Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Trump on Jerusalem

In December, 2016 President Barack Obama instructed his United Nations ambassador to abstain from a Security Council resolution condemning Israel as an occupying power, thus delegitimizing its possession of the Western Wall and East Jerusalem.

America’s most anti-Semitic president, having armed and financed Iranian terrorism, took the occasion to stick it to Israel one last time. Alan Dershowitz denounced the Obama policy:

What he did was so nasty, he pulled a bait and switch. He told the American public this is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank. And yet, he allowed he representative to the U.N. to abstain --which is really a vote for-- a resolution that says the Jews can't pray at the Western Wall, Jews can't live in the Jewish Quarter [of Jerusalem] where they have lived for thousands of years.

This afternoon, President Donald Trump will undo a considerable amount of the damage by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and by starting to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since Israel has been the laboratory for Islamist terrorism, it is good to see an American president who does not cower in fear when threatened by the Palestinian Authority or the president of Turkey. In truth, as soon as Arab governments seemed to be threatening Donald Trump, he had little choice but to stand up against Islamist terrorism.

Roger Simon offers some sage remarks:

But the real question is how the Palestinians themselves will react once the dust has settled. Will they continue decades of self-destructive violent protests that have led many of us to believe they never had an interest in a two-state solution in the first place, that it was all posturing for handouts? Or will they grow up and realize the time has come to negotiate to a conclusion and accept the responsibility of their own state and the adult compromises that would naturally entail?

And, of course, the war on terrorism is meaningless unless we and Western European countries get serious and coherent about terrorism and stop funding a Palestinian Authority that rewards the families of terrorists. Blood money for killing Jews.

Simon quotes a report in the Allgemeiner about a vote on the Taylor Force bill:

The Taylor Force Act passed the US House of Representatives by unanimous consent on Tuesday, confronting the Palestinian Authority with the prospect of a massive cut in US aid for as long as it maintains its policy of paying monthly salaries and other benefits to the families of slain or convicted Palestinian terrorists.

Named in memory of Taylor Force – the former American army officer stabbed to death during a knifing spree by a Palestinian assailant in Tel Aviv in March 2016 – the legislation prevents the transfer of funds “that directly benefit the Palestinian Authority” for a six-year period beginning in 2018 unless the PA verifiably ends its so-called “martyr payments” policy. The Taylor Force Act also requires the PA to repeal any laws enabling or favoring the payments policy, as well investigate terrorist acts for the purpose of “bringing the perpetrators to justice.”

Simon also adds points that we have been making on this blog. The balance of powers is changing in the Middle East and the Palestinian cause has become a lost cause:

The global chess game has changed.  Saudi Arabia, as we all know, is terrified of the Iranians and has found itself a covert ally of Israel against the mullahs.  The Palestinians are aware of that and not happy about it.  They are in a box.  Trump and Congress have chosen an auspicious time to make a move.  Various players will undoubtedly yell and scream in public and say something totally different in private.  That is the way of the Middle East (and America, unfortunately, these days).

Simon sees it as an opportunity for the Palestinians to get over their maniacal Jew-hatred, hatred that has consumed generations of their children and enter the real world:

It is perhaps the last best chance for the Palestinians to grow up, break free of their endless pattern of self destruction, and give up looking for excuses for another pointless intifada.  Unfortunately, too many of those players enjoy the status quo, profit from it, or resist change in general, like the self-righteous European leadership.

As of now it looks as though President Trump will call the bluff. Good for him.

17 comments:

trigger warning said...

"President Trump will call the bluff. Good for him."

Indeed. The deference to the Paleostinians shown by delaying this long-overdue move was absurd. It gained nothing, except perhaps the award of several wasted Nobel Peace Prizes.

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: America’s most anti-Semitic president...

Is any word or action that is disliked by Israel now, by definition, anti-Semitic?

This looks like the same logic used by the left, that anyone who questions the reasoning or victim-status of an individual trans person is automatically transphobic or anti-trans.

Definition of anti-Semitism: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

Or maybe its all truthful hyperbole, used to attract true believers together, and repulse everyone else?

Sam L. said...

AO, you want to redo that one? You lost me completely.

Anonymous said...

AO’s antisemitism. I knew it wouldn’t take long for the Jew-hater to come out and show his peacock feathers. Every other group in the world is allowed their homeland. Not the Hebrew lot. So funny to hear these twistaplots to explain why this people shouldn’t be given self-determination. The left’s politics have become an obvious absurdity. A Monty Python movie. Kind of like AO himself.

Ares Olympus said...

Sam L, I'm thinking the word "anti-Semitic" has been weaponized to try to silence any voice that is critical of Israel. And anyone who refuses to follow the party line is categorically someone who is hateful and can't be listened to.

I don't think Trump has any idea what he's doing. I'd say he just wants to be the King conveying blessings on "his people" and that includes the evangelicals who have been trained to see history as advancing God's plan, and that Israel is a keystone to their fantasy.

On some background theology, my pastor talked a few years ago about Dispensationalism as a heretical movement among some evangelical Christians that see Israel as a part of the approach of the final judgment of the bible, and so the narrative requires the Jews to control the holy land, and not for the benefit of the Jews themselves, but because it advances their end days fantasy. Here's one article that talks about it.
http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/end-times/on-the-road-to-armageddon.aspx

Of course if the Evangelicals are wrong about the Apocalypse, maybe no harm done, Israel can take everything it wants, and the U.S. will back them up, and the Palestinians can become the new refugee population of Europe? Problem solved!

Anonymous said...

AO believes the Israelis have no reason to defend themselves or determine policy to protect their own self interest. AO's advocations for Israel leave that nation defenseless. Anyone who refuses to follow this reflexive kumbaya leftist leaning is someone who is right wing and should not be listened to because Donald Trump has no idea what he's doing. Even though Trump is echoing the sentiments of Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. Even though the Senate voted last year 90-0 that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Si, that kind of King Trump who has no idea what he's doing. Maybe AO has no clue what he's talking about and who he's condemning. Funny how we forget so quickly. Perhaps AO's pastor is like the British pastor who hopes infant Prince George will be gay. There are lots of queer pastors out there who render final judgment on beliefs, advocating behaviors contrary to long accepted Christian doctrine. Choose Your Own Adventure Christianity may seem curious, but it's not any kind of Christianity that's been accepted until 20 years ago. I guess AO believes the most recent 1% of adrift Protestant Christian history is the best. Maybe the Amish theology should guide us in rebuilding the electrical grid.

Ares Olympus said...

Anon at 7:49 PM, Wow, from Israel to queer pastors? That's an impressive extrapolation. I never asked, and of course even having children doesn't protect a man who needs to defend his sexuality to strangers.

So is Dispensationalism among the list of "long accepted Christian Doctrine"?

Perhaps we need a survey among all the Christian denominations. I admit, I've not seen any breakdown which ones are influenced by it, besides a general connection to evangelicals. Young Earth Creationism would seem to be a part of the same program, and when you can refuse scientific 4 billion years of geological time, its hard to imagine any common ground.

Anonymous said...

The only creationism going on here is your views on Christian doctrine. It’s fun to make up your own religion, isn’t it?

trigger warning said...

Pairing a desire to support Israel as a beacon of freedom and intellectual achievement in tbe Middle East with a thin slice of Dispensationalism...

Fallacy of composition.

Even Richard Dawkins correctly observed that there are more Nobel Prizes in Trinity College, Oxford, than in the entire Islamic world. I doubt he's a Dispensationalist.
:-D

Naturally, Dawkins was instantly love-swarmed by the Olympian SJWs.

trigger warning said...

NB: "The Tehran Symphony Orchestra cancelled a performance that had been planned for the closing ceremony of an international wrestling event on November 29, 2015, after the authorities objected to the presence of women musicians among the orchestra members." (2015)

Stuart Schneiderman said...

for the record, it was Trinity College, Cambridge.

trigger warning said...

I could say "if you've seen one Trinity College, you've seen 'em all" but a bud of mine would smack me upside th' head.

So I'll just say correction taken and thanks.

Ares Olympus said...

trigger warning said... Even Richard Dawkins...

Okay, let's see, what does Dawkins say? It looks like he's more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight than I am, although I don't think he's sympathetic enough to invite all X million of them to come on over and live in his neighborhood. Sympathy is cheap when you don't have to pay any personal price to express it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Richard_Dawkins#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict
---
Dawkins has stated that he is "on the fence" about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and has embraced Christopher Hitchens's statement that "It is reasonable to both deplore both the original foundation of the Jewish State of Israel & aspirations now to destroy it." Dawkins said that "can you explain why Palestinian Arabs should be the ones to pay for Hitler's crimes? You surely aren't going to stoop to some kind of biblical justification for picking on that land rather than, say, Bavaria or Madagascar? Dawkins also expressed anger over Israeli actions during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. He tweeted, "[t]he extent of the destruction in Gaza is obscene. Poor people. Poor people who have lost their homes, their relatives, everything."
---

I admit my King Solomon comes out at times when people are fighting over toys or babies and offer to cut the prize in half in a way that everyone is very unhappy, and see if that convinced each side to see the virtues of sharing. Modern Kings aren't allowed to offer to cut babies in half any more, although nuclear weapons could be a modern equivalent, and possibly moral, if you give a city's inhabitants 48 hours to evacuate to a safe distance.

trigger warning said...

I didn't claim Dawkins was for or against anything, merely reported his observation and noted he probably isn't a Dispensaionalist.

And your pairing is still a fallacy of composition, despite your apparently random maundering.

Ares Olympus said...

trigger warning said... I didn't claim Dawkins was for or against anything, merely reported his observation and noted he probably isn't a Dispensationalist.

So what you're saying is you think I'm saying the only reason anyone would support Israel is if they are Dispensationalist, and since this is untrue (example Dawkins), the fact that Dispensationism delusional support Israel should not be a worrisome fact.

Certainly it would be a lot easier to not care about what Israel does if we didn't have to subsidize them by billions per year. Given Obama was the "most anti-Semitic president", that's a lot of money given to people he "hates", although it does happen to appeasers, pretending we can withdraw the offer if Israel misbehaves.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/14/united-states-military-aid-israel/90358564 The United States agreed Wednesday to provide Israel a record $38 billion in new military aid over the next decade.

Admittingly, giving billions in military aid to Israel already invalidated any illusion of the U.S. as a neutral arbitrator for peace. What we say about the capital of Israel is merely symbolic in comparison.

Maybe Russia or China can take over as peace arbitrator of the world, although I imagine they're both excited with their own expanding opportunities for selling arms.

trigger warning said...

"So what you're saying is you think I'm saying the only reason anyone would support Israel is if they are Dispensationalist..."

Almost. More precisely, you are parroting that reason, common and widely disseminated among the loony Progressotariat as a means to slander Israel's Christian supporters. I'm quite sure you didn't come up with it youself.

Anonymous said...

Does AO come up with anything himself?