BG9 said:

BCC said:

BG9 said:

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

As I recall, the instability and mistrust were increased under Obama's 8 years in office, and who gets blamed for the dead Arabs, Hamas who organized these attacks or Israel, defending itself?

 Deliberate provocations, yes. Attacks, no. 

 
Provocations? Molotov cocktails, sling shots, burning kites meant to start fires in Israel, attempts at infiltration, are your idea of provocations? The Hamas charter is also a provocation I suppose.

I no longer believe anything that comes out of Netanyahu's propaganda mill.
Sure, there was reprehensible action by some Palestinians. But how much? How many Israeli's were even hurt? Was even one? 
Suppose we have a civil rights protest or whatever. And some, a few, throw bricks at cops. Will that justify mass shooting at demonstrators, including kids?  Will you argue the shooting is justified? Painting all demonstrators as terrorists?

 
A few bricks thrown at cops?
Some reprehensible actions?
Did you actually watch what was taking place a couple of days ago?
Molotov cocktails, slingshots, burning kites, attempts to overrun a barrier (or what purpose?) are the same as a few bricks,and some reprehensible actions – right ?

 All one has to do is see the disparity between Israeli and Palestinian killed and injured. To see where the real violence is.

 All one has to do is understand what is going on, not just look at numbers

htmlhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/hamas-gaza-protest-martyrdom-operation/

BCC said:

BG9 said:

BCC said:

BG9 said:

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

As I recall, the instability and mistrust were increased under Obama's 8 years in office, and who gets blamed for the dead Arabs, Hamas who organized these attacks or Israel, defending itself?

 Deliberate provocations, yes. Attacks, no. 

 
Provocations? Molotov cocktails, sling shots, burning kites meant to start fires in Israel, attempts at infiltration, are your idea of provocations? The Hamas charter is also a provocation I suppose.

I no longer believe anything that comes out of Netanyahu's propaganda mill.
Sure, there was reprehensible action by some Palestinians. But how much? How many Israeli's were even hurt? Was even one? 
Suppose we have a civil rights protest or whatever. And some, a few, throw bricks at cops. Will that justify mass shooting at demonstrators, including kids?  Will you argue the shooting is justified? Painting all demonstrators as terrorists?

 
A few bricks thrown at cops?
Some reprehensible actions?
Did you actually watch what was taking place a couple of days ago?
Molotov cocktails, slingshots, burning kites, attempts to overrun a barrier (or what purpose?) are the same as a few bricks,and some reprehensible actions – right ?

 All one has to do is see the disparity between Israeli and Palestinian killed and injured. To see where the real violence is.

 All one has to do is understand what is going on, not just look at numbers

htmlhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/hamas-gaza-protest-martyrdom-operation/

Like this?

About 1,360 Palestinians were shot over the course of about eight hours Monday, the Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said. All the dead were shot on the Palestinian side of the fence, and the border fence, though damaged, was never breached. No Israeli soldiers were reported injured.

Fourteen-year-old Wisal Sheikh Khalil had wire cutters out and was trying to break through Gaza’s boundary fence into Israel when she was shot dead by Israeli soldiers on Monday, according to her younger brother, who was with her at the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israels-use-of-fatal-fire-in-gaza-excessive-force-or-justified-mob-control/2018/05/16/435dc998-5856-11e8-9889-07bcc1327f4b_story.html

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:
There is no more fearsome weapon then a burning kite.

 You don't know why those kites were flying do you?

 Doesn't matter. Clearly it's a capital offense regardless, right?

 IOWs you don't know.


The kites were on fire and were meant to burn up Israeli crops, which a number of them did.
Would you now like to address the Molotov cocktails and sling shots?

 you're right. I didn't know.

I wish there was a way to search the internet for information, then I could be as smart as you.

Maybe we should give up on the wall and just shoot people as they try to cross the border. Or as they approach the border.

If it's good enough for Israel...

13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

ml1 said:
and what is this telling North Korea about negotiating a deal to stop building nukes?

Pretty much what the 1994 Trilateral Agreement* and subsequent anexation of Crimea  tells NK.  Namely, without nukes their territory can be annexed with impunity. See https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/

*-  1994 Trilateral Agreement was between Russia, Ukraine and US.  US, Russia and UK provided security assurances to Ukraine under the agreement in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:
and what is this telling North Korea about negotiating a deal to stop building nukes?

Pretty much what the 1994 Trilateral Agreement* and subsequent anexation of Crimea  tells NK.  Namely, without nukes their territory can be annexed with impunity. See https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/


*-  1994 Trilateral Agreement was between Russia, Ukraine and US.  US, Russia and UK provided security assurances to Ukraine under the agreement in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.

 So without its nukes, who would annex NK? China, SK or the US?

cramer said:
 
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

 good piece.

Take a look at this link to a Brookings article on reunification, positions of parties and the effect of NK's nukes on the situation.  Link:  https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/korean-reunification-and-u-s-interests-preparing-for-one-korea/

ridski said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:
and what is this telling North Korea about negotiating a deal to stop building nukes?

Pretty much what the 1994 Trilateral Agreement* and subsequent anexation of Crimea  tells NK.  Namely, without nukes their territory can be annexed with impunity. See https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/


*-  1994 Trilateral Agreement was between Russia, Ukraine and US.  US, Russia and UK provided security assurances to Ukraine under the agreement in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.

 So without its nukes, who would annex NK? China, SK or the US?

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:
There is no more fearsome weapon then a burning kite.

 You don't know why those kites were flying do you?

 Doesn't matter. Clearly it's a capital offense regardless, right?

 IOWs you don't know.


The kites were on fire and were meant to burn up Israeli crops, which a number of them did.
Would you now like to address the Molotov cocktails and sling shots?

 you're right. I didn't know.
I wish there was a way to search the internet for information, then I could be as smart as you.

 Are you serious?

RealityForAll said:

Take a look at this link to a Brookings article on reunification, positions of parties and the effect of NK's nukes on the situation.  Link:  https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/korean-reunification-and-u-s-interests-preparing-for-one-korea/

ridski said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:
and what is this telling North Korea about negotiating a deal to stop building nukes?

Pretty much what the 1994 Trilateral Agreement* and subsequent anexation of Crimea  tells NK.  Namely, without nukes their territory can be annexed with impunity. See https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/


*-  1994 Trilateral Agreement was between Russia, Ukraine and US.  US, Russia and UK provided security assurances to Ukraine under the agreement in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.

 So without its nukes, who would annex NK? China, SK or the US?

 

 Thanks. I'll have to get back to this later, along with the other Brookings piece. I thought that as you had brought up the analogy, you would already have an answer to that. Will discuss after I've had a chance to read the briefs.

I was referring to the US violation of the terms of the Iran deal. So I'm not sure the analogy applies at all. What does it tell North Korea when the US negotiates a deal and then subsequently unilaterally walks away from it?

ml1 said:
I was referring to the US violation of the terms of the Iran deal. So I'm not sure the analogy applies at all. What does it tell North Korea when the US negotiates a deal and then subsequently unilaterally walks away from it?

 It says that any deal they make with Trump would be as worthless as a degree from Trump University.

ml1 said:
I was referring to the US violation of the terms of the Iran deal. So I'm not sure the analogy applies at all. What does it tell North Korea when the US negotiates a deal and then subsequently unilaterally walks away from it?

 Similar situation happened with respect to the trilateral agreement made in 1994.  And, almost no security assistance was provided  by US to Ukraine in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea (which appears to be a US violation of the trilateral agreement).

ETA:  Link to BBC article entitled "Ukraine's nuclear regret?":

 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26676051

cramer said:
 
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

 Thank you for the link. The article may be the only even-handed thing I have read on the subject.

LOST said:

cramer said:
 
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

 Thank you for the link. The article may be the only even-handed thing I have read on the subject.

 We need this kind of journalism on so many subjects.

Very good article.

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

On Wednesday, Guatemala followed the U.S. lead, festively opening its new Jerusalem mission with Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales saying his country was bringing a message of "love, peace and fraternity" to Israel. Paraguay said it also will move its embassy to Jerusalem. Romania, the Czech Republic and Honduras have said they are considering doing the same.

Couldn't find a Friedrich in the bunch.
 

And Bibi, Trump and Hamas all got what they wanted. What a week! 

 
You are right. Bibi got the Embassy moved, Trump made good on a promise 3 previous President reneged on, and Hamas got what they wanted.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/hamas-gaza-protest-martyrdom-operation/

 You say that like it’s an accomplishment.  Like Trump studied and consulted experts and considered the ramifications.  Like he worked harder than other Presidents.  Even you know this is not true.  All it took for him was the stroke of a pen.  50+ Palestinians dead?  Not his problem, they don’t vote.  Derailment of the peace process?   That’s a concern for another day or another President. 

LOST said:

cramer said:
 
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

 Thank you for the link. The article may be the only even-handed thing I have read on the subject.

 Certainly better than the BS we get from the MSM.

Red_Barchetta said:

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

On Wednesday, Guatemala followed the U.S. lead, festively opening its new Jerusalem mission with Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales saying his country was bringing a message of "love, peace and fraternity" to Israel. Paraguay said it also will move its embassy to Jerusalem. Romania, the Czech Republic and Honduras have said they are considering doing the same.

Couldn't find a Friedrich in the bunch.
 

And Bibi, Trump and Hamas all got what they wanted. What a week! 

 
You are right. Bibi got the Embassy moved, Trump made good on a promise 3 previous President reneged on, and Hamas got what they wanted.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/hamas-gaza-protest-martyrdom-operation/

 You say that like it’s an accomplishment.  Like Trump studied and consulted experts and considered the ramifications.  Like he worked harder than other Presidents.  Even you know this is not true.  All it took for him was the stroke of a pen.  50+ Palestinians dead?  Not his problem, they don’t vote.  Derailment of the peace process?   That’s a concern for another day or another President. 

No, that was the concern of 3 past Presidents who made a promise and never kept it.

50 dead Hamas members? Hamas members are always of concern, to Israel and to any one concerned with a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel. You might also note there was no uprising on the West Bank.

What peace process are you talking about? The one Obama brought about?

When Trump announced he was moving the Embassy he also noted it would not preclude a Palestinian Embassy in East Jerusalem and he also noted we were preparing a basis for a peace treaty discussion.

BCC said:

 No, that was the concern of 3 past Presidents who made a promise and never kept it.

 What promise did they make?

BCC said:

LOST said:

cramer said:
 
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

 Thank you for the link. The article may be the only even-handed thing I have read on the subject.

 Certainly better than the BS we get from the MSM.

Hmm. Gaza is basically a concentration camp. So I guess you can then write nuanced stories about how bad things happen on both sides, which I am sure are all true, but that kind of misses the bigger point.

dave23 said:

BCC said:

 No, that was the concern of 3 past Presidents who made a promise and never kept it.

 What promise did they make?

Already asked and answered.

cramer said:
 
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

 What Israel is doing to Gaza is unacceptable.  

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

 No, that was the concern of 3 past Presidents who made a promise and never kept it.

 What promise did they make?

Already asked and answered.

 Just went back and saw your answer. The Peter Baker editorial doesn't list the specific promises that Clinton and W made, but that's ok. And I didn't see anything about Obama promising to move it.

dave23 said:

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

 No, that was the concern of 3 past Presidents who made a promise and never kept it.

 What promise did they make?

Already asked and answered.

 Just went back and saw your answer. The Peter Baker editorial doesn't list the specific promises that Clinton and W made, but that's ok. And I didn't see anything about Obama promising to move it.

 This is a more up to date comment.

https://ijr.com/2018/05/1094932-presidents-promised-embassy-jerusalem/“

Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital,” he said. “Yet for many years, we failed to acknowledge the obvious, the plain reality that Israel's capital is Jerusalem.”

Several presidents before Trump promised this action, but they never delivered.

Former President Bill Clinton

“Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain an undivided city accessible to all,” he said in 1992. Clinton even went after former President George H.W. Bush for keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem and then promised to move it. 

In 2000, Clinton said:

“I have always wanted to move our embassy to west Jerusalem. We have a designated site there. I have not done so because I didn't want to do anything to undermine our ability to help to broker a secure and fair and lasting peace for Israelis and for Palestinians. But in light of what has happened, I've taken that decision under review, and I'll make a decision sometime between now and the end of the year on that.”

He never delivered.

Former President George W. Bush

“As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital,” he said in 2000. Bush added that he would “start the process as soon as I'm sworn in.”

He never delivered.

Former President Barack Obama

“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, and I have said that before, and I will say it again,” he said in 2008. In another speech that year, Obama stated, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

He never delivered.

In contrast, President Trump made a promise during his campaign in 2016 to “move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.”

.

gerritn said:

BCC said:

LOST said:

cramer said:
 
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262329/gaza-media-explainer

 Thank you for the link. The article may be the only even-handed thing I have read on the subject.

 Certainly better than the BS we get from the MSM.

Hmm. Gaza is basically a concentration camp. So I guess you can then write nuanced stories about how bad things happen on both sides, which I am sure are all true, but that kind of misses the bigger point.

 I suggest you and yahoo read up on the history of Hamas. Their condition today is of their own making, not Israel's and they are not listed as a terrorist organization by the US and EU.for no reason.

BCC said:

Red_Barchetta said:

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

On Wednesday, Guatemala followed the U.S. lead, festively opening its new Jerusalem mission with Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales saying his country was bringing a message of "love, peace and fraternity" to Israel. Paraguay said it also will move its embassy to Jerusalem. Romania, the Czech Republic and Honduras have said they are considering doing the same.

Couldn't find a Friedrich in the bunch.
 

And Bibi, Trump and Hamas all got what they wanted. What a week! 

 
You are right. Bibi got the Embassy moved, Trump made good on a promise 3 previous President reneged on, and Hamas got what they wanted.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/hamas-gaza-protest-martyrdom-operation/

 You say that like it’s an accomplishment.  Like Trump studied and consulted experts and considered the ramifications.  Like he worked harder than other Presidents.  Even you know this is not true.  All it took for him was the stroke of a pen.  50+ Palestinians dead?  Not his problem, they don’t vote.  Derailment of the peace process?   That’s a concern for another day or another President. 

 
No, that was the concern of 3 past Presidents who made a promise and never kept it.
50 dead Hamas members? Hamas members are always of concern, to Israel and to any one concerned with a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel. You might also note there was no uprising on the West Bank.
What peace process are you talking about? The one Obama brought about?

When Trump announced he was moving the Embassy he also noted it would not preclude a Palestinian Embassy in East Jerusalem and he also noted we were preparing a basis for a peace treaty discussion.

 You have exerted more effort on this thread defending the President than he has in initiating the relocation.  

Mike Dukakis said that he would move the Embassy to Jerusalem. I believe he would have done so.

I find it a little disturbing that people weight campaign promises ahead of pragmatic decision making when it comes to foreign policy.  All of us are going to bear the cost of Trump's decisions in the years ahead - decisions he makes solely on the basis of firing up his loyal supporters.   It seems like in the years following WW II when we truly were all powerful, we focused on building networks and alliances to advance Western values and the rule of law.  Trump is taking steps that will lead to the unraveling of this work at a time when we need alliances more than every.