[Middle East] US embassy in Israel to be moved from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem

Is that something the US doesn't do for their other allies who are being attacked?

Is there another US ally without a US embassy in their capital city?

You make it seem as if the US goes above and beyond for Israel, but they really don't.

 

When the US does it with other Allies, there is usually something to be gained for the US, with Israel, the only thing gained is ill will in many parts of the world other. It can be said the relationship between US and Israel is a big net loss for the US.

 

Not really, I'm thinking you are letting your personal feelings about Israel get in the way here. What you are going on about isn't really logical. The US doesn't allow their other allies to be attacked by the UN or anyone else and they have an embassy in all of their capital cities. I mean, none of that is abnormal. You are essentially suggesting that treating Israel the same as the US would treat any other ally is a bad idea.

 

I do not really have that much personal feeling about Israel other than that it is a net cost to the US.I think it is amazing what the Israelis have accomplished given the resources they have. I know nothing will change in the relationship within my lifetime, I just do not see the benefit to the US from this relationship.

 

The US' relationship with all of their allies is a net loss, that's just how it goes, but you only seem concerned about one....

I mean, what would the US gain by allowing Israel to be destroyed by their neighbors? You know that's the alternative right?

 

Never said allow Israel to be destroyed, actually if there is a war, Israel would be the one doing the destroying.

Everyone knows what Israel really want, that is to make a Jewish state and kick out the Palestinians, just no one wants to come out and tell the truth, so we have this facade of peace negotiation and two state, one state solution etc. Israel just doesn't have the balls to do what they really want to do like what they are doing in Myanmar. If the US is not involved, I could care less, just like I pretty much ignore the Myanmar mess.

 

The term "pro-Israel" doesn't necessarily mean advocating for Israel's best interests, as much as it does giving cover to its right-wing government. There are plenty in Israel that would prefer that the US put more pressure on the government to behave better. There are others that would prefer the US not tell them who they can or can't sell radar or drones to (like Russia and China), so I wouldn't say that it is a one-way street, especially because Israel is not just Netanyahu and the US is not just President Trump.

 

You are correct, always enjoyed your point of view from the Israeli side.

 

There already is a Jewish state, and if they wanted to, they could kill all of the Palestinians easily. The barrier to peace has always been that the Israeli goal of being allowed to exist has always been opposed by the Palestinian goal of killing them and destroying Israel and that's essentially their only goal. If anything everyone should commend their restraint.....restraint that almost no other country would show when dealing with a terrorist entity like that.

 

Israel is not in any threat of being destroyed by its neighbors, unless you think Iran is going to manufacture a nuke and use it immediately instead of keeping it to protect themselves from being the next nation to get a dose of American "freedom." It's been five years since Bibi's Wile E. Coyote visual aid / Ahmadinejad-is-literally-Hitler speech and it's still a running gag in Israel for a reason.

I wouldn't worry about Israel. Israel does whatever it wants to its neighbors militarily without impunity and has continued to bomb Syria when its intelligence services tell it there is a need to. It has a formidable cache of nukes and at least one Dolphin class sub loaded with them in the Persian Gulf at any given time. There's a reason why even Saddam Hussein only used conventional warheads when he gave them the Scud treatment in 1991.

The only military of significant scope to present an existential threat is Saudi Arabia -- and they are courting Israel for its coalition against Iran and its shia proxies, of which Hezbollah actually is Israel's main external threat.

 

The fact that the Palestinians aren't currently capable of achieving their goals doesn't change the fact that it is their goal and they will always pursue that goal. If Israel manages to be sufficiently weakened by UN sanctions or whatever, there would almost certainly be another invasion. Their military supremacy is the ONLY thing keeping them alive. They are under almost constant attack by Palestinian terrorists, no other nation would put up with that BS as well as they have. Ask native Americans what would happen if that kind of BS was done here.....

 

that is not an answer

Rocket River

 

Sure it is. If there's nothing to gain by not having an embassy in an the capital city of an allied country, why wouldn't you? it's abnormal to not have an embassy in the capital city of a country that is an ally so there would have to be some great reason not to.....and appeasing a group of terrorists isn't a good reason IMO.

 

I don't view informing countries of potential consequences of their actions as "bullying". We all know that the US gives out WAY too much foreign aid as it stands and countries that would wish to denounce the US for putting an embassy in a capital city of another country clearly don't deserve what they are given and I think it's perfectly fair to start cutting back on that.

 

There are a lot of Palestinians living there without self-rule, without political representation, and without civil rights because of Israeli occupation. Now, I know that Israel actually does believe in and stand for these things like we do. But, they are not living up to those values. So are we setting the right example and the right tone when we stand with a friend who is doing wrong? Do we really stand for what we say we stand for when we support an ally in denying the civil rights and political representation of a people? I don't think so. Israel is our ally and we do have kindred societies and we should support them. But friends help friends do the right thing. That's what we were trying to do in trying to broker a peace with Palestine. The tone and example I think we've set with this move is the opposite of what you say; it tells the world -- especially the Muslim world -- that the US does not stand for freedom and democracy and civil rights like we say we do. We pay lip service just like the Israelis pay lip service; delivering those things for the Jew, but denying it to the Palestinian for 'reasons.' If we did believe in those things, we would prevail upon our friends in Israel to give Palestinians freedom and self-rule and civil rights.

 

lol the 'consequence' is America deciding not to donate free money to them

It's a win-win for America tbh. It's not America's responsibility to prop up other countries government, food storage, and infrastructure.

Cut the cord. They need to figure it out on their own, and if they can't figure out how to do it on their own then they really shouldn't be telling America what to do on their own.

 

I'm guessing you mean Palestinians desire statehood even if they can't achieve it now. It's been agreed to in principle by Israel in multiple agreements. The only reason it hasn't happened is because of a few differences that haven't been agreed upon.

The fact that the Israeli right has no intention of honoring these agreements and tries to erode Palestinian land claims as they expand settlement building and permit squatters to take homes by force in East Jerusalem while they cite security concerns to extend a military occupation past a half century does not engender a whole lot of world sympathy. The Likudniks in power benefit from muddying the waters, confusing Palestinian national aspirations with Islamic terrorism and people with a cognitive bias, like you, are happy to take such proclamations without critical scrutiny, and air your support for such things, a sort of in-group shibboleth and conservative virtue signalling.

No one thinks Abbas is an angel, but Israel's post-Olmert policy towards the PA has been especially dishonest, especially since the present government has been violating all their own treaties in dragging their feet on implementing the agreements they are signatories to. As recently as Olmert, a conclusive peace was almost reached, and many that suspect the putsch that removed him from power was largely because of his clandestine efforts to honor.

It also bears mentioning that one of the largest supporters of the PA is the United States taxpayer, a truth that can be seen by the plethora of USAID plaques in front of most of the new construction in Ramallah. This is also due to treaties that date back to the 90s. The US arms and trains the PA security forces. It is a shift in policy for the US to change their position and it will ultimately be on that accelerates the decline of American international influence, particularly in the Middle East. Future peace summits will likely be hosted by the EU, Russia, or China.

The US consulate in J"lm largely serves the needs of Palestinians. One of the ironies of building out the consulate into a new embassy there is that it will largely serve the needs of East Jerusalem and West Bank residents at the expense of the diplomatic community and the people in Israel actually in the seat of commerce and Israeli life. But keep virtue signalling! Put your ignorance in the air like you just don't care!

By whom? Palestinians aren't equipped to invade anyone. I don't know if you are paying attention, but Hamas is apprehending the current batch of rocketeers, and the PA is arresting violent protests in an effort not to provoke the wrath of the IDF. As a side note, I'm seeing protests in Bethlehem being quelled by riot police, but no one seems to keen to mention that these riot police are Palestinian.

It's also preventing them from accepting the reality of their situation, since they can keep endlessly punting and avoiding responsibility for ending a military occupation.

The attacks aren't constant. When they get to a certain degree of danger (ie: when Hamas is either unable or unwilling to reign in their radicals) the F16s fly low altitude south over Tel Aviv and you know they are about to get the **** bombed out of them and it stops. The risk is certainly real, but it is carefully managed. But as I said before, the biggest threat isn't Palestinians, but Hezbollah, who are actually well-trained combatants who are much better equipped with modern arms, as well as backed by an actual state power.

I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds very PoMo.

 

Nikki Haley and Donald Trump should be married. Dump that trophy wife and get with your equal.