Republican senators introduce bill to move US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem
Source: The Guardian
<snip>
"Three Republican senators have introduced legislation to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital and move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, a plan backed by Donald Trump but likely to ignite fierce protests.
After being sworn into the 115th Congress in Washington, Ted Cruz of Texas, Dean Heller of Nevada and Marco Rubio of Florida unveiled the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act.
Similar moves by Republican majorities over the past two decades have come to nought, but this time they have a sympathetic president-elect in Trump. He has repeatedly pledged to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem and nominated a US ambassador who shares that view.
Critics warn that the move could unleash a wave of violence and further rattle the Israel-Palestine peace process and the future of a two-state solution."
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/us-embassy-israel-jerusalem-republican-bill
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)He is going to reduce Islamic inspired terrorism vs the USA!?!? This is exactly how NOT to do it! What IDIOTS!!
Hekate
(90,660 posts)Hm?
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)...And who knows how that 70yr old MAN/CHILD will react if his play things start getting bombed!
lancelyons
(988 posts)The gutting of the ethics office was an example.
They simply dont understand and really they dont care. They know what they want but dont consider the ramifications.
- when they repeal obamacare and remove subsidies and individual mandate they might harm the insurance companies enough where they go bankrupt and need a bail out in the first 6 months.
- They constantly complained about the debt doubling in Obama's 8 years, while it did the same in Bushs 8 years and is set to add another 10 Trillion in the next 8 years.
- moving the capital will only cause Palestinians to rise up and there will be more fighting. GOP answer to this is to kill all those people like they did in Aleppo.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)Like the people of Aleppo the GOP doesn't consider anyone not White Christian Protestants as true "people"...So taking their lands & killing them is not much more to them than spraying for termites.
metroins
(2,550 posts)The Israel Palestine "war" has been going on for decades.
Israel is the clear winner, a one-state solution is the likely end, just get it over with. Dragging this process out has been a detriment to all parties involved.
That is my personal opinion and I am not religious at all.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Telling...
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)A one state solution would not only delegitimize the Palestinians, but it would add fuel to the fire to oppose such steps that could lead to a two state peace. Israel was created out of the rubble of WWII, but the seeds for an Israeli state had been planted years before WWI!! Most people fail to realize or accept that PLestine was a fully functioning state prior to WWI/WWII. What we are left with is a nation state in Israel, who is supported unequivocally by the US and its partners, and an indigenous group of people who have been forced from their homes and forced to accept that those in control of their land have supremacy. How can this be justified? How can Jerusalem, a city considered holy to many sects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam be given off to one group as the "capital" of that group's nation, and simultaneously preserve the history of all of those groups?
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Before WWI it was part of the huge Ottoman Empire. Before WWII it was a British Protectorate.
In fact, go a lot further back than that.
Before the Jews moved in there were independent city states.The Assyrians and Babylonians destroyed the Jewish Kingdoms around 600 BC. The Persians took over from the Babylonians and held the area until Alexandria the Great conquered it in 330 BC.
When Alexander died, his generals divided up his empire with two of his generals and their heirs, Seleucus and Ptolemy fighting over the area today known as Palestine.
The fight finally ended for good when the Romans conquered the Ptolemys (Egypt) and Seleucids (Turkey and Syria). Then the area stayed Roman until Rome fell and even after that it stayed part of the Eastern Roman Empire that we today call the Byzantine Empire though they always called themselves Roman.
The Christian Byzantine Empire were the first empire to actually put some effort into the area building the Christian churches on the reported Holy sites of 300 years earlier.
In 636 the new Muslim religion attacked the region and at the Battle of Yarmouk they defeated a much larger Byzantine Army and conquered Syria. Palestine then was ruled by the huge new Umayyad Caliphate with its capital in Damscus. That was followed by the Abassid Caliphate based in Baghdad. The Byzantines made a comeback for a short time around 1,000 AD and then the Crusader Kingdoms ran things for a couple hundred years until they were driven out by the Mamluk Sultan from Egypt. They were in turn conquered by the Ottoman Turks in the 1400's and the Turks controlled the area until World War I.
So when was Palestine a fully functioning state?
Bettie
(16,095 posts)by that you mean kill or otherwise remove all who live in Palestinian areas?
Because Israel has made it clear multiple times that their government considers them less than human and wants them gone. Not part of a one-state solution, just gone.
cab67
(2,992 posts)Visit Jerusalem sometime. It will change your point of view.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think "just get over it" is the either the historical or pratical method of nation states to resolve conflict and differences.
2+2=7 is just an opinion as well... 
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Embassies aren't inexpensive. Trump is already talking about slashing taxes, spending like a drunken sailor on infrastructure, building up the military and a few other REALLY expensive things - so where is the money coming from to replace a perfectly serviceable embassy with a new embassy for purely symbolic (read: telling the Palestinians to go fuck themselves) reasons?
I want to see a complete list of the taxes the Republicans are willing to raise to pay for this new compound. If they're not willing to raise any taxes, they don't get any new embassies.
branford
(4,462 posts)At least initially, all that will happen is that the current embassy in Tel Aviv and the consulate in Jerusalem will switch titles, a mere formality.
longship
(40,416 posts)Sometimes even the shape of the negotiating table makes a difference. Officially endorsing a US embassy in Jerusalem would be a rather severe provocation. No rational person would characterize it as otherwise.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Even if it was only a couple thousand dollars to reprint all the stationery, I'm still going to stand on my feeble demand that it be paid for with tax increases. None of this "let's take it out of AFDC" or "let's take it out of Social Security" crap Republicans are famous for.
Is it important enough to do?
It's important enough to raise taxes for.
branford
(4,462 posts)such a revised stationary must be budget-neutral, as was suggested to me by another close Democratic friend who's irate over the UN absention, it could come out of the hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid provided to the Palestinians, particularly since some noted leaders have threatened violence against the USA and others over the issue.
Simply, be careful what you wish for.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Dollar cost is only one of many relevant qualifiers of critical consequence, regardless of what you wish for.
branford
(4,462 posts)As a practical matter, moving (really switching) the embassy from Tel Aviv to the current consulate Jerusalem would be cheap and easy. It would also be in accordance with the near unanimous bipartisan law passed around 1995 during the Clinton presidency. Trump need only refuse to enact the national security waiver in the law for the move to be mandatory.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)And I demand it come from tax increases. A couple days ago, the GOP wanted to something reasonably cheap, and reasonably benign. Damn if I can think of what it was, but they planned to pay for it through "savings in mandatory programs." It's like the Roman Senate scene where they were deciding whether to build a grand edifice or take care of the needs of the poor..."fuck the poor!"
Reaganomics and "rob Peter to pay Paul-conomics" didn't work the other 800,000 times they tried them, and they won't work this time either. Tax and spend is the right way to go...not only does it get them the money they need but it forces them to think hard about what they really want to do.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, the Republicans democratically control the White House and all of Congress. That's all that really matters. The budget is not just taxes, it's also allocation.
There's a great deal in the current federal budget that represents Democratic priorities (e.g., the EPA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, etc.) that Republicans would be eager to cut to pay for pittance needed to move the embassy.
When you ask how Republicans intend to pay for something pertaining to Israel or anything else, rest assured they have ample ideas, and neither one of us would like any of them.
I would lastly note that among elected Congressional Democrats, their position on Israel is largely indistinguishable from the Republicans, they just tend to be a little bit more publicly reserved since they have to contend with a small but vocal anti-Israel far left. Note that no elected Democratic leader in Congress (or most anyone else) or the DNC actually supported Obama's UN abstention vote. There's no way congressional Democrats are about to go to political war with the Republicans over moving the American embassy to Tel Aviv when we have little leverage and need to spend political capital on important matters at home like fighting Trump's Supreme Court and cabinet picks, saving environmental regulations, etc.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)Cause they're probably gonna take it out of Social Security and we can do pretty much dick about it other than condemn them.
If we're playing the game of thrones, if were in charge I'd keep the damn thing where it is rather than take a dump on the international community to please bible thumpers and the Isreali far right.
Even Bush had enough sense not to do this. We'll be saying "Even Bush...." a lot.
Hekate
(90,660 posts)And who the hell is Dean Heller?
Oh Goddess, we are so fckd.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)See: Adelson, Sheldon. Little Marco is his perrito.
Hekate
(90,660 posts)
Also ~ arf! ~
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)Maybe, maybe Jeff Flake from AZ. The rest are safe R's, and we have possibly 13 hard races defending seats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8429527
Response to Scurrilous (Original post)
bora13 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)The Israelis have no desire for peace, so if batting the hornet's nest by moving the show to Jerusalem does it for them, enjoy the mayhem.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)this won't end well...
cstanleytech
(26,286 posts)intended to be an in your face snub of people of an alternate religion? Brilliant move assholes.
Turbineguy
(37,322 posts)Three excellent reasons:
1) It'll cost lotsa money.
2) Contractors can install latest eavesdropping equipment
3) It will set the Peace process back.
And it tells the U.S. voters what is truly important.
OK, that's four.
machoneman
(4,006 posts)I do forsee multiple, time-coordinated attacks on Trump or recently former Trump properties around the globe. Most if not all will be outside the USA where security may be lax. ISIS will do so to show us that for all his bluster and b.s., Trump will be helpless to a.) prevent such attacks b.) and be unable to strike back in any meaningful way. Such is the nature of terrorist organizations.
Trump and his camp followers btw fit the Dunning-Krueger effect to a "T". I'd ask that more here pass around this link or quote Wikipedia.
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/idiocracy-now-donald-trump-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect-when-stupid-people-dont-know-they-are-stupid/
JustAnotherGen
(31,816 posts)
Grins
(7,217 posts)Gee! What could possibly go wrong?
Docreed2003's post above is correct. It is also true that Palestinians are the 'dirt people' of the middle east, looked down on by all the other tribes in the region. But, if there is any one, single issue that can unify the disparate people in the region together into single-minded goal, it is Israel. And we know it (even though we refuse to admit it.) The Defense Science Board explicitly said the reason for 9-11, and the hatred of the U.S. in the region, is our policies, and in particular, our overwhelming and unquestioning support of Israel. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would just be more proof of that to the Arab world.
And that has been TRUE for decades. Even a thug as powerful as Gamal Nasser, when approached on a Israel - Palestinian peace plan, flat out said that if he did that he would be assassinated. His words. He knew. He died at home after a heart attack. Anwar Sadat was his successor. He did engage in negotiations with Israel, negotiations that culminated in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty which returned the Sinai to Egypt. He was assassinated.
I used to be pro-Israel. But over the years of Israeli scheming and deceptions, that support ended. Screw 'em.
Last point: Israel has interfered with American politics FAR more, and FAR longer, than the Russians ever have.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)They were all upset about the events in Benghazi because the State Dept didn't take enough action to increase security at that embassy, and now they want to move the embassy from a safer city to a more dangerous, more contentious location?
Just....Huh? Are we interested in having our diplomats safe, or not?
branford
(4,462 posts)in Jerusalem that would almost certain be re-titled as the new embassy. It has weathered multiple Intifadas, and will be just fine.
The Israeli are also quite capable of and would be more than willing to provide any additional security that may be required.
Lastly, what do you believe would be the reaction of the vast majority of American voters, only 16% of whom support the Palestinians over the Israelis according to Gallup and Pew, to Palestinian (Arab and Muslim!) violence against any American property or diplomats? At the very least, and particularly with a Republican White House and Congress, all Palestinian aid would vanish, and more likely than not, the Trump administration with the support of most of the American electorate would turn a blind eye to any militant or other harsh measures the Israelis took to quell the violence or retaliate.
Considering the horror locations around the world where we maintain diplomats (and Democratic defenses of the Benghazi fiasco on behalf of Clinton), arguing that safety concerns mandate that we not move the embassy, something that's actually been official US policy since around 1995 under Bill Clinton by near unanimous bipartisan legislation, is just disingenuous. If you believe that employing the "national security" waiver against moving the embassy is better politics or simply your preference, just say so.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)You're arguing against a point i didn't make. I was not even interested in the detail of security. I was commenting upon the duplicity of the republicans who were so outraged we didn't make Benghazi safe enough but are now hell bent on moving an embassy from a safer place to less safe place, even if only on the surface.
You really think they know the details you just provided? If you do, you have far more faith in their grasp of facts than do i.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, I will never make the tragic mistake of thinking they are stupid or ill-informed.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)Ill informed is another issue entirely. There is clear and evident willful ignorance. (See climate change, for instance.)
branford
(4,462 posts)Their fundamental priorities are just quite different from many in our Party (and I assume both of us).
They may be very wrong, but most are not evil or fools, and most importantly, should they be underestimated, it will be at our own peril
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)Jerusalem is the Jewish state's eternal capital, and these areas will remain in Israel in any final agreement, which few dispute.
While I think this move is unnecessarily provocative, I do support it in principle.
bdamomma
(63,840 posts)repigs want to start catastrophic incident. 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The only thing that's stopped it in the past has been Presidents invoking the waiver.
Of course, the whole thing is likely unconstitutional anyways ...
branford
(4,462 posts)would be the sitting president it affects.
Do you believe Trump sue to overturn the law?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)all he has to do is not invoke a waiver to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.
Unclear why further legislation is necessary or even appropriate.
branford
(4,462 posts)or simply as an expression of the will of the people as evoked through Congress.
I would expect any such law to receive significant Democratic support.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And he or she would win, as it's a gross usurpation of the executive's authority to conduct foreign relations.
In any event, all a moot point as Jerusalem will be the capital of the binational Jewish/Arab state one day.
branford
(4,462 posts)Congress is also more than capable of getting its way on the issue through the power of the purse. In fact, I believe there are already proposals about linking State Department funding to affirmative steps to move the embassy in case State employees try to slow-walk the process.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)<snip>
"Popular Hasidic singer Mordechai Ben David called President Barack Obama a “kushi,” a pejorative term for a black person, at a concert in Jerusalem.
Ben David was performing a song about peace at the Dec. 29 concert when he told the audience: “Do you know when there will be peace? In a few weeks, when there will be a new president in the United States and the kushi goes home.”
The audience burst into applause.
Several municipal and government officials were in the audience, Yeshiva World News reported, including Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and Interior Minister Aryeh Deri.
The word, derived from a biblical word for an Ethiopian, is widely regarded as derogatory in modern Hebrew."
http://www.jta.org/2017/01/03/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/hasidic-singer-mordechai-ben-david-slurs-obama-at-jerusalem-concert
