I think we can point to Trump as a particular outlier, who in his first term green lit the capital move from Tel Aviv to Jeruselum, burning considerable political captial among Israel's detractors, in exchange for..... absolutely nothing (seemingly). As well as his general rhetoric (like his comments on Gaza) being considerably out of keeping with most of the Presidents before him.
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37).[3] The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.[4]
that law included a 6 month waiver to delay the move and every President from Bill Clinton onwards perpetually signed those wavers. Donald Trump allowed it to lapse, which is the point I'm making; he's an outlier.
The fact remains that Bill Clinton (2 terms), George W Bush (2 terms) and Barack Obama (2 terms) all utilised the waiver in the original legislation. Donald Trump in his first term didn't, which makes him an outlier.
My point is that one can suggest that as opposed to being supportive to Israel like former presidents that Donald Trump is friendly to Israel, giving them what they want without asking for anything tangible in exchange.
Please note that I will not continue to talk to you if you reply again without referencing the additional context I added. Talking past your conversational partner is rude.
>The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37). The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.
Your context is deflecting that this is US law, adopted by more than supermajority in both houses and trying to dump it on trump. This law was essentially the will of american people; and presidents that you enumerated avoided implemented provisions of it.
also, waiver in question was not blanket, but 6 months long and based on "national security" grounds". i guess under trump there were no more national security grounds to get a waiver
and "I guess" that Donald Trump is an outlier when its comes to how US presidents treat Israel. That the Sentate passed the law is not entirely pertinent because I am talking about how US presidents treat Israel not US Presidents and the Sentate. I get your point that the senate passed the law in 1995 and its good context, however it doesn't do anything in showing how the sequence of US presidents since then have decided to hold it over Israel's head until Donald Trump's first team, he remains as a suspected outlier.
I remain perplexed about how that was given up for seemingly nothing, much like how Donald Trump curiously decided to betray the YPG for seemingly nothing too. You got any guesses on that one, given the YPG were the troops that did great work in defeating ISIL for us all? I feel like they didn't deserve that.
it can be as simple that there was no more "national security ground" to delay it.
and btw, to address "I feel like they didn't deserve that", israel didn't really want embassy moved. because (obviously) palestinians got angry and started a wave of violence that lasted for year or so and resulted in bunch of dead and wounded.
The "I feel like they didn't deserve that" was about the YPG in Syria, not Israel.
> it can be as simple that there was no more "national security ground" to delay it.
Maybe but what had changed exactly at that point? Without a contextual argument that explains it, I can't help but feel like its a tell that Donald Trump is more friendly to Israel than previous presidents.
it could be as simple as previous presidents playing realpolitik to pacify arab countries and trump didn't.
another point, arab countries dropped "no normalization without palestinian state" approach (the see in past decade palestinian leadership as corrupt and incapable) and signed abraham accords. saudia was supposed to seal the deal as well but oct7 happened.
Jerusalem is partitioned in two, like Berlin was during the cold war. The US embassy for west Germany (and the capital of west Germany) were in Bonn. Moving the capital of west Germany to Berlin would have been seen as a very aggressive move.
ignoring the fact the move of the capital is controversial move among the groups previous administrations wanted Israel to work with. The delay of the capital move was a tool held over Israel's head by previous US administrations that Donald Trump gave up, seemingly for nothing.
idk but for 24 years US presidents did that and then they didn't. I'm asking why and what I get out of it is that the current US president is maybe more friendly to Israel than previous presidents.
I don't know that we get anything out of it, but frankly I think we should respect what countries consider their capital. It is such a ridiculous thing to deny which we haven't done with any other country. Even our adversaries like the Soviet Union and China had their capitals acknowledged.
If there was some sort of precedence for not accepting capitals, I wouldn't have a problem, but as far as I can tell Israel is the only exception. I like consistent standards even if it is bad politicaly.
its not about the thing, its about the negative ramifications. If we ever want peace in the middle east we need a two state solution, to get a two state solution means horse trading and this was a horse we could have traded, instead of giving it up for free. I entirely agree with you in how its logically wrong to deny a capital change to another nation but this isn't about logic, its about politics and diplomacy in a war-torn region to try to fashion an ever lasting peace between two often/mostly/always irrational actors.
I guess you are more of an optimist than me. If I thought we could get peace sooner just by not recognizing their capital, I would be all for it.
I don't think a two state solution is possible, at least in the near to medium future. Changing the capital won't extend the war since, in my view, it will be a hundred years until there is any chance at peace, and even that is probably too short. Nobody killing each other then will care that the capital was changed.
His son in law (and business partner, and advisor) Jared Kushner is a personal family friend of Netanyahu.
Besides this, Trump's muscular rhetoric probably just assumed that Israel was a piece of the US, more or less. I'm sure he also got very solid support at the elections from all the usual lobbies.
1. Jimmy Carter mentioned in his biography that Obama asked him not to speak at the DNC because he acknowledged Palestinians deserved a right to live peacefully in one of his speeches. I revisited that speech, and it was by all accounts tame. He explicitly mentioned Obama's Jewish chief of Staff describing AIPAC as opposing this, and Carter was denied a speech at the DNC for this very reason (including his support for a two state solutions, which the American jewry by all accounts opposes through their actions, despite their rhetoric). A US President was shunned from US elections because he was slightly critical of Israel. Let that sink in.
2. Nixon describing AIPAC influence and Pelosi describing how the US capitol could burn while ensuring Israel thrives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x_zrkJwDs
The point of the above is American sitting Presidents or influential politicians describe the pressure they face of subjugating US interests to Israel's because America's economy is dominated by Jews and Evangelicals, who believe Israel must survive at all costs (including to the detriment of American interests). I understand how religiosity can lead to undermining America in favor of Israel. I cannot comprehend how Americans can defend this in good faith. Being America first is incompatible with the conduct of Israel, including its founding, for it is a colonial apartheid state that was founded on the murder and dislocation of families. I think it is difficult for most of us to imagine that the victims of a Holocaust, an abominable crime, can in turn be filled with so much hatred that they resort to the very crimes they were the victims of. I believe we went into Iraq and we fund Israel because powerful forces in these United States wish for us to do their dirty work, including when this work harms American interests, and most importantly, the values most of us hold dear: that every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
That's worthwhile context, however I don't think it dents the point I'm trying to make. Many US presidents have been supportive of Israel, I'm just making the point that I interpret Donald Trump to be _friendly_ as opposed to simply supportive.
There is a difference between being friendly to Israel, and putting Israel's wellbeing above US interests. When American elected representatives state the American capitol can burn as long as Israel flourishes, do you believe these representatives have our best interest in their heart, or are they answering to rich donors (AIPAC) who could destroy them whenever they so choose? A subjugated slave may think highly of his master as Voltaire used to say, it does not alter the fact he is a slave with a master. There are those who wish to believe America gains from Israel (whether it is intel, or a satellite in that region of the world, etc), which justifies funding it. That is the greatest lie ever told. America is a slave to Israeli interests, nothing more. There could be a million USS Liberty and Rachel Corrie incidents, and it does not alter the hierarchy of the status quo: America serves Israel. We can put a spin on it to sleep warmly at night, but make no mistake of who is the master in this relationship, and who is the subjugated servant.
In the video you linked, I think she was being hyperbolic in order to stress the level of support that the US has for Israel. I don't think she meant it literally.
If the US's support for Israel ever hurt the USA in places that it genuinely cared about, then I think you'd see its support for Israel diminish or even dissipate. As it stands support for Israel is very convenient for the US industrial military complex and the USA's long-term strategic objectives in the Middle East which IMHO are large factors in its willingness to support it.
I disagree. She was speaking to an Israeli lobby and was being truthful (her legislative work has been as pro Israel as they come). I think it is important for the rest of us to recognize that Jews are very attached to Israel, and while they may be fine Americans (and are a major part of our country), it is also important to recognize when decisions advocated by rich and powerful forces (such as recent arrests of college students exerting their first amendment rights) are alien to who we are and our values. If we are unable to object to actions that harm these United States, then we have failed to serve our country. I have read a lot of non-fiction relating to Carter and Nixon (autobiography and secondary sources), and they both highlight the pressure they faced to serve Israel, taking actions that were not favorable to the US at the time because of powerful lobbies. Ignoring this problem will continue to do America great harm, for it is American soldiers that serve in these wars (Israelis have bunkers we have funded through our taxes and free healthcare), American blood that gets spilled (Iran and Iraq are examples), and American values that are sacrificed (the maiming of children is not an American value, and I define American to be that view the founding fathers had, not the recent view that has been stained by these very lobby efforts).
I don't entirely disagree with your perspective but the idea that Israel is more important than the USA to American politicians just sounds absurd. It makes me worry about an overly Israel-centric view of the world where all issues stem from one bad guy. I feel like the world is usually a bit more complicated than that with multiple competing interests contributing to outcomes.
