Post by celawson on Dec 13, 2017 12:35:33 GMT -5
Amadan said:
.
The Palestinian leaders have had an opportunity many times over many years to have their say. We have also said a zillion times that we are committed to negotiating a peace process. We've thrown them bone after bone. Has it made a difference? I think the answer to that is obvious.
Our foreign policy should be doing the right thing for the right reasons, not avoiding doing the right thing because we're afraid the terrorists are going to get violent. That's the whole point of terrorism, right? Getting their way because people are afraid? Giving them the desired response here just encourages more of the same. Anyway, Trump did say this in his speech:
His speech was plenty diplomatic.
Amadan said:
So now I hate all Arabs, and I was lying when I said I want to give the middle finger to only terrorists and those who want to wipe Israel off the map. Got it. Thanks.
Amadan said:
Note, I used his family members as an example that Trump has likely discussed and thought about this issue. I didn't use the word "wisdom", I said "thought". You said he did this without thought. You really should read my posts more carefully. However, Jared Kushner, for reasons I already stated above, is not just your average Joe family member on this issue.
This was one of Trump's campaign promises. Of COURSE he's thought about it, And he's met with experts and advisors on this issue. You're concerned about what's best for America. How is siding with corrupt terrorists, or being kowtowed by the same, "best for America"?
MichaelW said:
This is just one excellent example of "bones" that have been tossed to the Palestinian leadership. See where it got us.
Cassandra said:
Past presidents haven't necessarily been right in this instance. Or, after bashing one's head against the wall for years, perhaps it's the right time for a new approach. God forbid we make the liwwle tewwowists mad.
What about Senate Resolution 176? This bill was passed by the U.S. Senate several months ago by a vote of NINETY to ZERO. Let me repeat that - 90-0. It was co-authored by Schumer. And on page 2, it says (bolding mine):
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/176/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22senate+resolution+jerusalem+50%22%5D%7D&r=2
Where was all the hysteria about rocking the boat when this was passed unanimously? Did no one want to take out that particular "Whereas" phrase? Was this deemed a terrible thing back in May? Why is the sky falling now?
Which brings me to the last points I want to make.
Just because I defend Trump on this board does NOT mean I am all in for Trump. There are plenty of things I dislike about Trump the man and Trump the POTUS. However, unlike many, I'm willing and able to give him credit when he deserves it. And he deserves it here. I'm willing to defend him when he's unfairly attacked. I take things issue by issue. I thought it was unfair to say he did this without thought or consideration of the issue, so I stepped in. Plus it makes for more lively debate.
People here seem to think that means I support everything he does and everything he says. That's extremely incorrect.
Yet my occasional defenses here of some of Trump's actions as POTUS seem to have made people very angry with me.
For example:
Cassandra said:
Beyond the fact that how this was worded makes it clear that my occasional defense of Trump here enrages her to the point where she's imagining a form of torture for me, she's also assuming that because I defended Trump's decision on Israel, I agree with ALL of his Tweets and would defend them. How does an Ivy League educated lawyer (as we've been reminded) make that leap? It's not an intelligence issue, obviously (see Ivy League reference). I have to assume it's due to a loss of objectivity in raging hatred of Trump. Like CNN and MSNBC and practically all Democrats right now, and possibly Mueller's team.
And Amadan's assumption that I want to give the middle finger to ALL Arabs, even though I just stated exactly which ones I would give it to, is another example of the bias that overtakes people due to their hatred of Trump. I occasionally defend Trump's policy decisions on this board, and I'm suddenly a hater of all Arabs.
I'm also willing to criticize him when he deserves it. I hate many of his Tweets. Yesterday's was particularly awful. They are infantile and he should stop yesterday. I wish he would comport himself better as POTUS. He does things that embarrass me, too. I've said these things before. Here. I simply don't have to do that very often because most everyone else is, constantly, including the "mainstream media". It's in my face every day. But Trump's administration IS doing things I agree with that Hillary's would not be doing, and I'm thankful for that.
So let me make this clear -- I am NOT a blind Trump supporter. I am trying to be objective about his actions as POTUS, and when they are good I will commend him. When they are bad, I won't. But when they are bad, I will consider the use of my time if I were to join in the piling on.
Also, thank you to Christine and the two Mikes on this board -- you're all very appreciated.
However, I think, if Trump was determined to do this, the smarter and more effective way to do so would have been after meeting with Palestinian leaders, giving them an opportunity to have their say, and making clear that we are still committed to negotiating a peace process, and maybe throwing them a bone or two. In other words, especially when dealing with Arabs, you have to let them save some face. That's the way the culture is. Just delivering a blunt bomb of a message - "You don't matter, your leaders are powerless and we don't respect them, fuck you!" - was almost calculated for maximum outrage. If I were really trying to come up with the most anti-Trump theory I could, I'd say it almost seems as if he was trying to provoke another intifada
The Palestinian leaders have had an opportunity many times over many years to have their say. We have also said a zillion times that we are committed to negotiating a peace process. We've thrown them bone after bone. Has it made a difference? I think the answer to that is obvious.
Our foreign policy should be doing the right thing for the right reasons, not avoiding doing the right thing because we're afraid the terrorists are going to get violent. That's the whole point of terrorism, right? Getting their way because people are afraid? Giving them the desired response here just encourages more of the same. Anyway, Trump did say this in his speech:
"In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.
The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement. Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides."
The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement. Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides."
His speech was plenty diplomatic.
Amadan said:
I don't think anyone has a problem with flipping the bird at terrorists, but you are missing my point. A political stunt that amounts to flipping the bird at the entire Arab world is not statesmanship, no matter how gleefully you and the POTUS giggle about it. Frankly, I don't believe your "some" qualifier and I sure as hell don't believe it about Trump. I think you put "some" in there in the same way Trump puts it in there when describing how criminal Mexicans are.
Amadan said:
The fact that Trump has Jewish family members is not exactly an argument in favor of the wisdom of his actions. Okay, so he has family (and no doubt a lot of friends) who are very pro-Israeli. That's not coming to a considered decision about what's best for America, that's letting his inner circle push his opinions. Jared and Ivanka aren't (or shouldn't be) foreign policy advisors.
This was one of Trump's campaign promises. Of COURSE he's thought about it, And he's met with experts and advisors on this issue. You're concerned about what's best for America. How is siding with corrupt terrorists, or being kowtowed by the same, "best for America"?
MichaelW said:
That said, given that Israel has offered 96 percent of the West Bank, plus the part of Jerusalem where the Al-Aqsa Mosque is located, and the Palestinian leadership turned it down, I think the concept of "meeting in the middle" with regard to this conflict has been seriously distorted.
Cassandra said:
One might also argue that the closest approach to "meeting in the middle" when it comes to Jerusalem just now might be doing what past presidents have done rather than deliberately (and IMO, rather pointlessly) rocking that boat.
What about Senate Resolution 176? This bill was passed by the U.S. Senate several months ago by a vote of NINETY to ZERO. Let me repeat that - 90-0. It was co-authored by Schumer. And on page 2, it says (bolding mine):
Whereas the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law
104–45), which became law on November 8, 1995, states
that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of
Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious
group are protected; and
104–45), which became law on November 8, 1995, states
that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of
Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious
group are protected; and
Where was all the hysteria about rocking the boat when this was passed unanimously? Did no one want to take out that particular "Whereas" phrase? Was this deemed a terrible thing back in May? Why is the sky falling now?
Which brings me to the last points I want to make.
Just because I defend Trump on this board does NOT mean I am all in for Trump. There are plenty of things I dislike about Trump the man and Trump the POTUS. However, unlike many, I'm willing and able to give him credit when he deserves it. And he deserves it here. I'm willing to defend him when he's unfairly attacked. I take things issue by issue. I thought it was unfair to say he did this without thought or consideration of the issue, so I stepped in. Plus it makes for more lively debate.
People here seem to think that means I support everything he does and everything he says. That's extremely incorrect.
Yet my occasional defenses here of some of Trump's actions as POTUS seem to have made people very angry with me.
For example:
Cassandra said:
I would like to prop you in front of his twitter feed. Every. Single. Day. with your eyelids propped open and force you to read and defend every one in accordance with the principles you espouse.
Beyond the fact that how this was worded makes it clear that my occasional defense of Trump here enrages her to the point where she's imagining a form of torture for me, she's also assuming that because I defended Trump's decision on Israel, I agree with ALL of his Tweets and would defend them. How does an Ivy League educated lawyer (as we've been reminded) make that leap? It's not an intelligence issue, obviously (see Ivy League reference). I have to assume it's due to a loss of objectivity in raging hatred of Trump. Like CNN and MSNBC and practically all Democrats right now, and possibly Mueller's team.
And Amadan's assumption that I want to give the middle finger to ALL Arabs, even though I just stated exactly which ones I would give it to, is another example of the bias that overtakes people due to their hatred of Trump. I occasionally defend Trump's policy decisions on this board, and I'm suddenly a hater of all Arabs.
I'm also willing to criticize him when he deserves it. I hate many of his Tweets. Yesterday's was particularly awful. They are infantile and he should stop yesterday. I wish he would comport himself better as POTUS. He does things that embarrass me, too. I've said these things before. Here. I simply don't have to do that very often because most everyone else is, constantly, including the "mainstream media". It's in my face every day. But Trump's administration IS doing things I agree with that Hillary's would not be doing, and I'm thankful for that.
So let me make this clear -- I am NOT a blind Trump supporter. I am trying to be objective about his actions as POTUS, and when they are good I will commend him. When they are bad, I won't. But when they are bad, I will consider the use of my time if I were to join in the piling on.
Also, thank you to Christine and the two Mikes on this board -- you're all very appreciated.