Most of the civilized world thinks the United States pronouncing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a bad idea. What do you think?
Last edited:
Most of the civilized world thinks this is a bad idea. What do you think?
What is a bad idea? Violence?
In any meaningful way, yeah. Hard to imagine how this admin accomplishes anything towards a peace settlement after this move. The next few days will really show how the Muslim community responds.The real question I see coming out of this is did the U.S. just give up it's seat at the peace process table?
The Arab side has already said as much. Whether that holds true will show with time.In any meaningful way, yeah. Hard to imagine how this admin accomplishes anything towards a peace settlement after this move. The next few days will really show how the Muslim community responds.
The Arab side has already said as much. Whether that holds true will show with time.
So what's Jared's raison d'etre now?
Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump ( more than likely many others ) all accepted that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.
The area has always been war torn. And probably always will be.
Anything and everything we have tried has at best been met with Very Limited or no success at all. Mostly the latter.
This Trump declaration makes no difference in the least. Other than all of the panty bunching.
Thanks, Baghdad Bob.
Actually what it is is half of the story. The executive branch has always viewed this as overreach by congress. Foreign policy is and has always been the domain of the executive branch. That includes location of embassies. The fact that they put in a perpetual waiver option shows how serious they really were about this.Here you go.
oh, and this should help too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
Trump is just the first sitting POTUS to actually do what the act says should be done. What makes Trump different is that he finally did what was said should be done long before.
This is not a judgement on if I think this is a good idea, but what pcgeek said is factual.
Here you go.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-...dents-said-about-israel-and-jerusalem/9234736
oh, and this should help too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
Trump is just the first sitting POTUS to actually do what the act says should be done. What makes Trump different is that he finally did what was said should be done long before.
This is not a judgement on if I think this is a good idea, but what pcgeek said is factual.
Actually what it is is half of the story. The executive branch has always viewed this as overreach by congress. Foreign policy is and has always been the domain of the executive branch. That includes location of embassies. The fact that they put in a perpetual waiver option shows how serious they really were about this.
Sadly passing fluff laws that mean nothing to placate people is what passes as governance. If you look at the waivers that have been signed over the 22 year since it passed they all reference that they are waiving it because the location of the embassy needs to be a part of a broader peace negotiation in the region.