18
   

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

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2017 03:38 pm
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24993527_394654010954338_6111972081679847244_n.jpg?oh=dd6b2f7fe0ce5f8e5d786c58401f829f&oe=5AD1B4A1
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2017 03:45 pm
@izzythepush,
So your vote is for pushing them into the Sea? How very PLO of you.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2017 04:03 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
http://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24993527_394654010954338_6111972081679847244_n.jpg?oh=dd6b2f7fe0ce5f8e5d786c58401f829f&oe=5AD1B4A1

The intolerance of Palestinian vermin is exactly why Israel now gets to use military force to confine the Palestinian micro state to Area A alone (plus Gaza too of course) and keep all of the rest of the land for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2017 08:27 pm
Initially, the British did not support the idea of creating a jewish state in Palestine. Prior to that, neither did the Ottoman empire. What was it that caused the British to later endorse the creation of a jewish state in Palestine?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 01:48 am
@Glennn,
Oil, and the mistaken belief that a Zionist state would be more likely to aid Britain's imperial ambitions.

Quote:
Britain’s public acknowledgement and support of the Zionist movement emerged from its growing concern surrounding the direction of the First World War. By mid-1917, Britain and France were mired in a virtual stalemate with Germany on the Western Front, while efforts to defeat Turkey on the Gallipoli Peninsula had failed spectacularly. On the Eastern Front, the fate of one Ally, Russia, was uncertain: revolution in March had toppled Czar Nicholas II, and the provisional government was struggling against widespread opposition to maintain the country’s disintegrating war effort against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Although the United States had just entered the war on the Allied side, a sizeable infusion of American troops was not scheduled to arrive on the continent until the following year.

Against this backdrop, the government of Prime Minister David Lloyd George—elected in December 1916—made the decision to publicly support Zionism, a movement led in Britain by Chaim Weizmann, a Russian Jewish chemist who had settled in Manchester. The motives behind this decision were various: aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of the Zionist cause, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a formal declaration in favor of Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies in neutral countries, in the United States and especially in Russia, where the powerfully anti-Semitic czarist government had just been overthrown with the help of Russia’s significant Jewish population. Finally, despite Britain’s earlier agreement with France dividing influence in the region after the presumed defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Lloyd George had come to see British dominance in Palestine—a land bridge between the crucial territories of India and Egypt—as an essential post-war goal. The establishment of a Zionist state there—under British protection—would accomplish this, while seemingly following the stated Allied aim of self-determination for smaller nations.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-balfour-declaration
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 05:53 am
Why Are Democrats Enabling Trump’s Jerusalem Decision?
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/democratic-senators-enabling-one-trumps-worst-decisions/

Back at home, however, Democratic leaders have been mostly silent or, worse yet, taking credit for Trump’s actions.
There are a few exceptions. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Mark Pocan and Raúl M. Grijalva and Peace and Security Task Force Chair Barbara Lee released a statement saying that Trump’s decision “sabotages our diplomatic efforts and makes it even harder to achieve peace.” The statement, however, did not have the signatures of the other 72 members of the caucus. Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi made a spineless statement saying “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish homeland,” but added that “moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem now may needlessly spark mass protests, fuel tensions.”
On the Senate side, Senators Bernie Sanders and Dianne Feinstein put out strong statements of opposition. Senators Warren, Brown and Murphy showed mild opposition, saying that diplomacy should determine the final status of the city, but agreeing that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Senators Durbin, Booker and Blumenthal expressed concern that the move would cause violence but none of them put out statements of condemnation afterwards.
The vast majority of the nation’s 535 members of Congress, however, gave no response at all to this critical announcement or were outright enthusiastic. Senator Ben Cardin, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, agreed that “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel and the location of the US Embassy should reflect this fact.” Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer actually bragged that he had helped convince Trump to make the move. Democratic whip Steny Hoyer said that it was simply “a fact of history.” Democratic Representatives Engel, Schultz and Deutch all backed Trump.
These Democrats are at odds not only with the United Nations, most of the world’s leaders and global public opinion. They are also at odds with American Jewish opinion. A September 2017 survey by the AJC Global Jewish Advocacy, found that 44 percent of American Jews don’t support moving the embassy and 36 percent think it should be moved only in the future in conjunction with peace talks.” Only 16 percent want the embassy to be moved now.
Trump’s action has already begun to wreak havoc in the Middle East. We don’t know how far this will escalate, especially as progress continues to actually move the embassy. What we do know is that is the reckless actions of a man who has no regard for international law and no conception of what is in the US national interest must be repudiated. So where are the Democrats?
Ariel Gold is the national co-director of Code Pink. She manages the organization’s campaigns for Palestinian rights.
Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of Code Pink. She is the author of “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control” and “Kingdom of the the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection.”
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 07:53 am
@edgarblythe,
I agree about Democrats and Israel/Palestine. They may not have hateful rhetoric as some republicans against Palestine but for the most part are biased in favor of Israel, always have been, except perhaps for Carter. I was unaware of Feinstein's views. Encouraging. I was aware of Bernie's views, he has always been unbiased on the Israel/Palestine endless crises.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 09:22 am
@izzythepush,
From what I've read, when things weren't going well for the Allied Powers, Zionists basically offered to use their influence to bring the U.S. into the war in exchange for giving them assurances of facilities in Palestine for immigration and colonization.

http://mailstar.net/balfour.html
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 10:14 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Why Are Democrats Enabling Trump’s Jerusalem Decision?

That is easy. While many on the left (like the author of this article) harbor a secret hatred of Jews, there are still a very large number of Democrats who don't hate Jews and who reject those who do hate Jews.


Quote:
These Democrats are at odds not only with the United Nations, most of the world’s leaders and global public opinion.

The UN is infested with anti-Semites.

And for some reason anti-Semites like to pretend that they speak for world opinion when they vomit their hate.


Quote:
Trump’s action has already begun to wreak havoc in the Middle East.

No. Islamic aggression is beginning to wreak havoc.

Muslims are responsible for their own decisions to murder innocent people.


Quote:
What we do know is that is the reckless actions of a man who has no regard for international law and no conception of what is in the US national interest must be repudiated.

International law allows Jews to have their own capital. Despite the hateful machinations of neo-nazi groups, Jews are still considered to have the same rights as other human beings.

It is in our national interest to have our embassies in capital cities. It certainly is not in our interest to needlessly snub our good friends and curry favor with anti-Semites.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 10:52 am
Quote:
The leaders of 57 Muslim nations have called on the world to recognise "the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital".

An Organisation of Islamic Co-operation communique declares US President Donald Trump's decision to recognise the city as Israel's capital as "null and void".

It also says the move has signalled Washington's withdrawal from its role in the Middle East peace process.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas earlier said the UN should take over.

In a speech to the OIC summit in Istanbul, Mr Abbas said it would be "unacceptable" for the US to be the mediator "since it is biased in favour of Israel".

The Palestinians had engaged with the Trump administration in an attempt to agree "the deal of the century", he noted, but had instead "got the slap of the century".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42335751
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 11:07 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The leaders of 57 Muslim nations have called on the world to recognise "the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital".

Since the Palestinians will not negotiate the creation of their state, it will of course be necessary for it to be unilaterally declared and unilaterally recognized.

However, recognizing nonexistent borders will not cause those borders to come into being. Israel will rightfully continue to keep full military control over all of Areas B and C, confining the Palestinian micro state to Area A alone (plus Gaza too of course). Areas B and C must be ceded to the Palestinians ONLY in exchange for a true negotiated peace.

Israel does however need to take the first possible opportunity to finish construction of the Security Fence (including in the areas where they are being pressured to not finish it) and declare that as their official national border. This will undercut all the Palestinian nonsense about a "one state solution".
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Dec, 2017 02:20 pm
(3) Robert John, Behind the Balfour Declaration: The Hidden Origins of Today's Mideast Crisis (The Institute for Historical Review, 1822l/2 Newport Blvd., Suite 183 Costa Mesa, California 92627, 1988)

{p. 18} I remember how angry I was while in the library of the Hoover Institution for War, Peace, and Revolution at Stanford, when I first held in my hand and read a copy of secret document prepared for the inner group at the Versailles 1919 Peace Conference, relating to what was then called the Near East. Page nine of part of the document is reproduced in the Appendix. It proved that the tiny group around Lloyd George recognized that Great Britain had promised independence to the Arabs, including the area of Palestine, about two years before the pledge of a national home for the Jews in Palestine was made to Lord Rothschild. When Arab representatives in 1939 asked the British government for an inquiry into the documents they had regarding this promise, the secret document was not made available to the Commission on the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Arnold Toynbee and others who knew its contents were all still alive, but remained silent. I was angry because I knew that two generations of my family, like so many others, had volunteered and fought for a Britain which they believed stood for Truth and Justice.

http://mailstar.net/balfour.html
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2017 01:23 am
@Glennn,
Terrible, it's very briefly touched on at the end of Lawrence of Arabia. That's imperialists for you, anything to promote the spread of empire, and today's imperialists are no different.

At least Lloyd George was trying to act in what he believed were the best interests of empire, Trump just wanted to take attention away from Flynn. He's so inept that he's prepared to jeopardise the whole ME peace process just to shore up support amongst the Neanderthals back home.
Below viewing threshold (view)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2017 07:14 am
@oralloy,
I have to reluctantly agree with oral, ya cant stand around yelling at the traffic when you built the road
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2017 08:41 am
T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) on the Sykes-Picot Treaty:

For my work on the Arab front I had determined to accept nothing. The Cabinet raised the Arabs to fight for us by definite promises of self-government afterwards. Arabs believe in persons, not in institutions. They saw in me a free agent of the British Government, and demanded from me an endorsement of its written promises. So I had to join the conspiracy and, for what my word was worth, assured the men of their reward. In our two years' partnership under fire they grew accustomed to believe me and to think my Government, like myself, sincere. In this hope they performed some fine things, but, of course, instead of being proud of what we did together, I was continually and bitterly ashamed.

It was evident from the beginning that if we won the war the promises would be dead paper, and had I been an honest adviser of the Arabs I would have advised them to go home and not risk their lives fighting for such stuff: but I salved myself with the hope that, by leading these Arabs madly in the final victory I would establish them, wiith arms in their hands, in a position so assured (if not dominant) that expediency would counsel to the Great Powers a fair settlement of their claims. In other words, I presumed (seeing no other leader with the will and power) that I would survive the campaigns, and be able to defeat not merely the Turks on the battlefield, but my own country and its allies in the council-chamber. It was an immodest presumption: it is not yet clear if I succeeded: but it is cIear that I had no shadow of leave to engage the Arabs, unknowing, in such hazard. I risked the fraud, on my conviction that Arab help was necessary to our cheap and speedy victory in the East, and that better we win and break our word than lose.

http://mailstar.net/balfour.html
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2017 09:09 am
So the feeling is that because of the Balfour declaration 100 years ago, America, and Trump does not have to take any responsibility for its actions.

And the Anglophobic bigots don't even think I'm allowed an opinion.

If and when the next 9/11 happens, and it's more likely to happen now, I'll refrain from reminding you of this conversation.
Below viewing threshold (view)
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2017 08:13 am
Palestinian double amputee killed by Israeli sniper

Two days before he was killed, Ibrahim Abu Thurayyah filmed a message to the Israeli army.
"I am passing a message to the Zionist occupation army," the 29-year-old double amputee said. "This land is our land. We are not going to give up. America has to withdraw the declaration it made."
Before his death, the wheelchair-bound Abu Thurayyah had become a staple figure at protests along the Gaza Strip's border with Israel. In the last couple of weeks, he and his fellow demonstrators decried US President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In photos, Abu Thurayyah can be seen climbing an electricity pole and sticking a Palestinian flag on it.
On December 15, Abu Thurayyah was fatally shot in the head by an Israeli sniper.

WATCH: Palestinians killed in protests against Jerusalem move (2:07)

Another Palestinian, Yaser Sukkar, was killed the same day while protesting at Gaza's border. Two others were killed by the Israeli army in the occupied West Bank, bringing the death toll since Trump's decision in the first week of December to eight Palestinians.
On Saturday, funerals were held for Abu Thurayyah and the three other Palestinians killed a day earlier.
Ashraf al-Qidra, the spokesman for Gaza's health ministry, said in a statement on Saturday that the Israeli army has been using snipers armed with explosive bullets and indiscriminately firing tear gas canisters.
"The army also uses gas bombs of unknown quality, which has led to the injury of dozens in the form of convulsions, vomiting, coughing and rapid heartbeat," he said.
Qidra also noted that Israeli forces have been using excessive violence against civilians and deliberately targeting paramedics, ambulances and news crews.
Abu Thurayyah lost both of his legs and a kidney in an Israeli air raid in April 2008, while he was sitting with several friends in al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza. Seven people were killed in the attack.
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 10:59:31