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.
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 -
-
-
because (1) right now the Palestinians are making maximalist demands counting on International pressure two forces real to concede. But Israel can't concede on those. So it demonstration that the Palestinian Assumption of ever ratcheting International pressure isn't viable
-
Actually makes Palestinian concessions, and therefore piece more likely
-
And second, because of the concessions required by Israel will inherently put it in a less secure position, only a confident and secure Israel can make them. So the more Israelis feel like America actually does have their back, the more viable concessions are
-
That logic makes sense in isolation. But I don’t see the slightest indication this Israeli government has any interest in making concessions, no matter where the US embassy is.
-
Then you should reread the Tibon piece on the Kerry negotiations and the concessions Netanyahu made in that context
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.