If widespread violence breaks out in the Middle East how much blame falls on Trump?

[HomerJS]

If the Palestinians aren’t mature enough to accept an embassy in Jerusalem then they sure as hell aren’t ready to negotiate peace. Let them be angry, not like they need any excuses anyway.

Oh please. Alabamans aren't mature enough not to vote for a child molester. Anger isn't wholly owned by the Palestinians.

 

[woolfe9998]

Prove me wrong. It is all documented...

Problem wasn't your facts. It was this conclusion:

This Trump declaration makes no difference in the least. Other than all of the panty bunching.

Which is a stupid one. Of course what Trump is doing matters. If it inflames anti-Israel and anti-US opinion on the Arab side, and undermines our credibility as a mediator in their eyes, it will only make the peace process harder.

 

[cytg111]

How does any of what you just said deal with what pcgeek and I have said?

"Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump ( more than likely many others ) all accepted that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.

The area has always been war torn. And probably always will be.

Anything and everything we have tried has at best been met with Very Limited or no success at all. Mostly the latter.

This Trump declaration makes no difference in the least. Other than all of the panty bunching."

Is there something you disagree with there?

So if it turns to shit it was shit anyway, shit equals shit so who cares. Thats your foreign policy on Israel/Palestine?

 

[feralkid]

Here you go.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-...dents-said-about-israel-and-jerusalem/9234736

oh, and this should help too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

Trump is just the first sitting POTUS to actually do what the act says should be done. What makes Trump different is that he finally did what was said should be done long before.

This is not a judgement on if I think this is a good idea, but what pcgeek said is factual.

I was not disputing his facts; I was appalled by his attitude about its potential consequences.

"The area has always been war torn. And probably always will be". "This Trump declaration makes no difference in the least." How utterly hopeless and cynical.

Hence the "Baghdad Bob" reference.

 

[glenn1]

Oh please. Alabamans aren't mature enough not to vote for a child molester. Anger isn't wholly owned by the Palestinians.

Are Alabamans firing Qassam rockets over the border into Georgia because an embassy got built in Atlanta? Again, anger is one thing, violence is another. I don't think American foreign policy should cater to the hurt feelings or "anger" of Palestinians about an embassy. If you're going to excuse away Palestinian violence over a building then you're honestly as much an impediment to peace as any other factor.

 

[cytg111]

Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-complete-understanding-of-jerusalem-decision

Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle

http://www.theamericanconservative....-opposed-embassy-move-trump-jerusalem-israel/

Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmk6oC2CuT0

Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle Waddle Wadlle

 

[fskimospy]

Are Alabamans firing Qassam rockets over the border into Georgia because an embassy got built in Atlanta? Again, anger is one thing, violence is another. I don't think American foreign policy should cater to the hurt feelings or "anger" of Palestinians about an embassy. If you're going to excuse away Palestinian violence over a building then you're honestly as much an impediment to peace as any other factor.

American foreign policy should cater to American interests. This action does not advance American interests. Therefore, it is stupid.

 

[351Cleveland]

Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. If Muslims respond violently, that is because they chose to do so. Frankly, accepting or expecting violence from Muslims is a bit racist. You don't think Muslims have the ability to keep their passions in check? Why would anyone assume a simple announcement that a law that has been around for over 20 years would finally be enacted would cause ANY violence? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Maybe you guys should check your stereotypes and prejudices at the door. And no, President Trump would not be responsible for the violence... the people committing the violence would be responsible.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Israel and it's leaders share an equal amount of the blame.

 

[351Cleveland]

American foreign policy should cater to American interests. This action does not advance American interests. Therefore, it is stupid.

However, President Trump took no action. This law was passed and signed over 20 years ago... by President Clinton. So at the end of the day, maybe you mean President Clinton's actions were stupid?

 

[soundforbjt]

However, President Trump took no action. This law was passed and signed over 20 years ago... by President Clinton. So at the end of the day, maybe you mean President Clinton's actions were stupid?

Who took the action of not signing the deferment and enacting the law?

 

[fskimospy]

However, President Trump took no action. This law was passed and signed over 20 years ago... by President Clinton. So at the end of the day, maybe you mean President Clinton's actions were stupid?

Uhmm, President Clinton did not pass or sign this law.

As for the pointless semantics of Trump not taking an action that’s stupid and you know it. He chose to change US policy.

 

[master_shake_]

Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. If Muslims respond violently, that is because they chose to do so. Frankly, accepting or expecting violence from Muslims is a bit racist. You don't think Muslims have the ability to keep their passions in check? Why would anyone assume a simple announcement that a law that has been around for over 20 years would finally be enacted would cause ANY violence? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Maybe you guys should check your stereotypes and prejudices at the door. And no, President Trump would not be responsible for the violence... the people committing the violence would be responsible.

no, no it isn't racist.

 

[bshole]

If the Palestinians aren’t mature enough to accept an embassy in Jerusalem then they sure as hell aren’t ready to negotiate peace. Let them be angry, not like they need any excuses anyway.

They had an Islamic government for 700 years which was replaced by Western powers 100 years ago. Exactly why are the Jews entitled to the land more than the Muslims (other than Western powers have the power to make it so)?

 

[realibrad]

So if it turns to shit it was shit anyway, shit equals shit so who cares. Thats your foreign policy on Israel/Palestine?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Things going to shit means thousands if not millions of deaths. Things are not that shitty right now so clearly things could be much worse. Diplomacy is by far the best option.

 

[realibrad]

I was not disputing his facts; I was appalled by his attitude about its potential consequences.

"The area has always been war torn. And probably always will be". "This Trump declaration makes no difference in the least." How utterly hopeless and cynical.

Hence the "Baghdad Bob" reference.

The area has been war torn for a very long time, and so long as its a religious center for conflicting beliefs its likely to stay. Trump doing anything does not make it better, but it could likely make it worse. What geek said clearly fits that. I think you may have added in an idea that he may very well hold, but did not express. You may call it hopeless and cynical, but its a view that comes from history.

 

[realibrad]

They had an Islamic government for 700 years which was replaced by Western powers 100 years ago. Exactly why are the Jews entitled to the land more than the Muslims (other than Western powers have the power to make it so)?

Muh Bible.

 

[bshole]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Things going to shit means thousands if not millions of deaths. Things are not that shitty right now so clearly things could be much worse. Diplomacy is by far the best option.

They are getting really shitty really fast. Trump pissed in the hornets nest. Dunno if this will erupt into major violence but it is certainly possible and certainly predictable. The problem is that even if it does erupt into violence, it really won't affect Trump's base. This is probably what they want (including the escalating violence).

 

[realibrad]

They are getting really shitty really fast. Trump pissed in the hornets nest. Dunno if this will erupt into major violence but it is certainly possible and certainly predictable. The problem is that even if it does erupt into violence, it really won't affect Trump's base. This is probably what they want (including the escalating violence).

That base has two main beliefs. A is that the Arabs deserve it, or B that its a sign of the end times. Both are scary beliefs to hold.

 

[351Cleveland]

Uhmm, President Clinton did not pass or sign this law.

As for the pointless semantics of Trump not taking an action that’s stupid and you know it. He chose to change US policy.

Oh I am sorry. Yes, despite passing both houses of Congress in 1995 by overwhelming margins, President Clinton ALLOWED the bill to become law. He didn't actually sign it, but he didn't veto it either (again, massively overwhelming majorities in both chambers). I read both that Clinton had supported Jerusalem as the capital and that the law was passed during his tenure and connected the dots. My bad.

Regardless of that point, US Policy, as written into section 3 of the law is:

SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.

(a) STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.—


(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which
the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the
State of Israel; and

(3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established
in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

So unless the law was amended, that has been the policy since 1995. What President Trump did (or didn't do, depending on how you want to slice that pie) was allow the law to be enacted... and give a speech about it.

Now back to the original question (is President Trump liable). I still say the answer is no. He enacted a law that was put in place over 20 years ago. How people REACT to that is up to them.

 

[351Cleveland]

Who took the action of not signing the deferment and enacting the law?

So no action is an action. So the opposite of an action is... an action?

It isn't like there is a pre-printed form with check boxes and a list of reasons for him to choose from and sign. There was nothing for him to sign. He enacted a properly passed law over 20 years after it was passed. As the head of the Executive branch, it is his job to EXECUTE laws... not write them. I know, the last 8 years have been a bit confusing in that respect. There is nothing about this situation that President Trump has done aside from his Constitutionally sworn duties.

 

[351Cleveland]

They are getting really shitty really fast. Trump pissed in the hornets nest. Dunno if this will erupt into major violence but it is certainly possible and certainly predictable. The problem is that even if it does erupt into violence, it really won't affect Trump's base. This is probably what they want (including the escalating violence).

Why would it erupt into violence? Are Muslims not capable of controlling their passions? If you were saying that (and I don't know that you are), then that would be blatantly racist to suggest Muslims have so little self control or intelligence as to be provoked to violence by what? So far, simply a speech announcing the implementation of a 20+ year old policy. I know I would be insulted if you were saying that about me.

 

[351Cleveland]

no, no it isn't racist.

So you would expect the same reaction from say... Jews? Would the Jewish people rise up violently in similar circumstances?

 

[bshole]

Why would it erupt into violence? Are Muslims not capable of controlling their passions? If you were saying that (and I don't know that you are), then that would be blatantly racist to suggest Muslims have so little self control or intelligence as to be provoked to violence by what? So far, simply a speech announcing the implementation of a 20+ year old policy. I know I would be insulted if you were saying that about me.

I guess they can't accept the fact that Western powers kicked their asses 100 years ago and that we get to decide who governs over there, not them.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I am sorry. Yes, despite passing both houses of Congress in 1995 by overwhelming margins, President Clinton ALLOWED the bill to become law. He didn't actually sign it, but he didn't veto it either (again, massively overwhelming majorities in both chambers). I read both that Clinton had supported Jerusalem as the capital and that the law was passed during his tenure and connected the dots. My bad.

So Clinton deliberately not signing it indicates his support? Don't be ridiculous, if he supported it he would have signed it, and he wouldn't waived its central provision repeatedly. It was passed by veto proof majorities in a Republican controlled Congress. So in reality, Republicans in Congress were primarily to blame for this being enacted with some complicity from congressional Democrats.

Regardless of that point, US Policy, as written into section 3 of the law is:

Congress has no power to state US foreign policy. That passage is irrelevant and/or unconstitutional.

So unless the law was amended, that has been the policy since 1995. What President Trump did (or didn't do, depending on how you want to slice that pie) was allow the law to be enacted... and give a speech about it.

Now back to the original question (is President Trump liable). I still say the answer is no. He enacted a law that was put in place over 20 years ago. How people REACT to that is up to them.

So first, as we covered it isn't policy as Congress doesn't set policy. The person who does though, is the president. This argument that not signing the waiver isn't an action is absurd pedantry and I'm very sure you know it. Trump made a conscious decision to change US foreign policy and has even stated as much. Why you're trying to argue something that even TRUMP isn't dishonest enough to argue is ridiculous.

So yes, he made a choice to change US policy so he is partially responsible for the results. This is so obvious I don't know why this even needs to be argued.