• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

UN Votes Against the US Moving Its Embassy to Jerusalem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Til Valhall said:
Yes I have thought about that. The status quo is that Israel, with its wide array of people and infrastructure will have to exist, in all fairness. I just wouldn't call it Israel. I'd call it a nice warm place to live. My argument is for secularization, not operating governments or rebellious groups based on religious ideology. It would be much easier to sort out if there wasn't a perpetual battle going on.

As for America and its indigenous population, at least we stopped trying to Christianize them and turn them into white people. That's quite a step forward, although a bit late given the damage done to them.

it's also the problem with the west bank. Unlike most people's impressions, the vast majority of Israeli settlements are not shacks with no services. Quite the contrary- many are fully supported and modern cities with services including buses, schools, and even universities. Many Israeli's have moved to these settlements not to restore the VERY ancient Jewish homelands there, but rather as an alternative to living in Jerusalem (making many settlements essentially the Orangeville to Jerusalem's Toronto.

The issue is that the Israeli settlements are interwoven with Palestinian towns (see attached picture) with the number of settlements and settlers growing steadily. With the settlement towns heavily subsidized by Israel and the Palestinian towns being largely cut off, it has created a situation in which the two state solution would look a lot like the former Yugo at this point.
 

Attachments

  • west bank settlements.png
    west bank settlements.png
    419.6 KB · Views: 272
Guatemala is following the US move to Jerusalem with their embassy.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/guatemala-trump-israel-embassy-jerusalem-1.4464381
 
The Trump administration is cutting the UN operating budget by $285 million for next year.  8)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/25/haley-announces-285m-cut-in-2018-19-un-operating-budget.html
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
As for the rest, if the US wants Arab allies than continually pissing them off isn't in that interest. Hence the comment about what Trump's actual strategic goal here is. The US moving it's capital changes nothing positive in the changing of that dynamic.

If they don't want arab allies....

How very Canadian of you.  I get the impression this US administration will not be appeasers. 
Maybe it’s in those Arab countries best interests to seek to be allies with the US and not the other way around. 
 
tomahawk6 said:
The Trump administration is cutting the UN operating budget by $285 million for next year.  8)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/25/haley-announces-285m-cut-in-2018-19-un-operating-budget.html

Good. Someone needs to jerk their choke chain for being pretty useless:

"It didn't take long for the Bosnian Muslims to realize that the UN was in no position to live up to its promise to "protect" Srebrenica. With some help from outsiders, they began to infiltrate thousands of fighters and weapons into the safe haven. As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN's safe haven. These attacks reached a crescendo in 1994 and carried on into early 1995 after the Canadian infantry company that had been there for a year was replaced by a larger Dutch contingent" Lewis Mackenzie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_MacKenzie
 
QV said:
How very Canadian of you.  I get the impression this US administration will not be appeasers. 
Maybe it’s in those Arab countries best interests to seek to be allies with the US and not the other way around.

Or china's. ... or Russia... I think they have more options than we want to admit. The current administration seems to want to end the US goal of liberal internationalism, so may have to face the piper on their decisions. The myth of US isolationism appears to be winning the day.

Next president is going to have a historical mess to clean up.
 
As opposed to the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Afghanistan and north Africa, and a nuclear Iran and North Korea; all directly tied to political decisions by Obama? Pretty big mess created by a guy with a Nobel peace prize.
 
Wonder if the UN will stick to their guns with the US turning off the ATM machine.
 
PuckChaser said:
As opposed to the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Afghanistan and north Africa, and a nuclear Iran and North Korea; all directly tied to political decisions by Obama? Pretty big mess created by a guy with a Nobel peace prize.

Well, ISIS/ISIS could also be atributed to bush who invaded Iraq and set the conditions for the rise of al-qaeda in Iraq and ISIS. Obama pulling out was a cause, not the cause. Inevitably someone would have pulled the US out of Iraq and the Shia/Sunny divide would have risen. Bush and Obama both supported the Shia administration.

Korea and Iran can be laid on many presidents.  Neither program just showed up in 2008. Saying Obama created any of these messes is disingenuous.

Trumps sins run deeper and relate to the concept of liberal internationalism,  which are more profound than any of those cases. The current international system can survive iraq/korea/Iran, but a US pull out would end an international order that has existed since the YS was a junior partner in the Pax Brittanica (a part of the idolayuon myth- the monroe doctrine cemented the US role as a junior partner in the british world order). Read the book "liberal leviathon" to see why (don't worry- it's not liberal in the political sense).

These are decisions made with little thought to strategy or long term goals.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
These are decisions made with little thought to strategy or long term goals.

Just because you don't know/understand/like the strategy or long term goal doesn't make them or the decisions to get there any less viable.

Traditional appeasement of the Arabs/Palestinians hasn't provided anything in terms of a meaningful dialogue or solution, so its time to switch gears.
 
PuckChaser said:
Just because you don't know/understand/like the strategy or long term goal doesn't make them or the decisions to get there any less viable.

Traditional appeasement of the Arabs/Palestinians hasn't provided anything in terms of a meaningful dialogue or solution, so its time to switch gears.

There is no "grand strategy", unless you've read something that I haven't, so I don't think it's a case of me not knowing/understanding/liking it. Therein, as there is no recognizable grand strategy (which to be clear isn't just a Trump failure- he's just markedly worse at it then his predecessors) the decisions aren't viable as they aren't connected to any sort of long term/medium term plan. The way Trump is approaching the world is seemingly under the assumption that US hegemony will continue regardless of their decisions, something that isn't as self-evident as he may believe.

So what exactly is the switching gears intended to do? You're not wrong that the past attempts at a peaceful resolution haven't succeeded. However, there needs to be some sort of plan of action when a nation, particularly one with the power of the US, makes a decision such as moving an embassy that will clearly disrupt any process in place aside from "f*&k it, we'll do it live". Do you believe that the US acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will cause the Palestinians will give up their claims in the west bank or Gaza because of the decision or dig in? Do you think that they'll just say, "oh well, so what if the Israeli's have continued to pour resources into west bank settlements.... check mate I guess"? 

In reality, the Palestinian-Israel conflict or the existence of either state has little strategic value for the US, particularly when one considers the weight it is given. However, if Trump wanted to get the US out of the mid-east peace game there were easier ways to do it then inflaming entire nations and aligning himself with a modicum of bottom of the barrel countries in the UN. Is the fate of Israel something that the US is willing to throw out it's international reputation and push nations away from it for? That's up to the US to decide, but I would suggest no. Neither the fate of Israel nor Palestine is worth the strategic risk that Trump (or any president since Clinton) has given it, particularly if it results in a loss of US prestige (which it arguably already has).

So, what of a post-US middle east outside of a presence in Israel? Even if US support is pulled, the Arabs will simply find a suitor who will continue their fight (and as the US only had 8 supporters in the vote I don't suspect it will be that hard). The US can only hope that it's not a suitor who is actively trying to destroy the Liberal US-led world hegemony.
 
Are we not at "we'll do it live"? Every single political/diplomatic overture has been tried and failed. The Palestinians keep voting for Hamas (a terrorist group) to lead them and want no solution other than the destruction of the Israeli state. We've appeased them at every turn, and yet they just make more insane demands and send more suicide bombers. Is it not time we put all our weight behind the other horse and make them realize their conduct is not acceptable? I think you'll find the Israelis more than willing to reduce police checkpoints and SOF raids into the West Bank if they knew their citizens wouldn't be stabbed at a street corner or school buses bombed.
 
PuckChaser said:
Are we not at "we'll do it live"? Every single political/diplomatic overture has been tried and failed. The Palestinians keep voting for Hamas (a terrorist group) to lead them and want no solution other than the destruction of the Israeli state. We've appeased them at every turn, and yet they just make more insane demands and send more suicide bombers. Is it not time we put all our weight behind the other horse and make them realize their conduct is not acceptable? I think you'll find the Israelis more than willing to reduce police checkpoints and SOF raids into the West Bank if they knew their citizens wouldn't be stabbed at a street corner or school buses bombed.

Neither side is innocent in the usurping of peace talks. Israeli support to the increasing number of settlements hasn't assisted, nor why would it?

I thnk you're being naive to the utmost extent of you think trump's decision will make anyone realize anythuig.  If nothing, couldn't the lack of international  support to the US be seen as a sign of weakness and embolden the Palestinians? Reducing US influence in the Arab world plays into Iranian and possibly Chinese/Russian hands. And for no real gain.

The peace talks are a fools errand that don't matter in the long run. Whether it's Israel,  palestine, or palsrael has only a minor influence on the US in the long run, aside from making rich donors in the US happy. But Trump's draining the swamp so I'm sure lobbyists don't have any influence.
 
I'm more with Puck Chaser than Bird Gunner on this subject.
 
I suppose the rapture is an integral part of the ongoing "peace" strategy for this administration.

For many evangelicals, Jerusalem is about prophecy, not politics
By Diana Butler Bass
Updated 6:05 PM ET, Fri December 8, 2017
Diana Butler Bass (@dianabutlerbass) holds a Ph.D. in religious studies from Duke University and is the author of 10 books on American religion and culture, including "Grateful: The Transformative Power of Giving Thanks" (forthcoming, HarperOne: April 2018). The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.(CNN)



As I watched Donald Trump announce that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move our embassy to that city, I could only think of one thing: my high school youth group Bible study.

I know that sounds odd. Especially coming from a liberal Episcopalian like me. But there you have it. The President makes a world-important declaration about global politics, and an absurdly apocalyptic thought arises, "Jerusalem? The Last Days must be at hand!"

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I attended a "Bible church," a nondenominational congregation that prided itself on a singular devotion to scripture. We read the Bible all the time: in personal Bible study and evening Bible classes. We listened to hourlong Sunday morning sermons. For us, the Bible was not just a guide to piety. It also revealed God's plan for history. Through it, we learned how God had worked in the past and what God would do in the future.

Central to that plan was Jerusalem, the city of peace, and the dwelling place of God. It was special to the Jews because it was the home of Abraham and David. It was special to us because it was where Jesus had died and risen. We believed that ultimately, Christ would return to Jerusalem to rule as its king. We longed for this outcome -- and we prayed that human history would help bring about this biblical conclusion.

Jerusalem was our prophetic bellwether. God's plan hung on its fate. Whenever Israel gained more political territory, whenever Israel extended its boundaries, it was God's will, the end-times unfolding on the evening news. Jerusalem, as the spiritual heart of Israel, mattered. Jerusalem was God's holy city, of the ancient past, in its conflicted present, and for the biblical future.

For many conservative evangelicals, Jerusalem is not about politics. It is not about peace plans or Palestinians or two-state solutions. It is about prophecy. About the Bible. And, most certainly, it is about the end-times.

When I was young, our pastor insisted that Jerusalem had an important role to play in these end-times events. When the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah, he explained, God chose the church to accomplish his mission. Soon this "church age" would end with the rapture of true believers.

But God still loved the Jews, he told us, and wanted to redeem them. Thus, absent the church, the Jews would experience a great religious rebirth and rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. This would spark a series of cataclysmic events that would culminate in the Battle of Armageddon, the last war of humanity. But it would also cause the Jews to finally accept Jesus as their savior. After all this occurred, Jesus would return in glory and God's kingdom -- a thousand-year reign of peace. And it would begin in Jerusalem.

This theology -- a literal belief that all these things must happen before Jesus will return to reign on Earth -- is called "dispensational pre-millennialism" and it is not the quirky opinion of some isolated church. Although the majority of Christians do not share these views, versions of dispensational pre-millennialism dominate American evangelicalism.

It originated as a small movement in the 1840s, but by the 1970s, millions of evangelical and fundamentalist churchgoers had embraced some form of it. Dispensationalism was popularized in a best-selling book called "The Late, Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey; and later, in the 1990s, it reached an even larger audience through the "Left Behind" novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. The theology spread via Bible camps and colleges, through theological seminaries and revival meetings, in films and videos, by Sunday school materials, and in daily devotional guides -- all teaching that the end of the world was near, and that Jerusalem was the physical place where this apocalyptic drama would unfold.

If you know evangelicals, chances are very good that you know this theology, whether you believe it or not. You cannot avoid it. And if you hear the President of the United States say something about Jerusalem, you take notice. Especially when that President won 81% of the white evangelical vote.

When the President issued his order, I was not the only person hearing echoes of dispensationalism. Robert Jeffress, one of Trump's evangelical advisers, declared: "Jerusalem has been the object of the affection of both Jews and Christians down through history and the touchstone of prophecy."

Other evangelical pastors and teachers also praised the action as "biblical" and likened it to a "fulfilled prophecy."

While that may sound benign (or perhaps nutty) to the theologically uninitiated, they are referring to the "prophecy" of the conversion of the Jews, the second coming of Jesus, the final judgment, and the end of the world -- the events referred to as the biblical apocalypse.

I doubt that President Trump could explain dispensational pre-millennialism. I doubt he knows the term. But his evangelical supporters know it. Some of his advisers are probably whispering these prophecies in his ears. Trump might not really care how they interpret the Bible, but he cares that white evangelicals continue to stand with him. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is one way to affirm his commitment to these evangelicals -- reminding them that he, Donald J. Trump, is pressing biblical history forward to its conclusion and that he is God's man in the unfolding of these last days.

I may not believe it -- anymore, at least. You may not believe it. Donald Trump might not even truly believe it. But millions do. That matters. Not only for American politics, of course. For the peace of Jerusalem. And for peace for the rest of us as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/opinions/jerusalem-israel-evangelicals-end-times-butler-bass-opinion/index.html
 
I'm far from a Trump fan.  Very far.  But this is one decision that I'm not going to lose any sleep over.

The Palestinians are calling for a two-State solution with East Jerusalem as their capital.  Probably the Palestinians (or their leaders at least) will never agree to a settlement offering anything less.  I'm generally on line with that.  Frankly I think a two-State solution is the only viable way forward for any semblance of a lasting peace in the region. 

But who in their wildest dreams imagines any two-State solution where the Palestinians get to have their capital in East Jerusalem but Israel doesn't get their capital in Jerusalem???  I think you'd have to be either crazy or incredibly naive to imagine that possibility. 

If a two-State solution with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and Israel with Jerusalem as their capital as well is the only viable path forward how does recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital in any way stand in the way of that possibility?  What it does do is anger those Arabs that don't want to accept Israel's existence at all, but there will never be peace with those people anyway.

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is the de facto truth on the ground now and it is also the only logical/viable location of the Israeli capital in a two-State solution with the Palestinians.  As I said earlier, I'm not going to lose any sleep over Trump's declaration of this truth.

 
 
Reply #54
"he cares that white evangelicals continue to stand with him."

81 per cent of White, born-again/Evangelical Christians voted for him.
His lowest percentage by religious affiliation were Jewish voters at 24 per cent.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ft_16-11-09_relig_exitpoll_religrace/

 
[quote author=mariomike]

His lowest percentage by religious affiliation were Jewish voters at 24 per cent.
[/quote]
I have a feeling he may have won some of the Jewish voters over recently.
 
Jarnhamar said:
I have a feeling he may have won some of the Jewish voters over recently.

Only 16 percent of Jewish Americans support moving the embassy to Jerusalem immediately, according to AJC’s 2017 Survey of American Jewish Opinion.
https://www.ajc.org/survey2017
Slightly more than a third — 36 percent — favor moving it “at a later date in conjunction with progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.”
But a plurality — 44 percent — disagree with moving the embassy all together.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top