Re: Trump Opts Not to Move Embassy to Jerusalem, at Least for Now
※→ Skeptic Bob, et al,
Whether America moves the Embassy or not -- the question rests on a much bigger and important set of thought. And there is a greater advantage to moving than not. The decision made is a political expedient decision
(a decision to advance the administration's position politically). Someone thinks they might get a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing and end to the conflict between the Jewish State of Israel and the State of Palestine
(if you can call it that).
No real upside to moving it so kudos to Trump for leaving it where it is...for now.
(COMMENT)
American credibility has come into grave question in the previous two decades. When the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan abandoned
(the King called it the Disengagement from the West Bank) all its holding West of the Jordan River (31 JUL 88), the territory was left to the control of the Israelis. Under International Law, there are five (5) generally accepted ways for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty, as we know it today. One of those ways is "Occupation." BUT
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, one of which is:
(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory."
In 1967, Jordan opened fire on the Israeli. There was a decisive victory in favor of the Israelis. In 1950, the West Bank was annexed by the Jordanians under an act of Parliament; which was abandon on 31 July 1988. There was no other Regional State on 1 October 1988 acting as a
nay state with established sovereignty.
If there are people out there that think the Palestinians had the "right to the West Bank and Jerusalem," The West Bank and Jersulam was not placed under Occupation as an act of was or aggression. What
Article 2(4) says is: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
On the morning of 5 June 1967, based on erroneous intelligence that Egypt had begun their attack
(with some great success) King Hussein (of Jordan) launched a series of attacks on Israel. Not the other way around.
The decision to NOT support the Embassy move to Jerusalem is capitulation to HAMAS
(and other Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters), a form of coercion in the exchange for the possibility that America might become relevant in the peace process; an illusion at best. HAMAS and the other Palestinians are dangling the peace carrot in front of the White House --- and it looks like those idiot for five decades straight, have bitten again. The Palestinians have reasons for wanting the
status quo. They haven't finished bilking the donor nations, America, and the UNRWA which is the source enormous cash flows of money to further Palestinian political aims, religious, or ideological change. The longer that the Israelis hold the ground to stave-off the circling Arab Predators nations and Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), the ever more difficult it will be to give it back. We are coming up on the half century mark (1967- 2017). It is about time the US should start thinking of an alternative outcome, and maybe work in that direction.
The HoAP manipulates their political position to make it appear they are compromising for the sake of Peace; but it is a Three-Card Monte street con, deceptive and yet alluring. And America just doesn't have the skilled diplomatic corps to relate to the region.
--- Just my thought! ---
Most Respectfully,
R
BTW: • Did anyone say or do anything to the Chinese over Tibet? Did anyone say or do anything to the Russians about Crimea? It is not politically convenient. 
