What do you think about this new move by Trump?
Is this a good idea?
Jerusalem will be recgnized as the capital of Israel.
What is the consequence if any?
I'm confused (and ignorant) about this. Why is the US president deciding where the capital of a foreign nation shall be? Why isn't Israel making that call, and whatever they decide is what is to be?
What I heard was the US has some convoluted system where it says the embassy is in Jerusalem and every so often it passes a measure to temporarily leave the embassy in Tel Aviv. Trump,they said, is going to sign to leave it in Tel Aviv, but actually move it, finally.
Things just got more ridiculous.
What? What? Trump is going to order it left in Tel Aviv while moving it to Jerusalem? Because congress says it is in Jerusalem while it is in Tel Aviv? And, according to the liberal news last night, the rest of the world is angry and ready for war because the US want's it's embassy where Israel says the capital is?
Is it any wonder we peasants cannot understand politico-speak?
As president, Bill Clinton, signed into law to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, but he never did, nor did the presidents to follow. But, now Trump is going to enforce the law.
Several countries are now showing interest in moving their Embassy to Jerusalem.
President Trump will deliver his Jerusalem speech at 1pm E.
This is the same thinking by some foreign policy experts that we the US can bring peace to the Middle East...
They have been fighting for a few thousand years...off and on.
We have no influence one way or another...its an illusion.
It makes no difference where the Capital is located to the Arab world. They never recognized the State of Israel.
The time period to move the Embassy has come to its end, its do it now or wait another six months to decide. I believe today is the final day to act on the delay, if I understand it right. There is presidency.
The Bible says Jerusalem is "The city of the Great King." Psalm 48:2
Psalm 122:6 says to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem."
Trump pledged his support to the Jewish state, and promised to move the US Embassy repeatedly during his campaign. He is mandated to do it.
If Trump's mandate is coming from religious writings - any religious tome - then it should not be done.
If it's not, then let it stand on its own merits and ignore the writings of the ancients.
There is no biblical prophecy regarding US embassy in Jerusalem...
The act by the US is merely symbolic. It is a strong statement of support for the State of Israel which was not the case under the Obama years. Lets hope the Palestinians and other Arab states take note. We are supporting Israel’s right to exist.
Personally, I believe that nearly everything the US does for, with or about Israel is rooted in religious beliefs. Which means that parts of it's holy writings will be conveniently interpreted to show that it is correct.
But if the whole thing is merely symbolic, it would seem there are not only far cheaper things we might do, things that won't uproot lives, won't cost millions of dollars and might actually benefit the US or at a minimum our people at the embassy.
That may be true but since when does America worry about costs...? That is why we have a 20 trillion dollar debt and growing.
Our support for Israel is based on our believe in justice and democracy. Israel is the only democratic state in the Middleast. They are our allies and our trade partners and our friend in the fight against Islamic terrorism.
I disagree. Only my opinion, but I believe our support for Israel is based almost entirely on Christianity wanting Jews to be more than they were. It started that way and remains that way with the rest of the arguments (such as you rightly give) relegated to a back corner. I've been told too many times that if we don't support Israel God will damn our country to believe otherwise.
That is an evangelical interpretation of the scriptures, not an official US foreign policy. We are still a Christian nation and evangelicsl is only a minority of thst group.
The real reason we support Israel is for the stability of the Middleeast.
Without Israel, theing would be much worse. These Arab groups are always fighting each other.
They hate Israel more than they hate other Arabs.
Of course it's an evangelical interpretation, but that doesn't change what the people demand of their congressmen and women.
If you want stability (or at least more than there is now) in the Middle East, getting rid of Israel would be the first thing to do.
I disagree. Israel is the target that unite the arab states. If Israel is gone tomorrow, they will start fighting each other.
Saudi Arabia has their hands full right now with Iran. An all out war could break out. Iran wants to destroy Israel and the United States. Obama's Iran nuclear agreement and hundreds of billions of dollar is a disaster just waiting to happen. Just a jackass!
The Jewish people are ENTITLED to their ancestral homeland. Each ethnic group has a homeland. The Jewish people suffered for millennia because they didn't have a homeland. It took a near annihilation of the Jews for them to have a homeland. If the Jews had a homeland, they wouldn't have been almost ruthlessly exterminated as they would have a homeland to return to............
Wilderness, I am beyond shocked to hear you utter such a statement. There is nothing wrong w/Israel. The Arabs ought to leave Israel alone as Israel isn't bothering the Arab countries. It is the ARAB COUNTRIES who are bothering Israel. Israel is .....HERE TO STAY!
I agree with you 100%.If Israel would disappear tomorrow, the Middle East will still be fighting among themselves and us for meddling in their affairs...
What you think they are entitled to has exactly nothing to do with their destabilizing effect in the middle east. What I said is that we truly wanted a more stable middle east we would get rid of Israel, and I stand by that statement. I did not address whether they "deserve" to have the land they are sitting on at all.
I have a different perspective for you to consider Wilderness.
I think that from around 1939, to date, our support for Israel has been almost entirely political - frequently cloaked in the wraps of religion and human compassion reasons, but always U.S.-interest motivated.
When the Jews were trying to leave Europe - due to Hitler's efforts, human compassion demanded their acceptance as refugees. Very few nations, including ours, would accept more than a token, or a less than needed, number of them. So the solution was to find them a "home." The U.S. supported that solution.
Look at the strategic value to the U.S., of the Jewish state in the Middle East. Can you foresee the threat a unified, (as in not challenged by a presence like Israel), Middle East might have developed into? Especially if those unified Arabs states continued to be Soviet/Russian puppets. I can see a great U.S. benefit to having Israel as an ally or proxy against Soviet/Russian expansion in the Middle East. I think post-WWII history has shown how valuable Israel has been to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
And of course there is also the powerful political force of the "Jewish Lobby," a formidable force even before Israel declared itself a state.
My perspective differs from yours only in the respect that I believe your perception of the "Christian" support for Israel might be populace based, but the real support is, and has been, all about politics and national interests.
Good points, GA, but not ones I can agree are all in the interests of the US.
Refugees - as I recall my history, Israel was created after WWII and Hitler. They weren't running from Hitler - they just wanted their own country and the allies carved it out of the middle east, taking what belonged to others, to give it to Israel. This has nothing to do with the interests of the US and everything to do with religious beliefs and feelings.
I do think having a base in the middle east is valuable, but would almost laugh at the idea that the area would unify without Israel. Russia might move in (or China), but don't see that they have any better chance than we do.
The Jewish Lobby doesn't care about our interests; only about the interests of Israel. This is like saying that Russian interference in our election is in our best interests because it happened in our politics!
Bottom line is that the creation and continued help (financial, political, technological) given Israel does benefit our country...but not nearly enough to justify it on that basis. If the religious right, all of Christianity, pulled any support religiously based, we'd be out of Israel within a year. Or at least there would be nothing but a token left, compared to what we have now.
Hey bud, my history gets a little rusty sometimes too. But on the points I mentioned, I looked around to make sure I wasn't too far off.
Here are a couple article blurbs that mention the dates I did; 1938-39 through 1944.
"...But even with millions of European Jews displaced from their homes, the United States had a poor track record offering asylum. Most notoriously, in June 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe; more than a quarter died in the Holocaust."
"... In late 1938, American consulates were flooded with 125,000 applicants for visas, many coming from Germany and the annexed territories of Austria. But national quotas for German and Austrian immigrants had been set firmly at 27,000r" Smithsonian magazine article
You are right that Israel was "officially" created after WWII, and that the Zionist movement for the creation of a Jewish homeland did predate the Holocaust - as far back as WWI, but the date pertinent to our discussion is around 1939 - 1941, when evidence of the Holocaust was practically undeniable, and the U.S. and the U.K. had to find a political solution for the fleeing Jewish refugees - our nations wouldn't absorb them. That solution was an unofficial support of their immigration into what was to become Israel, relieving the humanitarian demand that we offer refuge in a political environment that wouldn't condone it.
Hence my comment that our support for Israel has been political from the start.
As for the unified Middle East point, (understand that I get your point - and almost agree with it, but I am talking about a more focused situation), - consider the Arab coalitions of their Six-Day and Yom Kippor wars, and think of the possible effort if those type of coalitions, coordinated by the Soviets/Russians were directed at U.S. interests, instead of the State of Israel. I think it is reasonable to believe that this scenario supports the thought that Israel, as a State, is very definitely a benefit to our national interests. so I would say that even if our popular Christian support failed Israel, rather then us getting out, our government would just create a modern-day Lend-Lease program to continue our necessary support of the Israeli state.
If we were talking about a cake, I could agree with you that our citizen's "Christian" support of Israel is religiously motivated - the Icing that you see, but the real essence of the matter - the cake, is that our nation's reasons for supporting Israel is and always has been political. We could not abandon Israel now - even if all our Christians did decide to cast them aside as blasphemers.
OK - I'm understanding your comment a little better. It was just confusing to see that they were running from a holocaust that was long gone and therefore the world had to take someone's country and give it to them. The time line was wrong, that's all, and if we go back prior to WWII then we will find mostly political machinations rather than religious. Although I will maintain that to the man in the street in the US it was, and remains, religious I will also give you that to the politician cutting deals it is absolutely political. Up to an including finding a way to sell it to the people while never discussing the religious reasons.
I think you are right about the reason for the "man in the street's" support for Israel being religion based. Compassion is a powerfully self-satisfying emotional motivator.
Hopefully there are more than a few of us men that also recognize the correctness of our support as being the reality of self-interest.
LOL I didn't realize that "compassion" was the in the embrace of religion. The dead of the Crusades or modern terrorism would be interested in that, as would the witches of the middle ages. The slaves of early America would be fascinated, as would those in debtors prisons. Modern gays and trans folks will be happy to hear of religious compassion and tolerance, too.
Pardon my cynicism, please. But compassion isn't what I had in mind; rather it was that the Christian God is assumed to have a decided stake in Jews and therefore America must protect them at all costs. I even mentioned that a few posts back - that we are there because God will punish us if we aren't. Self interest, then, not compassion, but self interest based upon demands of the religion.
If it were compassion, one might wonder at the "compassion" of stealing the country from it's former occupants and giving it to the Jews. Jews that, according to biblical records, forcibly took it from it's former owners millenia ago.
Now it's my turn to laugh bud. I bet you did realize "that," but you weren't thinking about it the way I described.
Consider the religious teachings; love your fellow man, care for the poor and elderly, sick and frail, etc. etc. etc. What non-religious word carries through all those themes - and all the others that are promoted?
Now consider the serenity and blessedness spoken of by people that live a life of faith... Wouldn't that same serenity and blessedness compare to the feel-good a person derives from realizing they are being compassionate? The same serenity a non-religious person might experience when they are secure in their belief that they are living a compassionate life?
I am not knocking religion, or compassion. I am just recognizing that both offer rewards, and those rewards are a feeling of worth and goodness - a powerful motivator for folks, and thus a righteous justification for an action.
A Christian would support the Jews motivated by their religion, a non-religious person would support them motivated by their compassion, (or desire to be, or appear to be, compassionate). Do you see any difference in the results - that the Jews are supported?
Yet, you can't attribute that support to religion in a non-religious person, but you can attribute it to compassion in a Christian. The same word carries both rationals.
But I wouldn't say that compassion is "in the embrace of religion," I would say it is just a non-religious descriptor of that same embrace./
I look at it as an historic time. Yes, Trump could very well change history.
Its an exciting time to be alive!
Bush and Obama making the promise to move the Embassy. Video and audio.
* https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/statu … 9027375105
People cheered them for making that promise. Why were they not true to their mandate? Cowards, weak, liars?
President Trump did it!
Lawmakers passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, signed into law by President Clinton.
Looking at the Jewish and the Jewish state one can deduct easily why that ,especially with today's media , that our culture has absolutely no political memory , no real cultural conscious and a lousy grasp on the " history of then " as compared to the "history of now " . Look at world media alone , in 1939 there were two essential parts of the news media , written and radio , both fairly undeveloped and infantile as far as any basic mature cultural grasp . Then we read papers a week or two old for any information , some of us who think that today's news media is biased , immature and out of sync would grow an instant and total appreciation of what we call today "being informed ".
But have we evolved , Not so much .
The US, Britain, and France put the Jews in Israel to be our bully boy in a region with vast oil resources. We gave them nuclear weapons to help them have their way in the Middle East, British Petroleum is one such entity which held sway over such deals in this area.
I am going to say this because, you know, I like to spout my opinion. ;-)
I gave up a long time ago caring about who did what and why. I just can't muster up any real interest in it. People have been fighting and dying for so long....for what? Nothing, and I mean nothing, is worth that much death and destruction.
I've lost interest, other than when I hear there might be a chance for peace. Even then, I just kinda perk up my ears and wait and see.
So, because of that, my only concern about this recent decision is, will it further the cause of peace? If it doesn't, or if it mnakes matters worse, it isn't worth doing
It all comes down to Trump doing what the rich Jews in the US and Israel want. They are some of the chief donators to the Republican party. It's all about money as usual.
by PhoenixV 24 months ago
What do you think of Trump moving our Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
by Mike Russo 7 months ago
How does moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and declaring it the Capital of Israel create peace in the region?
by Ralph Schwartz 24 months ago
Do you think moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem will cause violence or other problems?Hamas has already made indications that the proposed move by President Trump would be a problem. The Palestinian Authority is also against the move as they feel Jerusalem is their territory and...
by Dave McClure 9 years ago
In a 90 minute 'debate', neither Joe Biden nor Sarah Palin even once used the dreaded P-Word. Both candidates made a point of declaring their unquestioned support for their no.1 ally and friend in the Middle East, Israel. Biden, once only, allowed for the possibility of a "2-state...
by Leslie McCowen 4 years ago
A Bill, “H.R. 4133: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012,” legally binds America to a “Jewish” state.The Resolution was passed under a procedure called “suspension of the rules” typically reserved for non-controversial topics requiring little debate and...
by Jack Lee 6 months ago
How many people support this decision of the part of the restaurant owner?Is this the same as a Christian baker denying to bake a cake for a gay couple?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|