Brace yourself: The U.S. embassy in Israel still isn't moving

National Review ^ | 6-27-06 | Jim Geraghty

[kabar]

At least show your UN colors and acknowledge that you base your opinion on the 1947 UN Resolution declaring Jerusalem an international city. Accepted by Israel at the time, rejected by the Arabs. And a dead issue now.

Both parties agree that the status of the city is negotiable. The signed an agreement to that effect.

[jpl]

It is a very complicated, emotional issue that will require compromise on both sides if it ever is to be resolved.

There's no question that it's an extremely emotional issue, but it's not remotely complicated. The truth is that it's never going to be resolved peacefully because one side is willing to negotiate and the other side isn't. In fact, the other side is all but incapable of coexisting peacefully with others anywhere on the planet.

And every bureaucrat in the UN, the State Department, the Hague and everywhere else can blabber, yammer, and doubletalk until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't change anything. The peaceful "two-state solution" idea is a bunch of bunko that bears absolutely no semblance to reality whatsoever.

[SJackson]

Both parties agree that the status of the city is negotiable. The signed an agreement to that effect.

Actually neither do.

Israel has declared Jerusalem to be their capital. Yes, I know the UN opposes it. I'm aware of the 47 resolution, as well as the 1980 resolution which caused the dozen plus countries with Embassies in Jerusalem to move them. The UN and their suupporters wants an international city, fine, it won't happen. The US left that idea back in the early 50s. And the Arabs want Israel out of Jerusalem, and out of Israel. That won't happen either. And while Israel has in the past been willing to negotiate possession of EAST JERUSALEM, even offered it to Arafat who turned it down, Israel has NEVER offered to negotiate WEST JERUSALEM, which is where the property for the Embassy was leased nearly 20 years ago, and which has been in Israeli possession since the founding of the State, the capital since 1950.

Try the deflection on someone else.

[SJackson]

The peaceful "two-state solution" idea is a bunch of bunko that bears absolutely no semblance to reality whatsoever.

As an aside, as you'll note in post 43, this "dispute" involves land in Israel's possession since 1948. It's got nothing to do with a "two-state solution", rather a move back to the pre 1948 one-Arab state pipe dream.

[jpl]

Very few of them will ever just directly come out and admit it, but a lot of the Western liberal "elites" really believe that the creation of Israel was a mistake to begin with. Some of the old hardcore paleoconservatives feel the same way too.

But it's kind of too late at this point for them to say "whoops, we didn't really mean it." And even if they did, most of the ultra-liberals in Israel have no more intention of leaving at this point than most ultra-liberal Americans and Canadians have of leaving North America.

[kabar]

And every bureaucrat in the UN, the State Department, the Hague and everywhere else can blabber, yammer, and doubletalk until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't change anything. The peaceful "two-state solution" idea is a bunch of bunko that bears absolutely no semblance to reality whatsoever.

And what is your solution?

[jpl]

And what is your solution?

I'm not sure that there is necessarily is a solution, but frankly, I don't understand this idea that a solution needs to be imposed by us or any other outside countries.

Since the problem effects the people of Israel the most, I think they should be the ones to decide the best way to solve the problem. If they are willing to continue along with the current status quo, I might think that they're crazy, but it's certainly their right to do so.

[kabar]

Try the deflection on someone else.

I don't have a dog in this fight. It is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate the status of the city. If Israel doesn't want to include West Jerusalem in any final resolution of the status of the city, it is up to them. The Palestinians have the same feelings about East Jerusalem and the Israeli occupation and settlements, which the UNSC has declared illegal.

If it is the Israeli position that West and East Jerusalem are off the table, what is left to negotiate? If there is to be peace, a modus vivendi must be reached. Otherwise the killing will go on and on and on. That is their choice and they will pay the consequences.

[kabar]

I'm not sure that there is necessarily is a solution, but frankly, I don't understand this idea that a solution needs to be imposed by us or any other outside countries.

Fine. We should stop trying to be an honest broker and get out of the way. I am tired of subsidizing both sides. As I said, neither side is going anywhere. They either learn to live together or resign themselves to a struggle that will go on for hundreds of years ala the Irish and the English.

We are not trying to impose a solution on anyone, as if we could.

[Diogenesis]

You obviously have a pro-terrorist "dog" in this fight. Why?

[kabar]

I said I didn't have a dog in this fight, i.e., between the Palestinians and Israelis. I felt the same way about Northern Ireland. We don't have a mutual defense pact with either party and I don't want American military personnel involved in their dispute. Our government has been trying to play the honest broker between the two parties and it hasn't worked.

I am not pro-terrorist.

[MrLee]

We'll move it there when Yeshua rules. And, that could be quite soon actually....

[daybreakcoming]

We would gain absolutely nothing by moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, which is why no President of either party has moved it.

The thread article suggests that the party which did move the embassy might gain Jewish votes. The democrats have no need to move it because for some puzzling reason already have the majority of Jewish votes wrapped up and the Republican party moving it would not change that at all. So that political dog don't hunt at all.