Posted on 01/06/2017 7:41:18 AM PST by detective
President-elect Trump won't get any help from the State Department in implementing Israeli-relation policies opposed by President Obama before his inauguration. "The short answer is no," State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters. "You have one president at a time."
Obama's team invoked that axiom to justify high-profile foreign policy actions in recent weeks, notably his decisions to sanction Russia over the election year cyberattacks and to allow the United Nations Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement construction.
Kirby's statement extended that principle to barring any aid in helping the Trump team prepare to move the United States embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or recognize Jerusalem as the nation's capital.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
All the more reason for the U.S. to step back from this issue.
Well we certainly hope that is true. At least from the current State Department.
Ivanka.
The numbers I've seen indicate that Donald Trump got no more than 25% of the Jewish vote in the 2016 election, compared to more than 70% who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Are you suggesting that 70% of the Jewish voters in the U.S. don't care for Israel? WTF?
All I can say to anyone on this thread (and similar ones) is that I traveled across almost the entire Midwest during the 2016 campaign season, and met people and attended Trump rallies in most of the swing states that won this election for him (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, etc.).
I can list three things that never once came up in all my travels, and never came up in any of Trump's campaign appearances:
1. Israel
2. Palestine
3. Jerusalem
Nor the US of DJT.
Helping to transition is one thing but whining because the old Administration won't help institute your policies before you take office is juvenile.
You can disregard anything from an address that was given to a lobbying group. By definition a candidate is going to tell those people whatever they want to hear.
Sorry I think I will disregard your opinion and believe the facts as Trumps words he spoke on numerous occasions after the debate supporting the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem. And your point was that it is not an important issue for many people. The preservation of Jewish land is a bigger issue then you may realize to many evangelical Christians.
That is fine, I understand you support the obstructionism.
We will disagree on this.
DONALD TRUMP made ISRAEL as a key point in his agenda, and he will follow through with his promise.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
John Quincy Adams
6th American President
Same here. Wasn’t an issue I voted on.
Would those evangelical Christians have voted for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances?
I suspect not.
I have long believed that to Republicans, this issue is no different than the environment is to Democrats. The candidates pontificate about it when they're running around raising campaign funds and seeking votes, but polls consistently show that they are far down the list of issues that people consider important when they enter the voting booth.
I can tell you from my own experiences during the 2016 campaign that this particular issue resonated with 0% of the people I dealt with in key swing states.
There isn't anything about disputes between foreign countries or the location of a U.S. embassy in a foreign country that has anything to do with making America great again.
And I'm not sure what "voting for principle" means, when I've demonstrated on this thread that Trump's "principles" seemed to change over the course of several months. There's a big difference between principles and political pragmatism.
The location of the US Embassy has a lot to do with terrorism for the simple reason that the status of Jerusalem is a major bone of contention between the Israelis and Palestinians, and Palestinian opposition to Israel has in many cases and over a long period of time taken the form of terrorism. In addition, the support for Palestinians by many Leftists throughout the world has in my opinion involved turning a blind eye towards Palestinian terrorism because it is generally directed against Israel. So basically anything the USA does that involves Palestinian-Israeli issues necessarily involves terrorism. Put differently, the reason that Palestinian-related issues are on the world’s radar screen is mostly because of Palestinian terrorism. Anyway, I am not familiar with all the terms of those prior agreements you cite but I was not aware that they specify where foreign embassies are to be (do they?).
Anyway, I am not familiar with all the terms of those prior agreements you cite but I was not aware that they specify where foreign embassies are to be (do they?).
The agreements themselves may not specify where foreign embassies are to be located, but the language of those agreements effectively drives the legal and diplomatic decisions in many countries that have embassies in Israel (including the U.S.). The U.S. has a long-standing policy, for example, of refraining from placing an embassy in disputed and/or occupied land, and the language of those agreements I referenced leaves the status of Jerusalem in a state of uncertainty. I suspect most other countries have similar protocols, since no other country that recognizes Israel has an embassy there. Even some nations that previously DID have embassies in Jerusalem moved them to Tel Aviv for political/diplomatic reasons related to the uncertain legal status of the city.
Because of the uncertainty of the legal status of Jerusalem, putting an embassy there is like building a house without having a clear title to the property. Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing.
I agree with the first part of this statement, but the second part doesn't logically follow it.
This is an ongoing problem that will only be solved if the principals involved -- namely, the Israelis, the Palestinians and neighboring countries directly affected by it (Jordan, for example) -- sit down and figure out how to solve it. The U.S. has nothing to gain by inserting itself into that process in anything other than the role of an intermediary, and in that case only as long as all of those involved are on board with it.
He’s making a list,
and checking it twice,
to see who’s been naughty and nice...
Kirby is a PUNK-ASS LIAR!!
FAKE NEWS. Of course we only have one president at a time and come the 20th that’ll be Trump and State will fall in line. Come on people!
We would be happy to bring them home.
Too bad they're cowering like little girls behind the skirts of our adversaries.
“We would be happy to bring them home.
Too bad they’re cowering like little girls behind the skirts of our adversaries.”
Really? Assange said that the Swedes are not still after him and that the reason he’s still “holed up” in the Equadorian Embassy in London is because Obola wants him! I just imagine the situation with respect to Snowdon is the same. You can’t come home to a country who’s president wants to put you on trial!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.