UN Votes Against the US Moving Its Embassy to Jerusalem

[tomahawk6]

The vote was 128 to 9 with 35 abstentions including that of Canada. The vote was more PR allowing the GA to side with the Palestinians. The reality is that Jerusalem is already the defacto capitol. The Palestinians have had ample time to work out a deal with Israel but they dont want a deal. I guess if there was an agreement their funding from the rest of the arab world might dry up.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/12/21/canada-to-abstain-from-controversial-un-vote-to-condemn-trumps-jerusalem-embassy-decision.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

......and no, I didn't fact check it.

 

[Blackadder1916]

While a UNGA vote may have no effect in the decision making by the current White House incumbent, there may be some local backlash to the decision to move the embassy.  When the plan to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem was announced it brought back memories of when Canada made a similar announcement.  Yes, we did it first (announce it, that is), back in 1979 (it was a PC election campaign promise).

Why do I remember Prime Minister Joe Clark's announcement so well?  Because I was serving with UNEFME at the time in Ismailia.  It was as well received by the Arab world as the recent American plan.  We had a few tense moments back then, some temporary restrictions on what we could do locally, but the incident that most comes to mind is an attack (that occurred around the same time, but I can't guarantee that it was directly related) on a vehicle taking the Canadian Military Attaché from Cairo to Ismailia - have no idea how often he visited our camp normally, but on that occasion he and his driver (they had some minor cuts and bruises) arrived direct to the Health Support Unit.  Their vehicle had been somewhat blocked by a crowd in a village they passed through, and the windows had been shattered by sticks and stones.

Oh, and obviously since our embassy is still in Tel Aviv, the Canadian government back pedaled on the plan.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I know it's typically expected that an embassy will be in the capital city, is there really any protocol ensuring it?

Simply saying that your moving your embassy down the road to another town is not a declaration that the move symbolizes a change in capital cities.

I know that the above doesn't jive with the present. I was just wondering.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The situation concerning Jerusalem is not so much as recognizing it as the capital city of Israel as it is recognizing that the de jure status of the sovereignty of parts of Jerusalem is still questioned internationally.

Take Canada's position for example:

From Wikipedia (yes, I know)

Canada: According to Global Affairs Canada, "Canada considers the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian–Israeli dispute. Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem."[98] In the fact sheet on Israel displayed on the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department's website, the "Capital" field states that "While Israel designates Jerusalem as its capital, Canada believes that the final status of the city needs to be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians. At present, Canada maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv." 

(unfortunately the links to these Canadian Government statements are dead)

What is currently on the Global Affairs site is:

Status of Jerusalem

Canada considers the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem.

 

[tomahawk6]

It takes two sides to make peace.The Israelis appear willing but the Palestinians and the rest of the arab world arent. Canada for example wont support the move because of Israelis so called annexation,which they won as a result of the 67 war. On the flip side the west bank used to be Jordanian,but no one is suggesting that the west bank become part of Jordan. Frankly I would suggest that very thing should happen.

 

[angus555]

Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

To say that Israel is the side that wants peace is laughable.

So long that Israel exists as a religious state, there won't be peace in that region.

The only chance for peace in that region is through secularization. Which probably won't occur in my lifetime seeing that the whole area is the B.S capital of the world, responsible for the three main desert religions we have today.

 

[tomahawk6]

Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

To say that Israel is the side that wants peace is laughable.

So long that Israel exists as a religious state, there won't be peace in that region.

The only chance for peace in that region is through secularization. Which probably won't occur in my lifetime seeing that the whole area is the B.S capital of the world, responsible for the three main desert religions we have today.

The State of Israel exists because of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany and European guilt. The arabs have fought 3-4 wars to destroy the Jewish state without success. Of course Israel would prefer peace,sadly the arab position hasnt changed since 1948 when they tried to invade Israel.

 

[angus555]

The State of Israel exists because of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany and European guilt.

That certainly was the impetus in the last century, however Zionism predated it.

Even if we ignore the religious premise that the Jews have a divine entitlement to the land, the notion that they have entitlement to it because their ancestors lived there long ago is just as much nonsense.

If I laid claim to land by force somewhere in Northern Europe, or the Scottish Highlands where my ancestors were forced away to make way for sheep, I don't think the current locals would be too happy either. :nod:

 

[brihard]

If I laid claim to land by force somewhere in Northern Europe, or the Scottish Highlands where my ancestors were forced away to make way for sheep, I don't think the current locals would be too happy either. :nod:

Well certainly not if you took their sheep away. Prima Nocta has left some ugly scars on the Scottish psyche.

 

[Remius]

Well certainly not if you took their sheep away. Prima Nocta has left some ugly scars on the Scottish psyche.

Especially if for those that think that Braveheart is historically accurate

 

[angus555]

Well certainly not if you took their sheep away.

Only their liquor :cheers:

 

[brihard]

Especially if for those that think that Braveheart is historically accurate

Oh, I obviously know better than that, but I won’t let it stand in the way of a good joke.

 

[dimsum]

Especially if for those that think that Braveheart is historically accurate

What?  Mel Gibson didn't defend Scotland?

 

[angus555]

Oh wait, I forgot someone already tried that. Seems to be going well, with friendly murals and Mexican flags nearby. I'm tired of the winning already.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/08/02/trumps-scotland-golf-course-neighbors-decry-bully-trying-expand/487073001/

 

[PuckChaser]

Back on topic, please. Trump's golf course has no relevance to his declaration of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.

 

[angus555]

Back on topic, please. Trump's golf course has no relevance to his declaration of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.

Not on topic. But it is a relevant example of Trump's preoccupation with money and complete disregard to foreigners. The symbolic Jerusalem decision will certainly please the AIPAC lobbyists that are in bed with most of Washington. Besides the evangelical ideological influence, money from AIPAC is the other important motivator for US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Are we back on topic yet?

 

[PuckChaser]

A rich guy preoccupied with money. Colour me shocked. It's still a stretch to link his organization wanting to develop a golf course to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

 

[angus555]

A rich guy preoccupied with money. Colour me shocked. It's still a stretch to link his organization wanting to develop a golf course to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Yes it was a good quick tangent. The reason why it's not shocking to you is because of his usual belligerent, irreverent, and greedy attitude. Which is of course in play in almost every announcement he makes, including this one about Jerusalem. At least I'm the guy still talking about Israel or Trump, rather than joking about relations with sheep or the inaccuracy of Braveheart. Go back and have a read of my posts. If you disagree with me, then that's great.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm sorry if you felt that post was totally directed at you alone. Your random link to a golf course was the straw that broke the camel's back and needed some moderator assistance to put things on track for the specific topic at hand. If that's not acceptable to you, then go here: https://army.ca/forums/threads/125056.1600.html and post/debate all your anti-Trump ideas there.

- Milnet.ca Staff