17
   

Trump's embassy move to Jerusalem 'self-destructive'

 
 
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2017 05:45 pm
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/trump-embassy-move-jerusalem-destructive-170124082119524.html

The inexperienced, demagogic politician hardly understands the danger that lies in his decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If he goes through with this, he is likely to unleash an episode of chaos in an already volatile region.
The move, which is now reportedly in the "beginning stages", is not a mere symbolic one, as some naively reported in Western mainstream media. True, American foreign policy has been centred mostly on military power, rarely historical fact.
But Trump, known for his thoughtlessness and impulsive nature, is threatening to eradicate even the little common sense that governed US foreign policy conduct in the Middle East.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 17 • Views: 2,133 • Replies: 118

 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2017 08:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
Why on earth is Trump doing this?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2017 08:26 pm
@realjohnboy,
Sucking up to Israel's govt.?
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2017 09:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
This is so wrong headed for so many reasons. I don’t understand what the evangelicals hope to achieve......are they so committed to the ‘end of days’ scenario they are willing and eager to see our citizens butchered in order to (vainly) bring on the end of the world? If these folks are really believers, why do they think their notion of God needs them to nudge him/her along? Do they even understand the tenets of their own religions (sic)? I’m so disgusted, I can barely stand it. So many of us have parents who fought in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, and yet we ignore the deadly sacrifices they made to endorse an empty suit with mommy issues. God (if you are listening) spare us.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2017 11:20 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/trump-embassy-move-jerusalem-destructive-170124082119524.html

Trump, known for his thoughtlessness and impulsive nature, is threatening to eradicate even the little common sense that governed US foreign policy conduct in the Middle East.


When I want to know the correct American foreign policy, I always rely on Aljazeera for the answer.

Well, either them or the PLO.

Feel me?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  5  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 02:31 am
@edgarblythe,
Leave it to Trump to prove Al Qaida right. America isn't just against Muslim terrorists, it's against Islam full stop.

Bang the drums, the terrorist's recruiting sergeant has gone into overdrive.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 06:01 am
I have always felt the western world and the US in particular don't know what they are doing in that part of the world.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 06:24 am
@edgarblythe,
The Balfour declaration and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French is what kicked off this whole sorry story.

And yes, most Americans don't have a clue about what's going on in the ME.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 11:15 am
Trump has been a bit of a student of politics for decades, frequently sharing his opinions on talk shows and news shows, bragging about how much better he could do the job.

I think his motivation is for posterity— “I solved the Israeli-Palestinian peace issue.” There’ll be a book.

He thinks Kushner is his secret Jew in the hole.

I’m legitimately concerned about the fallout for people in the Middle East—and maybe here. This will excite a lot of people. I remember weekly bus bombings in Tel Aviv, etc not so long ago. Such a potential for rapid escalation.

edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 01:06 pm
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/trump-jerusalem-legal-historical-appraisal-171206150511502.html

US President Donald Trump has said it is time to officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The decision comes seven decades after the Declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, that was unilaterally announced on 14 May 1948 by David Ben-Gurion. At the time, no borders were settled for the new state. It is also for this reason that Israel's admission to the United Nations (UN) soon became a strategic priority. The admission to the UN, in fact, was and is the "most secure and expeditious way" of gaining widespread or universal recognition. 
Yet, Israel's original application for admission to the UN was rejected by the UN Security Council on December 17, 1948. The second bid for application was made on February 24, 1949. "Negotiations", assured the then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban at the General Assembly of the UN, "would not, however, affect the juridical status of Jerusalem, to be defined by international consent". 
These binding assurances - that served as the basis for Israel's admission to the UN - were made one year after the war of 1947- 48 (see Uri Avnery's "sacred mantras" on "rejectionism"): none of the historical events of the following seven decades has the legal capacity to erase them. Even more so considering that when, in 1980, Israel passed a Basic Law which declared Jerusalem "complete and united", as the "capital of Israel", the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 476 affirming that "measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void". 

This decision was in line with the juridical principles affirmed 20 years earlier. In June 1945, in fact, the San Francisco Conference stipulated, in Article 80 of the UN Charter, that the organisation had the necessary power to conclude trusteeship agreements that could alter existing rights held under the pre-existing Mandate for Palestine. In the Partition Plan (Resolution 181, November 29, 1947) the UN General Assembly clarified the will to establish an international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem.
The relevance of history 
Notwithstanding these considerations, juridical aspects alone can hardly explain why any unilateral step regarding Jerusalem cannot but ignite further polarisation: It is history, in fact, that shows the key reasons why Trump's unilateral decisions or attempts are ill-fated. 
Despite growing absolutist claims, "Uru-Shalem" (the city "founded by Shalem", a god venerated by the Canaanites), founded by the Canaanites around 5,000 years ago, has not belonged to one single people in its entire history. This is a further reason why, in its nature, Jerusalem must be internationally, or at least bilaterally, shared. 
Long before the three monotheistic religions, Al-Haram al-Sharif, the site on which Solomon's Temple stood, hosted a Canaanite place of worship. It is noteworthy that in biblical usage, Jerusalem is often mentioned as "Zion", the high ground where its original inhabitants built the present city's original fortress. "Siyon" is a term of Canaanite origin that can be translated as "hill" or "high ground".
At the beginning of the last century, almost 80 percent of the city's inhabitants lived in mixed neighbourhoods and quarters. In Yaacov Yehoshua's memoir, Yaldut be-Yerushalayim ha-yashena, the author recalled that in the city "there were joint compounds of Jews and Muslims. We were like one family […] Our children played with their [Muslim] children in the yard, and if children from the neighbourhood hurt us the Muslim children who lived in our compound protected us. They were our allies."
OPINION
Trump's dangerous Jerusalem gambit

by Daoud Kuttab
All this should not suggest that inter-religious and/or confessional conflicts were historically unknown. Some clashes have been documented as early as the Middle Ages. Yet, their nature and scope are hardly comparable to more recent times. More importantly, they don't mirror the actual history of most of Jerusalem's (and the broader region's) past. 
True, the "actual history" and local equilibria, particularly in late Ottoman times, were not perceived by all observers, particularly external ones, in the same way. In 1839, William T. Young, first British Vice-Consul in Jerusalem, noted, for instance, that a Jew in Jerusalem was not considered "much above a dog". Young himself, however, had to acknowledge that, in case of need, a Jew would have found shelter "sooner in a Mussulman's house than in that of a Christian".
Moreover, external observers used to provide very different, and, at times, contradictory opinions. Just a few years after Young, in 1857, British Consul to Jerusalem James Finn pointed out, for instance, that "there are few countries in the world where, in spite of appearances to the contrary, there is so much of practical religious tolerance as in Palestine".
Nowhere more than in judicial records is it possible to assess to which extent local communities perceived themselves, in Finn's times and in other periods of Ottoman history, as being constructive elements of the Ottoman milieu. American historian Amnon Cohen, who spent years studying documents stored in the archives of the Sharia (Islamic law) religious court of Ottoman Jerusalem, found 1000 Jewish cases filed from the year 1530 to 1601. 
Jews preferred to use Islamic Sharia courts rather than their own, rabbinical courts: "The Sultan's Jewish subjects", noted Cohen, "had no reason to mourn their status or begrudge their conditions of life. The Jews of Ottoman Jerusalem enjoyed religious and administrative autonomy within an Islamic state, and as a constructive, dynamic element of the local economy and society they could - and actually did - contribute to its functioning". 

External understandings: a pattern 
Arthur Balfour, who gave his name to the 1917 Declaration, visited Palestine for the first time in his life in 1925. On that occasion, he presided over the opening of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, accompanied by Chaim Weizmann and his wife, Vera. 
Despite Balfour's very limited knowledge of the local reality, his actions were based on the rock-solid conviction that the ideas that he was embracing were "rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land". 
Each observer and historian can have a different opinion about these aspects and Balfour's approach. "The truth", noted Oscar Wilde, "is rarely pure and never simple". Yet, the point remains: US President Donald Trump, not dissimilarly from Arthur Balfour one century ago, is imposing a unilateral understanding of the local reality without knowing much of its complex past and present. To pay the price for this will be, once again, Israelis and Palestinians alike.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 02:17 pm
A single state solution is what is needed in Palestine, and Trump's move--although clumsy and inept with a potential for violent reaction--along with the Zionists' steady and unabated settlement building and expansion work towards a single state outcome in Palestine.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 02:21 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

This is so wrong headed for so many reasons. I don’t understand what the evangelicals hope to achieve......are they so committed to the ‘end of days’ scenario they are willing and eager to see our citizens butchered in order to (vainly) bring on the end of the world?


Yes

Quote:
If these folks are really believers, why do they think their notion of God needs them to nudge him/her along? Do they even understand the tenets of their own religions (sic)?


You have to keep in mind how stupid these people are in the first place, how anti-education they are, and how self-serving their entire ethos is.

The fact that the Evangelical movement firmly supports Trump should put an end to any thoughts to the contrary that anyone had.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 02:35 pm
"Honestly, I am surprised to see anyone being shocked by the position of the US, which was never a mediator in any peace process. It has always been a party in the conflict here, and in the Arab region, and now that has become clear to those who were blind about America's role."
words of one Palestinian
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 07:54 pm
I had expected an immediate explosion across the Arab world, but so far it seems muted. Waiting to see what happens next.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 08:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
Unfortunately, what will happen is what is intended to happen.

I remember back in 2010 when the BP oil spill disaster was occurring. I reasoned that if they really wanted to stop the oil from pouring out from that failed blowout preventer, they should use the same adhesive compound used to secure our presidents' lips to Netanyahu's ass to seal it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 08:51 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
The inexperienced, demagogic politician hardly understands the danger that lies in his decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If he goes through with this, he is likely to unleash an episode of chaos in an already volatile region.

There is no danger so long as we put enough soldiers and weapons in our embassies to mow down any mobs who attack.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 08:52 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
Why on earth is Trump doing this?

Because it's the right thing to do.

What we really need now is to relax the pressure on Israel to not complete the Security Fence around Jerusalem and in other sensitive areas.

Once Israel completes the Security Fence they can declare it as their official border and annex all land to the west of the Fence.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 08:53 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
This is so wrong headed for so many reasons.

Not at all. It is proper that we base our embassy in the capital city.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 08:54 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
I’m legitimately concerned about the fallout for people in the Middle East—and maybe here. This will excite a lot of people. I remember weekly bus bombings in Tel Aviv, etc not so long ago. Such a potential for rapid escalation.

If the Palestinians start any trouble, it will be a small matter to bomb them into submission.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2017 08:55 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
A single state solution is what is needed in Palestine,

On the contrary, what we need is a two state solution where the Palestinian micro state is confined to Area A alone (Gaza too of course).


InfraBlue wrote:
and Trump's move--although clumsy and inept with a potential for violent reaction--along with the Zionists' steady and unabated settlement building and expansion work towards a single state outcome in Palestine.

Not at all. Once the Security Fence is created and declared as an official international border, that will be the end of Palestinian claims to being residents of Israel.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Trump's embassy move to Jerusalem 'self-destructive'
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/15/2017 at 08:04:35