Oppose moving the embassy because you want it as a trump, think Jerusalem should not be Israeli at all, or because it will anger Sunni allies? Fine, make that case. Spare me the stupid scare mongering about violence and bloodshed.
-
-
Now? Dunno. There are many things more pressing for both Israel and the US. Guessing Trump wants a PR win and keeping his election promise. As for what the US could gain, see below, next tweet.
-
It could gain a negotiating trump with Israel, making a major move which would be repaid in hard coin. It would also take a major sticking point off the table which Palestinians used to use against Israel prior to their demands being met. And yes, a lot of harm could happen, too
-
The US should do it so Israel will owe America one? Israel already owes the US a lot. And what does the US want from Israel that it's not getting already? The second point is arguably in Israel's interests, but that's why I asked about the United States' interests.
-
Again, would smooth an already rightwing government to move to the table. I.e. "You're not getting a friendlier admin than mine."
-
What's the value of moving to the table? It's not an achievement if it doesn't produce anything (again)--and I don't see any reason why the same sticking points wouldn't come up (again). Especially since the precursor would be something Israel wants and the Palestinians don't.
-
You'll have to ask all the other presidents who made similar efforts and who clearly saw value in setting up meetings even if they led to nothing.
-
Only if you assume nothing’s changed over the last decade or two.
-
? Both Bush and Obama had summits and meetings. Not saying it means anything but it's standard American procedure and has been since 1949.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Can't speak for what the actual thought process was. But objectively? 1) Confirms that pre-67 Israel is not up for grabs and that Palestinian objections to 1948 need to be let go 2) Makes clear a "we'll get violent" veto isn't going to fly 3) It's the right thing to do
-
Those are arguments that it's in Israel's interest. But not necessarily the United States' (unless you're claiming there's no distinction between the two).
-
No. If a peace deal is in the US's interests, & getting the Palestinians past 48 is necessary to one (it is), then 1 is in the US's interests
-
And making clear we won't be leveraged by threats of violence is always in the US's interests
-
The US hasn’t kept its embassy in Tel Aviv because it’s backing down to threats, but because it would hinder the likelihood of successful negotiations. That being said, I’m very skeptical we’ll see successful negotiations one way or the other.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If we had peacemakers instead of warmongers, Jerusalem-with the Wailing Wall, Al-aqsa, and the Holy Sepulcher being among the holiest sites of 3 major religions-would be designated a quasi capital of the entire world as a symbol of peace.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.