• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No, Barack Obama did not change U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem.

Barnacle said:
"... It (Palestine) officially recognizes Israel’s existence and has done so since 1993 but not its right to exist, because it sees Israel as a state born in sin, the sin of Palestinian displacement.

In fact Abbas has said the PA will never sign deal demanding recognition of Israel as Jewish state. For more on this read Benny Morris’ excellent book One State Two States and this article in Foreign Affairs - The Problem Is Palestinian Rejectionism. ..."

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Palestinian-Authority-officially-recognize-Israels-right-to-exist


In other words: I recognize your existence - because you are there and I can see you -,
but that does not mean you have a right to exist, hence my frequent flyer rockets.
Click to expand...

Again, your point is really meaningless. They officially recognized the state of Israel, it's done. The whole "right to exist" is a religious debate that the governments will likely never settle. And Netanyahu knows this. Of course never mind that Israel refuses to recognize the state of Palestine.

Keep pretending that Israel has no complicity in this situation, I'll keep calling you out.
 
Lerxst said:
Now you've just elevated your status to liar. And that's fine. I will no longer expect honest debate out of you.
Click to expand...

Opinions are lies, eh?
 
Mycroft said:
Opinions are lies, eh?
Click to expand...

When they aren't honest. I've given you honest responses to the points you've made. Of course you're under now obligation to accept them. But when you and I are directly conversing, and you make a statement about me that is false, then you're lying. Inferring that I secretly believe you pinned me down and I just don't like it is simply not true, I don't think anything of the sort.
 
Lerxst said:
When they aren't honest. I've given you honest responses to the points you've made. Of course you're under now obligation to accept them. But when you and I are directly conversing, and you make a statement about me that is false, then you're lying. Inferring that I secretly believe you pinned me down and I just don't like it is simply not true, I don't think anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've made any false statement about you.

You, on the other hand, are free to think anything you want to. As you said, we are just going to disagree on this.
 
Lerxst said:
You clearly don't understand how policy differs from giving a speech.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a literal policy change, since the previous policy has been to NOT move the embassy. And you apparently didn't pay much attention to the rest of Obama's stance towards Israel.
Click to expand...

It is just a speech if you give it. It is just a speech if I give it. When the President of the United States makes such a speech, he is laying out in a clear and unambiguous manner the policy of his administration and of the people of the United States. Trump did not alter this policy, he implemented it. Not sure why you would choose to argue what is obviously true, but here we are.
 
Lerxst said:
Naysayers as to what?

The proper time is when Israel and Palestine achieve a mutually agreed upon peace plan that defines the role of Jerusalem. Pretty much the way almost the entire rest of the world feels.
Click to expand...

But that contradicts what Obama said. He said any peace plan must recognize an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Since that is not subject to compromise, there is no reason mot to recognize Jerusalem right now. It changes nothing with regard to the outcome of any negotiation since it was never negotiable in the first place--according to US policy as stated by both Bush and Obama.
 
Lerxst said:
What does them firing rockets into Israel have to do with them recognizing the state of Israel? The two are not mutually exclusive actions.
Click to expand...

What you are missing is the entire foundation of Palestinian nationalism is opposition to Israel's existence and the very legitimacy of Israel existing. Their entire culture has been built around opposition to Jewish self-determination in Israel and conflict has been perpetuated because of the Palestinians' strict and exclusive pursuit of this goal.

Because of this, it is absolutely critical that the Palestinians recognize Israel's existence as of right (i.e., its right to exist) and the right of the Jews to self-determination in Israel. Only that would signal abandonment by the Palestinians of their destructionist objectives and is therefore an absolute pre-requisite requirement for actual peace.

Clear enough?
 
Lerxst said:
Again, your point is really meaningless. They officially recognized the state of Israel, it's done. The whole "right to exist" is a religious debate that the governments will likely never settle. And Netanyahu knows this. Of course never mind that Israel refuses to recognize the state of Palestine.

Keep pretending that Israel has no complicity in this situation, I'll keep calling you out.
Click to expand...

It's not a religious debate. It is foundational. Do the Palestinians acknowledge that the enemy they built their entire national identity around has a right to remain in existence and sovereign in their own state or don't they. And if they don't, peace is impossible and that is entirely the Palestinians' fault.
 
Fletch said:
It is just a speech if you give it. It is just a speech if I give it. When the President of the United States makes such a speech, he is laying out in a clear and unambiguous manner the policy of his administration and of the people of the United States. Trump did not alter this policy, he implemented it. Not sure why you would choose to argue what is obviously true, but here we are.
Click to expand...

I actually have one small issue with all of this relating to words vs intentions. Clearly Trump's intentions here are to both acknowledge Israel's capital in Jerusalem and buttress Israel's claim to Jerusalem in future discussions.

But his words don't go so far, and in fact are not nearly as strong as Obama's previous ones. The Trump admin has said this should not be interpreted as pre-determining any borders and therefore this is not implementation of Obama's "undivided Jerusalem pledge" but is simply an executive decision not to continue to use the executive delay powers built into the statutory requirement to move the embassy.

Which incidentally is the right decision for a whole lot of reasons.
 
Lerxst said:
Naysayers as to what?

The proper time is when Israel and Palestine achieve a mutually agreed upon peace plan that defines the role of Jerusalem. Pretty much the way almost the entire rest of the world feels.
Click to expand...

So your answer to the proper time to announce that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is NEVER.
 
Fletch said:
But that contradicts what Obama said. He said any peace plan must recognize an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what President Obama said. Here is exactly what he said....

President Barack Obama - 2008 said:
"I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said that before and I will say it again."
Click to expand...

He never said 'an undivided Jerusalem'. Why not? Because Jerusalem was envisioned [via negotiations] as the capital city of both Israel and Palestine.
 
Lerxst said:
Not quite sure you understand the difference between a speech and a President officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and stating his intent to move the U.S. embassy there. One is simply a statement, makes people feel good (or bad). The other is an actual foreign policy change. Just like using a Presidential waiver to avoid moving the U.S. embassy is an official foreign policy decision, and one that has been made for national security reasons since Bill Clinton was in office.

A speech doesn't trigger a U.N. vote of condemnation, a speech doesn't breach U.N. Security Council Resolution 478. The President officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol and moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and then following that up with threats against other governments who vote against the U.S. taking these actions...well that will certainly do the trick.



Glad I could help educate you on the nuances of political speech writing and actually shifting U.S. foreign policy. No need to thank me, I do it because I care about you.
Click to expand...

**** the UN, with a capital F. We own the UN, they are our bitch. Now that they've voted the wrong way, we're taking hundreds of millions from their budget. The UN can eat **** and die, as far as I'm concerned. We decide where US embassies go, not the UN. Have a nice day.
 
Rogue Valley said:
No, that is not what President Obama said. Here is exactly what he said....



He never said 'an undivided Jerusalem'. Why not? Because Jerusalem was envisioned [via negotiations] as the capital city of both Israel and Palestine.
Click to expand...
Yes he did. Watch the clip in the OP. Obama says it at the very end.
 
Lerxst said:
Not quite sure you understand the difference between a speech and a President officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and stating his intent to move the U.S. embassy there. One is simply a statement, makes people feel good (or bad). The other is an actual foreign policy change. Just like using a Presidential waiver to avoid moving the U.S. embassy is an official foreign policy decision, and one that has been made for national security reasons since Bill Clinton was in office.

A speech doesn't trigger a U.N. vote of condemnation, a speech doesn't breach U.N. Security Council Resolution 478. The President officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol and moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and then following that up with threats against other governments who vote against the U.S. taking these actions...well that will certainly do the trick.



Glad I could help educate you on the nuances of political speech writing and actually shifting U.S. foreign policy. No need to thank me, I do it because I care about you.
Click to expand...

No foreign policy in connection to Israel was changed by Obama or Trump, Period.
 
Lerxst said:
Not quite sure you understand the difference between a speech and a President officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and stating his intent to move the U.S. embassy there. One is simply a statement, makes people feel good (or bad). The other is an actual foreign policy change. Just like using a Presidential waiver to avoid moving the U.S. embassy is an official foreign policy decision, and one that has been made for national security reasons since Bill Clinton was in office.

A speech doesn't trigger a U.N. vote of condemnation, a speech doesn't breach U.N. Security Council Resolution 478. The President officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol and moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and then following that up with threats against other governments who vote against the U.S. taking these actions...well that will certainly do the trick.



Glad I could help educate you on the nuances of political speech writing and actually shifting U.S. foreign policy. No need to thank me, I do it because I care about you.
Click to expand...

Change policy, no. But he did tell the audience he was speaking to exactly what they wanted to hear. One could say Obama lied or presented a falsehood to his audience on something he had no intention of doing or meaning what he said. It was to placate his audience to keep them voting for him and Democratic. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know of a politician who doesn't tell those whom he is speaking in front of what they want to hear even if that politician knows he has no intention of following through or even meaning the words he speaks. Obama is no different than any other politician in my mind in doing this. This is why a used car salesman is trusted or viewed as being more honest and trustworthy than politicians as a whole.

Speeches mean nothing, if one wants to know where a politician stands or means, put cotton in your ears and never listen to the rhetoric. Just watch the actions of what they do or how they govern.
 
Perotista said:
Change policy, no. But he did tell the audience he was speaking to exactly what they wanted to hear. One could say Obama lied or presented a falsehood to his audience on something he had no intention of doing or meaning what he said. It was to placate his audience to keep them voting for him and Democratic. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know of a politician who doesn't tell those whom he is speaking in front of what they want to hear even if that politician knows he has no intention of following through or even meaning the words he speaks. Obama is no different than any other politician in my mind in doing this. This is why a used car salesman is trusted or viewed as being more honest and trustworthy than politicians as a whole.

Speeches mean nothing, if one wants to know where a politician stands or means, put cotton in your ears and never listen to the rhetoric. Just watch the actions of what they do or how they govern.[/QUOTE]
Excellent advice :bravo:
Click to expand...
 
Perotista said:
Change policy, no. But he did tell the audience he was speaking to exactly what they wanted to hear. One could say Obama lied or presented a falsehood to his audience on something he had no intention of doing or meaning what he said. It was to placate his audience to keep them voting for him and Democratic. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know of a politician who doesn't tell those whom he is speaking in front of what they want to hear even if that politician knows he has no intention of following through or even meaning the words he speaks. Obama is no different than any other politician in my mind in doing this. This is why a used car salesman is trusted or viewed as being more honest and trustworthy than politicians as a whole.

Speeches mean nothing, if one wants to know where a politician stands or means, put cotton in your ears and never listen to the rhetoric. Just watch the actions of what they do or how they govern.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

To be clear, the purpose of this post was to point out the difference in actual policy towards Israel - action that is being taken, not platitudes being spoken. There was a debate in "Breaking News" that crossed over into the I/P topic, so I brought it here.

That said, I DO NOT agree with the action that Trump is taking.
 
Casper said:
No foreign policy in connection to Israel was changed by Obama or Trump, Period.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. When current policy is not to move your embassy (which requires a Presidential waiver to be signed every six months) for security reasons as well as to stay in line with the U.N. Security Council, and you decide to go ahead and physically move your embassy, your policy has changed.
 
Lerxst said:
I agree completely.

To be clear, the purpose of this post was to point out the difference in actual policy towards Israel - action that is being taken, not platitudes being spoken. There was a debate in "Breaking News" that crossed over into the I/P topic, so I brought it here.

That said, I DO NOT agree with the action that Trump is taking.
Click to expand...

I think where ever a country or what city a country says is its capital is its capital. I don't think the UN or any other country has the authority to say where another country's capital is. I realize this is a hot political, sensitive issue. Israel stated its capital was Jerusalem back in 1950. That should be enough for the rest of the world.

Israel fought several wars with the Arab countries that surround it with those Arab countries trying to wipe Israel off the map. Israel survived and like any other country in the world can choose its own capital.

Middle East peace. Perhaps it's time to recognize there will be no such country as Palestine. If those who live in Gaza are willing, agree to become part of Egypt, giving the Gaza strip to Egypt and making Gaza part of Egypt. That would solve half of the problem there. As to the west bank. Let Jordan and Israel negotiate, let Israel keep part and return part to Jordan. After all Israel won it in war. Then give the people living in the west bank 10 years to move either to the Israeli portion or the Jordanian portion.

Just an idea. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Perotista said:
I think where ever a country or what city a country says is its capital is its capital. I don't think the UN or any other country has the authority to say where another country's capital is. I realize this is a hot political, sensitive issue. Israel stated its capital was Jerusalem back in 1950. That should be enough for the rest of the world.

Israel fought several wars with the Arab countries that surround it with those Arab countries trying to wipe Israel off the map. Israel survived and like any other country in the world can choose its own capital.

Middle East peace. Perhaps it's time to recognize there will be no such country as Palestine. If those who live in Gaza are willing, agree to become part of Egypt, giving the Gaza strip to Egypt and making Gaza part of Egypt. That would solve half of the problem there. As to the west bank. Let Jordan and Israel negotiate, let Israel keep part and return part to Jordan. After all Israel won it in war. Then give the people living in the west bank 10 years to move either to the Israeli portion or the Jordanian portion.

Just an idea. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

That really is the reality of things. Israel did militarily defeat it's neighbors, multiple times. The issue of Jerusalem is complicated.

Personally I think that the Palestinians should have their own state. Just as the Jews have one. But like you, I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
 
Lerxst said:
That really is the reality of things. Israel did militarily defeat it's neighbors, multiple times. The issue of Jerusalem is complicated.

Personally I think that the Palestinians should have their own state. Just as the Jews have one. But like you, I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

The middle east is very complicated. It goes back to the end of WWI where the European Powers carved up the old Ottoman Empire and made several countries out of it. They did it with no regard to religion, tribal affiliation or anything else and the turmoil in the Middle East today in my opinion goes back to the European's drawing those border lines. The Europeans were more interested in whether France or England would hold sway over what countries.

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/encyclopedia/Mandatedterritory-wb.pdf

What a mess the Europeans caused. Throw in the Treaty of Versailles which was the main cause for WWII, the European victors of WWI couldn't have made a bigger mess.
 
Perotista said:
The middle east is very complicated. It goes back to the end of WWI where the European Powers carved up the old Ottoman Empire and made several countries out of it. They did it with no regard to religion, tribal affiliation or anything else and the turmoil in the Middle East today in my opinion goes back to the European's drawing those border lines. The Europeans were more interested in whether France or England would hold sway over what countries.

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/encyclopedia/Mandatedterritory-wb.pdf

What a mess the Europeans caused. Throw in the Treaty of Versailles which was the main cause for WWII, the European victors of WWI couldn't have made a bigger mess.
Click to expand...

100% spot on. Couldn't agree more. You saw a microcosm of that occur when the U.S. dissolved the Iraqi government/military and tried managing a nation with no understanding of the tribal or sectarian differences that separate the people of that region.
 
chuckiechan said:
All Obama did was jabber word salad and then kick the can down the road for the next president.
Click to expand...

Well, truth be told can you blame him for delaying? After all, we were still heavily involved in two wars where Islamic insurgency in both theaters of operation (Iraq and Afghanistan) were continuously escalating and IEDs were planted seeming at every roadside. And once ISIS sprang up and filtered outward to Syria and Europe, I'd say it would have been madness on his part to declare moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem as a foreign policy matter at any time during his presidency.

Trump had the luxury of two wars at their lowest inflection points since 2003 and ISIS all but eradicated. Therefore, it's now safe to make such a bold move....hindsight being what it is. I'm not taking anything away from his decision. Just stating the obvious.
 
Lerxst said:
100% spot on. Couldn't agree more. You saw a microcosm of that occur when the U.S. dissolved the Iraqi government/military and tried managing a nation with no understanding of the tribal or sectarian differences that separate the people of that region.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We created a bigger mess than if we left Iraq and Saddam alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom