Do you support Donald Trump's decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem?

Do you support Donald Trump's decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Closed
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
In our Urdu media here they say 'Israel aur uski lunddi America' (America is concubine of Israel).
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,728
In our Urdu media here they say 'Israel aur uski lunddi America' (America is concubine of Israel).
It is slightly more complicated than that but presently whatever U.S. displeasure existed with Israel (there is alot of unhappiness about Israeli actions including catching Israel spying several times, only China and Russia have been caught more often) is overshadowed by Iran and Saudi Arabia's fixation on remaining the pre-eminent middle eastern Islamic authority. A decade ago the diplomacy between Israel and Saudi Arabia would have been impossible but now Saudi Arabia accepts facts on the ground that a free Palestinian state is unlikely without another war and Israel plays the card well that the enemy of my enemy is if not my friend, at least not my enemy anymore.
 
Jun 2017
2,988
Connecticut
No, it was a disgraceful show of support to the Likund regime and a show of US consent to Israel abandoning the two state solution and creating their ethno religious state. Previous US administrations regardless of their contempt Palestinian advocates have for their support of Israel have always been the most important check on the Israeli right's worst genocidal impulses, pressuring them to in theory support a "two state solution" and "peace of the Middle East and everything reeking of progress has largely been not in part to the world's condemnation of Israel's behavior but of the US exerting soft power whether it be the Oslo accords, Gaza being freed etc. This administration's behavior removes that last restraint on Israel's behavior(Israeli internal opposition is a large but consistent minority), and their concurrent policy towards Muslims and other groups(the Muslim ban and border security is pretty parallel with Israeli policies of exclusion) and relatively positive reception of ethno nationalism is a green light for the Israeli's to do whatever they want without keeping up appearances that they are for a two state solution. The current US administration also shares the Likund's hawklike attitude towards Iran and while US invasion of Iran is unclear(largely because of outside players like Russia) I do think it's very possible if not likely that the Israeli's will feel empowered to take independent military action against Iran and sustained military action against Hamas and Hezbollah(am concerned about them slaughtering the Gaza Strip) that in the past they would felt at the very least pressure not to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: starman

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,445
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
No, it was a disgraceful show of support to the Likund regime and a show of US consent to Israel abandoning the two state solution and creating their ethno religious state. Previous US administrations regardless of their contempt Palestinian advocates have for their support of Israel have always been the most important check on the Israeli right's worst genocidal impulses, pressuring them to in theory support a "two state solution" and "peace of the Middle East and everything reeking of progress has largely been not in part to the world's condemnation of Israel's behavior but of the US exerting soft power whether it be the Oslo accords, Gaza being freed etc.
The counter argument to that is that the previous policy hadn't produced a solution in 40 years, so perhaps a change was needed.
As long as the radical Palistinians could attack Israeli civilians and advocate for "Death to Israel " and still be secure that the US supported the two state solution, they had little incentive.
Now they might be inclined to support a deal, otherwise Israel might act unilaterally
The current US administration also shares the Likund's hawklike attitude towards Iran and while US invasion of Iran is unclear(largely because of outside players like Russia) I do think it's very possible if not likely that the Israeli's will feel empowered to take independent military action against Iran .
Would you be comfortable with a state sponsor of terrorism (According to every White House since Reagan) getting nuclear weapons?
 
  • Like
Reactions: benzev
Jun 2017
2,988
Connecticut
The counter argument to that is that the previous policy hadn't produced a solution in 40 years, so perhaps a change was needed.
As long as the radical Palistinians could attack Israeli civilians and advocate for "Death to Israel " and still be secure that the US supported the two state solution, they had little incentive.
Now they might be inclined to support a deal, otherwise Israel might act unilaterally


Would you be comfortable with a state sponsor of terrorism (According to every White House since Reagan) getting nuclear weapons?
A counter argument to that would be that the previous policy wasn't a policy so much as a position on what the US government wanted. It's not like a two state solution was attempted and failed, advocating for a two state solution was unsuccessful.

The second paragraph is a non starter. The word "attack" is used absent large numbers of actual deaths. Israel has been far more secure in actually murdering people not just attempting to do so. When Hamas responds to this with an ineffective military not civilian response(the line is blurred with settlers obv) they are branded a terrorist organization.

The Israeli government or at least this party doesn't want a deal and aside from some political appeasement never have given any indications they did. Bibi has said that several times and given all the context of settlements and such which make a viable deal more and more close to impossible it makes his purported commitment seem more like "sure, sure whatever you say" in the face of US officials nagging him. Without that pressure now, how much is Bibi bringing up a "Two State solution"?

I don't consider the groups Iran sponsors to be terrorists, and I think the foreign policy of every President since Reagan has been different shades of abhorrent on a bi partisan level(and before Carter that streak keeps on going who knows how much further back ). Regardless wouldn't be comfortable with them or anyone else in this world getting nuclear weapons but there is no evidence that Iran was even seeking a nuclear weapon in the first place, and there is also no evidence they were not complying with the Iran deal but rather fear that they could hypothetically(a ridiculous standard that no replacement deal that allowed Iran any civilian nuclear capacity could ever meet), not even that they could break the deal and get nuclear weapons without a great deal of warning and preparation time to respond but just that they could eventually not comply.

Probably what makes climate denial on the part of the US right so sad(not accusing you of that, talking of the people making this policy) is their inability to acknowledge a real present threat to humanity while at the same time fear mongering over imaginary/semi imaginary one's with no rational basis(of which this is probably the most rational in that it could hypothetically occur).
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
I do not support the move; it's provocative and will destabilise the region even further.

Jerusalem has been the official capital of Israel since 1980.. Why the wait?

I ask 'cui bono' ? Who benefits? Israel, obviously, but was does the US gain? Such moves have nothing to do with moral principe, or 'support for an ally' . It's about power. I very much doubt Donald Trump has the wit to understand the consequences.


I have no interest in the outcome of this move. However, I do not accept the notion of a nation's right to exist. Nations exist only as long as they can keep their neighbours at bay
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,759
The counter argument to that is that the previous policy hadn't produced a solution in 40 years, so perhaps a change was needed.
As long as the radical Palistinians could attack Israeli civilians and advocate for "Death to Israel " and still be secure that the US supported the two state solution, they had little incentive.
Now they might be inclined to support a deal, otherwise Israel might act unilaterally
?
yes the polciy of unreservedly backing Israel and giving it everything thing it wants is the policy that has been followed for 40 years. The recognition of Jerusalem would just be more on the same.
 
Status
Closed