This reply reminded me of this [YouTube link].
Maybe not. From listening to NPR, it seems that there was an act of Congress, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital…but allowing the President to sign a waiver, preventing the law from taking effect, if he thought such recognition conflicted with U.S. national interests.
Several (four?) presidents have said they would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital…but then signed that waiver.
Once a waiver expires, you can’t reinstate it unilaterally. The law has taken effect.
(I think.)
I remember a few years ago when the US found that an Indian diplomat had a housekeeper who was basically an indentured servant, and the US cracked down on this horribly abusive and illegal arrangement. The Indian Government was outraged that one of their diplomats wasn’t permitted to pay a servant about a dollar an hour for 80 hour workweeks. I remember specifically that you thought the US should apologize.
Now the US has broken with every single country in the world on a matter with extreme sensitivity for hopes of peace, and you say that one side has “butthurt.”
Jesus fucking Christ, I don’t know why I read any thread you start.
If you prefer angry, upset, furious to butthurt then feel free to substitute it.
It all means the same thing. The Palestinians have been angry and making demands since before I was born.
Its the same old tired cycle. They get angry, organize demonstrations, throw rocks, bomb, and launch rockets. People get injured and killed on both sides.
Eventually things cool off for awhile.
Wait awhile and do it all over again.
I’ve watched this unfolds dozens of times throughout my entire life. They’ll be doing the same thing forty years from now.
I’d like to hope they could work out a peace plan. But after the Oslo Accords failed it seems impossible now. There’s too many settlements and too many people. They all aren’t going to pack up and leave
Time is rapidly running out for a separate state.
Well, no… Time is against a true peace accord; the tide is running in the wrong direction. But time is not “running out.” There is no tipping-point at which peace becomes impossible.
The big problem is that both sides have specific “absolutely must-have” positions, and there is very, very little room for compromise. (Akin to the abortion debate: the matter is simply too harshly polarized.)
Palestine could become an independent state tomorrow…if the Palestinians made some concessions that they swear they can never, ever make. Israel could be recognized and welcomed in peace by all the world’s nations…if they gave up certain things they swear they can never, ever give.
Perhaps they can swap, each giving up some of their absolutely non-negotiable demands. But which? And how?
This is an interesting option.
NY Times article
I don’t think you’re understanding what Nathan Thrall is referring to. If someone reads “one-state solution,” they might believe that refers to a peace deal in which Israelis and Palestinians just agree to get along because all the conflict over having a second state is just water under the bridge.
What I’m pretty sure Thrall is referring to is a more unstable situation in which Palestinians reject the generally moderate but fairly incompetent Palestinian leadership of Abbas et al. Then if a single state is agreed to, the Palestinians more or less portray themselves as the oppressed black majority in apartheid South Africa, struggling for equal rights within the new state so that the Palestinian population would eventually turn the tables on Israelis in the same manner that blacks did to the white apartheid government.
This one-state scenario has been thrown around for years, with different groups taking different spins on it, but it tends to be mentioned in the same breath as comments like “suicide for the Jewish state” and similar sort of comments.
I am an Israeli national, living abroad.
Jerusalem is de-facto the captial, all the government offices are located there including the high court, president, house of Representatives etc. I have no idea what are the rules about declaring your own capital, but it makes sense to me that any country should be able to decide any city within its borders as the capital, but I am not familiar with international law.
Moving the consulate to Jerusalem is retarded. Most of the population of Israel is located around Tell Aviv, while Jerusalem has a very large population of religious redicals, be it Jews or Arabs. Traveling between Tell Aviv and Jerusalem is very difficult if you don’t own a car, and it may also be dangerous. Public transport is very underdeveloped in Israel and the roads are very slow and hard on the vehicle (many radical slopes and not well paved roads). The last time I undertook this journey it took me about 3-4 hours in each direction with a scooter and was probably my most difficult trip with it.
Now we’re getting to something in the President’s wheelhouse.
What’s wrong with the train?
Interesting point, in any case, about whether an embassy is actually meant to serve hoi polloi and should therefore be located where they are.
In practice, consulates serve the hoi polloi. The embassy serves the ruling clique, since it’s the location where one nation’s leader’s representatives (ambassador) meets with the leaders of the other nation. It’s the main facility with the “upward-facing” function. Whereas consulates take care of diplomatic bureacratic operations, including “downward-facing” functions for citizens of both countries invovled.
It’s been pointed out that having all of the world’s embassies in Tel Aviv isn’t terribly inconvenient even if the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s offices are in Jerusalem, so “it’s closer” isn’t a good excuse.
The track between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv was laid down by the Turks in the late 19th Century, and travel between the cities by train, winding through the hills, takes about 3 times as long as by car. It’s a picturesque route, though. They’ve been working on a direct, fast line for over a decade now, but it’s one of those public works projects from hell that’s taking three times as long as it should while costing four times as much, and no end in sight.
When was the last time your were here, molten? The highways to Jerusalem - especially the new one - are pretty good these days, considering the topography. It’s the traffic jams from hell you have to worry about.
Thank you for clarifying Thrall’s agenda.
I had a feeling that he wasn’t suggesting cooperating with Israel.
The ideal solution would be a one state solution with the Palestinians governing themselves as a state inside Israel. Perhaps even having some representatives in the Knesset to speak for them on issues that are of importance to the Palestinians.
I doubt it will happen within my lifetime. There’s too much deep-seated distrust and animosity on both sides.
I can’t tell if you’re actually talking about a two-state solution, or if you’re endorsing apartheid.
Sounds like the one state solution that isn’t apartheid, but apartheid would have to result because Palestinians would have a majority in about 20 years under that setup.
Well, if there is really to be only one state then all the Palestinians would also just be normal Israeli citizens. I have not heard that the politicians are pushing for that arrangement, though.
It’s a numbers issue. If people cant get along, there’s no way to put them in a nation together to begin with, but it’s actually impossible if it would change the majority from one people to another. I don’t expect Lebanese Christians are too keen on union with Syria for that reason, even though Syria is pretty sure that Lebanon belongs to them.
It seems a lot like the old Ottoman millet system, where minorities governed themselves in their day to day affairs, but we’re subordinate to the Ottoman state.
Updating this thread: it’s happening very shortly:
And note:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-adelson-embassy-jerusalem-20180223-story.html
The consequences were as expected: