who advised Mr Trump against breaking decades of US foreign policy.

When these two dudes, who undoubtedly stand to cement their legacy through whatever outcomes of this situation may be, say its a bad idea - its gotta be a pretty bad idea.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Farmer77 said:

From the first link: 

When these two dudes, who undoubtedly stand to cement their legacy through whatever outcomes of this situation may be, say its a bad idea - its gotta be a pretty bad idea.  

I thought #45 was going to Fire both of them ?

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, third_eye said:

I thought #45 was going to Fire both of them ?

~

I think #45 is starting to do the opposite of whatever leaks out from the WH just to spite the media :lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I think #45 is starting to do the opposite of whatever leaks out from the WH just to spite the media :lol:

He's been pulling logic loops out of the knots so many times I sincerely doubt he has any inkling on what is what or where anymore ... it ain't no walk in the par that's for sure ... Sparky is putting on a show ... said it when he was running, said it when he was 'winning' ... said it when he was 'sworn' in

He still thinks he can run the Country like a TV show ...

~

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

But, as I'm sure you'll agree, he also hates Muslims too. So he hates the Jews and the Muslims?

And you could add the Mexicans, probably the spanish, the irish, the americans, in fact everybody.

Trump loves Trump - end off.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
8 minutes ago, third_eye said:

He's been pulling logic loops out of the knots so many times I sincerely doubt he has any inkling on what is what or where anymore ... it ain't no walk in the par that's for sure ... Sparky is putting on a show ... said it when he was running, said it when he was 'winning' ... said it when he was 'sworn' in

He still thinks he can run the Country like a TV show ...

~

To be fair, he has made it the most widely watched reality show the world is likely to ever see. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO

I see a lot of you have started to refer to Trump as #45

I would be careful with that one, I would nearly takes odds on him declaring himself #46 after the next election.

 

Well there is a pretty big assumption in there to be honest!. Probably too big.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I would be careful with that one, I would nearly takes odds on him declaring himself #46 after the next election.

 

Well there is a pretty big assumption in there to be honest!. Probably too big.

Yeah, thinking that he knows 46 comes after 45 is a HUGE assumption :lol:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
41 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah, thinking that he knows 46 comes after 45 is a HUGE assumption 

Good one :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Wow. You're actually attempting to lawyer your way out? That's pretty low, though pretty easily dismantled by applying many of the basic laws and international agreements that I have already brought up in this thread - if you want to keep it just legal and not look at the morality of the situation, that is.

Look, regardless of whether or not you think they can still occupy the Territories due to a technicality, this is not how it is interpreted by literally the entire rest of the World. Any land acquired by the use of force through the course of war is illegitimate - there is no way to "legally" claim it, as you seem to suggest, and Israel are required to withdraw. But, like I said, even if you think they have a right to it - they don't. Let's just keep ramming that one home for both yourself and anyone who might have thought what you said sounded anywhere near legitimate - the resolution has been reaffirmed multiple times throughout the years, along with others having been introduced. If Israel had done as you seem to suggest, and withdrawn from all the territory they were supposed to, then there would be no problem, would there? You seem to be... confused? No, that's not it.

Both Israel - and no doubt yourself - can try to employ all the use of intellectual dishonesty you wish in an attempt to try to legitimise a claim to the land belonging to another people - the indigenous population - all while ignore the calls and demands by practically every other country in the World (I always forget the likes of Micronesia and the like - who can blame me?). You no doubt have debated similar in the past with people who maybe weren't up for doing the research or perhaps thought that what you were claiming sounded legitimate, but you're quite simply lying - you're not mistaken, because you can clearly see that the right to self determination and the demise of the right of conquest make everything you say legally impossible (not to mention the multiple resolutions passed exposing the lie), so the only alternative is that you are actually lying and spreading false propaganda. 

and the PLO (in defiance of their commitments in the Oslo Accords) is still constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel as a state. Accordingly, Israel is NOT obliged to withdraw from those territories under the terms of the Resolution. 

I truly wonder if you try to say this with a straight face. You realise that all throughout the Accords, Israel were expanding the land- grab (not to mention since). They continued and even quickened the expansion of the settlements, so let us not try to claim that those "agreements" are in any way more binding to the Palestinians as or the PLO or other Palestinian factions, than they are to Israel. You don't come to an agreement, break the agreement, and then try to claim the other party is still somehow beholden to said agreement. What a completely ridiculous notion.

The Oslo Accords are not what binds Israel to the duty of having to leave the Occupied Territories - international law dictates this and there is no controversy anywhere else in the world with the interpretation of this, other than with religious extremists and online Israeli apologists. 

Well, that last bit is debatable, but if Israel WAS to withdraw, then the Resolution would STILL not be fulfilled due to the intransigence and belligerence of Syria and the PLO

Israel refuse to withdraw from the Occupied Territories (and Syria), therefore they are, by definition, the ones standing in the way of peace. This is about as simple as anything else I can imagine and I'm not sure how you think you can somehow try to reverse cause and effect? It is, in a dark, morally bankrupt way, actually quite comical. You're another who is attempting to blame the victim. Good luck with that.

WOW.. I was shocked by that response.  You made a post referencing UN Security Council Resolution 242. I merely stated (rightly or wrongly) that I thought your post had misinterpreted that resolution, and its requirements.  

You spent most of your "response" post (cited above) referring to the "occupied territories"... but.. I never commented on those. I merely tried to discuss the ACTUAL implications of UN Resolution 242. (as I understand them), based on the fact that you cited them as a key point in your previous post.  

IN your above comment, you didn't challenge ANY of my points, and - in my opinion - threw up emotional "Strawman" arguments about the West Bank. 

I might agree - or disagree - with some of those opinions. Because I have elected to join a DEBATE website. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps YOU are wrong. Or perhaps we are just looking at an issue from slightly different perspectives. 

I'm not going to ask you to apologise - that's too much of an ask. But I WILL demand this of you: address my points in future, and don't indulge in trying to score "debate points" by distorting and mis-representing my position. You are better than that ! :) 

So then... lets get back on track (within the narrow context of the last few posts)

Is Israel in compliance with UN Resolution 242 ? It was YOU who brought that up as a point, so do you continue to feel that way ?

And - to relate back to the OPA... is it relevant to the US's decision to transfer it embassy to Jerusalem ? 

 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Just now, RoofGardener said:

WOW.. I was shocked by that response.  You made a post referencing UN Security Council Resolution 242. I merely stated (rightly or wrongly) that I thought your post had misinterpreted that resolution, and its requirements.  

You spent most of the post referring to the "occupied territories"... but.. I never commented on those. I merely tried to discuss the ACTUAL implications of UN Resolution 242. (as I understand them). 

You didn't challenge ANY of my points, and - in my opinion - threw up emotional "Strawman" arguments about the West Bank. 

I might agree - or disagree - with some of those opinions. Because I have elected to join a DEBATE website. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps YOU are wrong. Or perhaps we are just looking at an issue from slightly different perspectives. 

I'm not going to ask you to apologise - that's too much of an ask. But I WILL demand this of you: address my points in future, and don't indulge in trying to score "debate points" by distorting and mis-representing my position. You are better than that ! :) 

So then... lets get back on track (within the narrow context of the last few posts)

Is Israel in compliance with UN Resolution 242 ? It was YOU who brought that up as a point, so do you continue to feel that way ? 

I answered your point regarding Resolution 242. The answer is a resounding no, they are not compliance, for the numerous reasons laid out in my previous reply (a rather obvious one being the fact that the resolution has been ratified on numerous occasions since then).

Also, you were the one who brought up the Oslo Accords - not simply Resolution 242 as you suggest - as I have seen you doing countless times before on this forum over the years, as a way to attempt to justify the settlements and warp the realities of the situation. 

And 'territory occupied' is the currently Occupied Territories.

If I came across a little harsh it's because I simply cannot see how - when there is no such thing as a "right of conquest" and that it is the right to self determination (and that right only) that determines who has a claim to land - you could possibly claim that your points are anything other than lies. It is literally not possible for your claim to be correct. But, if you were not lying and simply were unaware of the two previous point I made, then I do apologise if I offended you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would want to give any part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. It would instantly turn into a Islamic hell hole. It’s like saying the over throwing of the Libyan government was a good idea, regardless of the facts. 

I mean did you see what these people did to Gaza? It’s horrific. I for one am great full Trump isn’t bowing to extremist like our past coward presidents have done. And will no longer allow people committed to Israel’s destruction to use the Palestinians as a pawn in their anti Semitic games. 

Edited by preacherman76
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Thanks for your response Expand. 

I'm afraid you did NOT answer my point about Res242. In particular the Resolution requires that all parties abide to it. Israel has abided to it with all parties that ALSO abide to it. Syria and the PLO are in continous disregard of it.... which abrogates Isreal's requirement - UNDER THE RESOLUTION.. to abide to it .. insofar as it relates to their obligations of the non-compliant organisations (Syria and the PLO)

Perhaps these specific issues would be better served in a new thread, rather than the current one ? 

What say you ? :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations
2 hours ago, RAyMO said:

And you could add the Mexicans, probably the spanish, the irish, the americans, in fact everybody.

Trump loves Trump - end off.

The thing is the Mexican president is worse than trump 28% his approvel rating last i read

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.