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.
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.
-
I know that. But they held those meetings aiming to achieve something. What I don’t see is how shifting the balance further towards the stronger side serves that goal.
-
The US gave Israel, technically the "stronger side," enormous amounts of military aid in 1969-73, which gave it the cushion to make concessions.
-
This is an example of why I brought up changes in recent decades. ‘73 is 44 years ago. On the other side from Israel were multiple more populous states. You don’t need the scare quotes. Israel is much, much stronger than the Palestinians.
-
Militarily, not politically/diplomatically, at least not until recently w/India breaking rank.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.