Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

[Rue]

25 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Try to keep the rhetoric to a minimum, I can't be here all day.

Try to make one response without adopting that sarcastic, patronizing, know it all, missionary Bwana Sahib act. If you don' want to be on this forum get the phack off. Pull that bigoted tone with someone else. I am not your Sambo.

[herples]

On 15/12/2017 at 8:55 AM, Argus said:

As long as the Palestinians persist in demands that will not be met there is little point in negotiations anyway.

Wanting the land that you were guaranteed by foreign powers since 1910's isn't an unreasonable demand.

[Argus]

23 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Why don't the Jews simply leave? 

Why would they? 

23 hours ago, GostHacked said:

And the illegal settlements PROVE that Israel is systematically taking over the occupied territories. There is absolutely no disputing this. Mark my words, in a couple decades Israel will claim all of that land as Israel proper.

Tell me why I should care.

 

[Argus]

20 hours ago, herples said:

Wanting the land that you were guaranteed by foreign powers since 1910's isn't an unreasonable demand.

There have been a number of wars since then, too much violence and hatred for them to ever live among Jews.

[herples]

57 minutes ago, Argus said:

There have been a number of wars since then, too much violence and hatred for them to ever live among Jews.

You would fight for your land too if you felt it was being unjustly occupied. 

[GostHacked]

On 12/30/2017 at 1:28 PM, Rue said:

1 - I did not question his actual  opinion  but the relevancy of his being Jewish and a Rabbiah.  I stated:

"Why is it necessary when discussing the Jerusalem issue to use this Rabbiah? Why? How is his Rabbiah relevant to the opinion? Does it make the opinion any more valid than if he was a Rabbiah expressing the exact opposite opinion? Is Kactus suggesting a Rabbiah is only valid and important when he expresses the same view as Kactus? Is Kactus suggesting any Jew or any Rabbiah with an opposite view of the above must be wrong because this guy is a Jew let alone a Rabbiah? Does his being a Rabiah automatically make his opinion more valid? Is it any more valid than if I placed a Mullah's or Catholic Priest's opinion on Jerusalem belong to Jews on this thread? "

I also stated:

"This person's being Jewish and Rabbiah is essential for Kactus-Hudson Jones because by pointing out they are a Jew and a Rabbiah, its supposed to immediately mean it is acceptable to be anti semitic. By using this individual as a mouthpiece with what is supposed to be the same opinion, that opinion is now no longer anti-Semitic.

The fact is the above individual's opinion is not made any more or less valid by the fact he is Jewish or a Rabbiah anymore than it would be if he was a Christian or Muslim.

2 - The fact is the religion or clergy status of the individual will not determine the validity of their comment.

3 - The fact is there is no right or wrong subjective opinion, just a subjective opinion. Any opinion on Jerusalem's ownership is necessarily subjective and will have biases."

Absolutely NOTHING in my words challenged the actual opinion of this Rabbiah being right or wrong. I could not have made it any more clear that the issue I was challenging was not his actual opinion but the use of his Jewish rabbinical status.

You can misrepresent all you want Ghost but it fails. Your attempt to avoid the good Jew bad Jew tactic being used speaks loudly.

 

1 -  So you are questioning him actually being Jewish.  That's a new tactic from you.  Must be one of those self-hating Jews.

2 - Nice, so we can dispense with the religious overtones/notions of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

3 - You challenged the opinion by questioning his Jewish-ness, you are looking for some ulterior motive by this person, because he does not support the same things you do.

On 12/30/2017 at 1:34 PM, Rue said:

Yes there was a time Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia,  Lebanon, Syria, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain did not exist yet you only select out of all the countries that did not exist in the early 1900's, Israel.

Your comment that Israel takes over more and more as it grows is of course false. It gave back the Sinai and left the Gaza which prove your comment false...but then that's not anything new.

Next yes you are wrong. You misrepresent my positions, ignore the actual issues I challenge and make false statements contradicted by historic fact.

 

History has proven me right. The amount of land that Israel controls now is more than what it had in the established borders when Israel was created. That is undeniable via the illegal settlements, again which you agree is a huge roadblock preventing a two state solution.  If Israel can have a nation, so can the Palestinians.

And the whole area was the 'Palestinian Mandate' controlled by the Brits.  The BRITS (and other non  M.E nations) really decided who gets what when the new borders were drawn, and that helped carve out a piece just for the Jews. Most of the locals had no control over the division of the land.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Why would they? 

Tell me why I should care.

 

Ok, I got it. You do not support a two-state solution, and you would prefer if the fake (hehe) Palestinians simply left. That's some interesting contradictions.

[GostHacked]

On 12/30/2017 at 1:36 PM, Rue said:

Try to make one response without adopting that sarcastic, patronizing, know it all, missionary Bwana Sahib act. If you don' want to be on this forum get the phack off. Pull that bigoted tone with someone else. I am not your Sambo.

My words are simply written down. It's how you read them in your head with the default internal sarcastic voice (also have you read most of your sarcastic childish posts???????) That's not a problem on my end.

What the fuck is a Sambo .. let's look it up shall we?  Ok there are several definitions, but I think you might be referring to some kind of insult/slur. Care to point out which definition you are using?

Also, interesting to see you come back (eventually) to throwing insults out at me (bigoted tone). I'll get another olive branch for you, since you do not appear to enjoy this one.  Now THAT is some good f'n sarcasm right there.

 

[GostHacked]

21 hours ago, herples said:

Wanting the land that you were guaranteed by foreign powers since 1910's isn't an unreasonable demand.

That's a good point in my view. However, even expressing this lumps me in permanently with every thing else you say (even if I disagree with the rest of it).

[Rue]

18 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1 -  So you are questioning him actually being Jewish.  That's a new tactic from you.  Must be one of those self-hating Jews.

2 - Nice, so we can dispense with the religious overtones/notions of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

3 - You challenged the opinion by questioning his Jewish-ness, you are looking for some ulterior motive by this person, because he does not support the same things you do.

History has proven me right. The amount of land that Israel controls now is more than what it had in the established borders when Israel was created. That is undeniable via the illegal settlements, again which you agree is a huge roadblock preventing a two state solution.  If Israel can have a nation, so can the Palestinians.

And the whole area was the 'Palestinian Mandate' controlled by the Brits.  The BRITS (and other non  M.E nations) really decided who gets what when the new borders were drawn, and that helped carve out a piece just for the Jews. Most of the locals had no control over the division of the land.

1-I am not questioning him being Jewish. He was born that way. I am not questioning he is a Rabbiah. He chose to be. I don't question the man's existence, right to his opinions. I do question the device of using a Jew the way its used on this response as I explained. I don' see Hudson-Jones-Kactus quoting Muslims who are pro Israel. The use of a Jewish Rabbiah as if his being Jewish and a Rabbiah is significant to the validity of his opinion is what I questioned. You choose to ignore what I am questioning.

2-The so called religious overtones and notions regarding Jerusalem orginate from Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious beliefs. As a Zionist and as a human being in my life and as a Jew, choose which one of those identities you need, I was taught to respect religious beliefs. I see three religions all with equal feelings and strong emotions that make certain believers feel a very emotional connection to Jerusalem. I think that emotion most certainly clouds judgement and rational discourse. Now that I sound like Spock from Star Trek I don't Judge any of these religions as less valid than the other. I do question people in the name of any religion who engage in violence and terrorism.

3-In regards to 3, I made my concerns extremely clear. I challenge the need to use a Jewish Rabbiah to make the opinion "more valid" and I explained why. Its playing the Jw card and suggesting a good Jew will think lie this individual. His Jewishness should not be relevant to his opinion. His opinion is no more or less valid than any other human on this planet. In fact he does not disagree with many of my positions so you again misrepresent what I am disputing. If I had an ulterior motive I would not attempt to explain it so openly as I have with you many times by the way.

4-History? What time line do you use and when did you start your analysis? From when did you start your arbitrary time line? Come on we have been through that argument infinite times. In regards to the West Bank since 1949 the history speaks for itself and there in fact was since 1967 an influx of Israeli settlers to the West Bank now living in area C of three zones. Area A as you are well aware is Palestinian self ruled and exclusively Palestinian, Area B is simply an arbitrary designation of non Jewish Israeli settled land Israel maintains a military presence on and yes Area C is exclusively Israel settlements. Yes Area C has grown in size. No the size of 250,000 Hasidic Jews on the West Bank didn't just suddenly appear. They have been here since ancient days. Where I challenge your classification as I have stated is that many of the people you refer to as Palestinians in area A are as foreign to the West Bank as any Israeli Jewish settler. They came to this area and were not Palestinian but now choose to identify as Palestinians and they form the majority of Palestinians who are not Jewish on the West Bank. In your scenario, any Muslim who came to the West Bank is a Palestinian but if a Jewish Israeli came to the West Bank they have a lesser right to land ownership there than does a Muslim who came to this area.

What I have argued is that at a state level there is a dispute as to whether the West Bank should be made into a second Palestinian state because Jordan wa sin fact unilaterally created as a Jewish free Palestinian state, illegally and is always ignored by revisionist historians such as yourself pretending its not a Palestinian state and is Jewish free.

What I have also stated is the West Bank has never been part of a sovereign nation and therefore remains legally in dispute, and its incorrect to say its occupied. You can not in international law occupy land that was never part of a sovereign nation. From a layman's use of the word,  it is occupied but not under international law and the resolutions from the UN you quote can not alter that they can only make political subjective opinions that are not binding as they do stating the West Bank should be a second Palestinian state. However the UN can not demand and has never demanded Israel withdraw to unsafe borders. It can not say that. It also can not order 250,000 non Israeli Hasidic Jews who do not recognize Israel as a state to move to Israel or leave. It can not order Jews or Christians who have legitimate private land titles to arbitrarily give them up any more than it can take sides between internal Palestinian disputes over whose land title rights take precedent, the land title rights of Palestinians prior to 1949 and the ones after that date.

There are many laws that can not be ignored and are in discussions about this issue. The Christian land title rights to 90% of Jerusalem which Israel recognizes but the Arab League and Palestinians do not, is as much an unresolved issue as is the Muslim collective religious belief in the Middle East that there can be not just a Jewish nation of Israel but any nation other than a Muslim nation imposing sharia law which defines non Muslims with lesser legal rights including not having the right to own land of any kind.

I have stated numerous times froma practical perspective to obtain a peaceful resolution all three religions would have to create a trilateral council in Jerusalem to allow access to religious sites for all 3 religions. That was tried but the Arab League and Palestinians and Muslim mullah walked out of that council saying hey would never except any recognition of Christian or Jewish legal right to land or nationality in ANY part of the Middle East not just Jerusalem.

In four  attempts Israel unilaterally agreed to give back 95% of the physical land of the West Bank and share East Jerusalem That is public record. Rabin,  Barak, Olmert, Peres,

That is now a moot point. Arafat told the world he had been bargaining in bad faith all along and never would concede to a Jewish state of Israel anywhere in the world let alone the Middle East. Abbas has repeated that countless times as has The Arab League of Nations, Iran and the PA and Hamas.

As we speak Hamas is in a declared state of war to remove the Jewish state. So is Al Fatah the so called military wing of the PA. So is Hezbollah. So is Iran. Lebanon and Syria are in a declared state of war against Israel since 1949 as are all Arab League nations except Egypt and Jordan. There is no Muslim leader today in any Muslim country who could state he believes recognition of Israel being a Jewish state is a common sense condition for peace as is disarming terrorist groups, the same two conditions the IRA agreed to to achieve peace.

Next and final point. The British were given a mandate by the League of Nations to create two states one Jewish and one Muslim in the area called Palestine. 90% of it was made a Jewish free Palestinian state illegally by the British in direct contradiction to its mandate. In fact the League of Nations called a meeting to disband Transjordan but that meeting never took place as eventfully Hitler declared war on Poland triggering WW2. Jordan was and has always been a Palestinian state illegally made up of 90% of land that was supposed to be shared fairly between Jews and Muslims in two nations. Stop ignoring that fact. Stop ignoring the fact Israel was created in direct defiance of former German Nazis running puppet states in Egypt, Iraq and Syria in full alliance with the French and British and then later Soviets. Stop ignoring the fact that the Arab League of nations was a colonial puppet invention and had a mandate to stop a Jewish state for fear Jews would ally their state with and help Muslim states making the West's ability to control the oil supplies problematic.

Also you want to quite me then state I think the UN is a friggin joke. It ceased having any meaning to Jews when it turned its back on us after the holocaust and ignored Elenor Roosevelt who despite its absolue ignoring of Jewish refugees in WW2 took the UN and even Truman on to get Israel created.

The UN abandon Jews as th Arab League unilaterally began a second attempt to exterminate us and again ignores as as 900,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab League nations. Not one Jewish refugee has been offered refuge by the UN. It was Israel and then France and the US that actually took in Jews. Canada sent Jews away and McKenzie King referred to us as rats and vermin. So spare me the history lessons. The UN sided with Palestinians giving them a refufee definition no othr refugee is allowed on this planet.

Its allowed itself to be used as a military weapon on the ground by Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad including using its sites to store and transport terrorists and their military weapons It no longer has any relevance to stopping terrorism, or world instability. Its a hot air mouthpiece.

 

 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Ok, I got it. You do not support a two-state solution, and you would prefer if the fake (hehe) Palestinians simply left. That's some interesting contradictions.

I don't support a two-state solution because I don't see it as being achievable without highly unlikely changes in the negotiating stances of the two parties AND because even if there was a Palestinian state I see no way it would be economically viable. It would be an economic basket case which means filled with violence and probably religious extremism.

I would like all the settlements to be closed, and the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) to be given to Jordan, and then Gaza to go to Egypt. That is the only viable solution I can see.

[Rue]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't support a two-state solution because I don't see it as being achievable without highly unlikely changes in the negotiating stances of the two parties AND because even if there was a Palestinian state I see no way it would be economically viable. It would be an economic basket case which means filled with violence and probably religious extremism.

I would like all the settlements to be closed, and the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) to be given to Jordan, and then Gaza to go to Egypt. That is the only viable solution I can see.

I think neither Jordan or Egypt want to inherit those two areas because I believe they both said that when asked in the past.Israel in fact asked Jordan to annex the West Bank as one proposal and Hussein said no chance. Gaza City was always Egyptian except for the  occupation after 1967 until the peace dal with Egypt. The Gaza Strip was in fact a prison Egypt under Nasser created. Nasser openly ridiculed the Palestinians in that strip and want noth8ng to do with them. As for the 2 state solution it's a moot point at this time.

[Argus]

47 minutes ago, Rue said:

I think neither Jordan or Egypt want to inherit those two areas because I believe they both said that when asked in the past.Israel in fact asked Jordan to annex the West Bank as one proposal and Hussein said no chance. Gaza City was always Egyptian except for the  occupation after 1967 until the peace dal with Egypt. The Gaza Strip was in fact a prison Egypt under Nasser created. Nasser openly ridiculed the Palestinians in that strip and want noth8ng to do with them. As for the 2 state solution it's a moot point at this time.

The Jordanians in fact did annex the West bank, including East Jerusalem. The Israelis drove them out. They then repudiated their claims under pressure from other Arab league members. And why not, since they couldn't enforce them anyway? It was also easier then to accuse the Israelis of unjustifiably occupying "Palestinian" land, rather than Jordanian land conquered after Jordan attacked them.

I'm pretty sure the path to getting them to change their minds lies through the US Treasury. That same path would get Egypt's current dictator to take over Gaza again. Why should the Americans pay? Because in the long run it will be much cheaper.

[DogOnPorch]

On 1/1/2018 at 11:27 AM, Rue said:

I think neither Jordan or Egypt want to inherit those two areas because I believe they both said that when asked in the past.Israel in fact asked Jordan to annex the West Bank as one proposal and Hussein said no chance. Gaza City was always Egyptian except for the  occupation after 1967 until the peace dal with Egypt. The Gaza Strip was in fact a prison Egypt under Nasser created. Nasser openly ridiculed the Palestinians in that strip and want noth8ng to do with them. As for the 2 state solution it's a moot point at this time.

 

As well, the Gaza Strip was used as a jump-off point for Egyptian armored units during 67 War.

Edited January 5, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

On 1/1/2018 at 3:19 PM, Argus said:

The Jordanians in fact did annex the West bank, including East Jerusalem. The Israelis drove them out. They then repudiated their claims under pressure from other Arab league members. And why not, since they couldn't enforce them anyway? It was also easier then to accuse the Israelis of unjustifiably occupying "Palestinian" land, rather than Jordanian land conquered after Jordan attacked them.

I'm pretty sure the path to getting them to change their minds lies through the US Treasury. That same path would get Egypt's current dictator to take over Gaza again. Why should the Americans pay? Because in the long run it will be much cheaper.

The US could save themselves some coin by not giving so much to Israel. Which is most likely much higher than what the US gives to the Palestinians. But when the US stops intervening in other nations they could also save money, and also help keep things stable.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

The US could save themselves some coin by not giving so much to Israel. Which is most likely much higher than what the US gives to the Palestinians. But when the US stops intervening in other nations they could also save money, and also help keep things stable.

 

You'd like that...not going to happen. Israel is on the side of good as opposed to Islamic terror. 

[GostHacked]

31 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You'd like that...not going to happen. Israel is on the side of good as opposed to Islamic terror. 

Well, we've seen it so often where the USA supports Islamic terrorism, surprised that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, GostHacked said:

Well, we've seen it so often where the USA supports Islamic terrorism, surprised that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

 

You're free to support the so-called Palestinians and their Nazi roots.

[Rue]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎01 at 3:19 PM, Argus said:

The Jordanians in fact did annex the West bank, including East Jerusalem. The Israelis drove them out. They then repudiated their claims under pressure from other Arab league members. And why not, since they couldn't enforce them anyway? It was also easier then to accuse the Israelis of unjustifiably occupying "Palestinian" land, rather than Jordanian land conquered after Jordan attacked them.

I'm pretty sure the path to getting them to change their minds lies through the US Treasury. That same path would get Egypt's current dictator to take over Gaza again. Why should the Americans pay? Because in the long run it will be much cheaper.

No Argus with due respect Jordan occupied but never legally  annexed the West Bank. They did not impose Jordanian citizenship on West Bank Palestinians. They would have had to for it to be considered a legal annexation. It was in fact an occupation in the layman sense no different than what Israel is doing now. Big difference. Israel did drive Jordan back in 1967 but not completely out. In fact Jordan could have stayed and fought, they chose to retreat at a certain point as they were fresh coming off the Black Sabbath uprising and had no desire to waste any soldiers remaining in any part of Jordan. In fact history now discloses had Israel had their way, Jordan would have annexed the West Bank as part of a few secret negotiations Golda Maer tried with King Hussein before and after the 67 war. Jordan joined on Egypt's side in 67 for fear of invasion by Syria, Iraq and Lebanon as Hussein's memoirs now indicate. Even during the 67 war he spoke with Golda Maer. Jordan hates Palestinians for refusing to become Jordanian Palestinians and siding with Arafat,

[OftenWrong]

20 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The US could save themselves some coin by not giving so much to Israel. Which is most likely much higher than what the US gives to the Palestinians. But when the US stops intervening in other nations they could also save money, and also help keep things stable.

Sure they could, if only the Russians would stop doing that... and the Brits, and the French, the Chinese... etc. etc. Sadly your recommendation would only leave us open to the fury of their attack.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Sure they could, if only the Russians would stop doing that... and the Brits, and the French, the Chinese... etc. etc. Sadly your recommendation would only leave us open to the fury of their attack.

 

I'm sure Israel remembers all too well how the Soviets supplied the Arabs with modern weapons in exchange for access to Arab warm water ports. Nasser was positive he couldn't loose...much like Hillary...when he blockaded Israel and started the 6 Day War.

[Rue]

The Russians as we now now know were threatening to use nukes on Israel and at one point a drunk Colonel ordered a nuke attack. It was the Americans we now know who as many as 3 times prevented nuke attacks on Israel back in the cold war era from the Russians.

The US has never hidden its balancing act of having to try be strategic allies with Israel and the Saudi and Egyptians at the same time which at times in history was not easy.

Right now Trump is back to an era where it does not appear the US will appease Iran anymore but the damage was done by Obama. When Obama pulled the US off the world stage as police officer in the Midle East, China stepped in to fill its void, replacing the US. China strategically set up simultaneous military alliances with Iran and Israel-in effect creating a stalemate between the two and preventing a war. China has a naval alliance with Israel that prevents Iran from attacking Israeli navy vessels at this time.

Now me personally I believe the US needs to re-establish itself militarily in the Middle East. I think it was a mistake removing itself from the ME and thinking some half assed scheme of a Muslim Brotherhood alliance with Muslim Brotherhood members Barak Obama, his half brother in Sudan, Morsi in Egypt and that idiot Erdogan in Turkey was the way to best advance US interests in the ME.

I think the Muslim Brotherhood proved it was a failure-a bunch of Muslim pseuto illuminati trying to create an elitist network to run the ME through a not so secret cabal.

It failed as most idiot attempts like this do. When you recruit elitists drawn to your power network because of greed not idealism, it always implodes as the greedy stab each other in the back.

What we see now is a skeleton of a US government. Obama cleared out anyone he felt was against his agenda. Trump has not replaced the void since Obama left at grass roots levels in the US government. He seems unable to lead and create networks of alliances or to enunciate a clear vision for the US. He appears unstable and unable to lead or create.

He appears to be quite literally an isolated reactor via twitter while behind the scenes there is a huge power vacuum and we don't  know who is planning to replace him. A year in a regime is a blip in time when preparing to replace it. What we do know is the entire Democratic Party structure has no clear leader and in the year or so to come the filth of the Clintons will come out in investigations concerning the Clinton Foundation, Hilary Clinton compromised by her Saudi Arabian spy advisor and all kinds of other filth. As for Trump, he clearly does not care to lead. His narcissism and short adhd attention deficit does not enable him to focus on detail and explains his inability to focus on any topic.

I think in a year or so, a power network will emerge in the US and we shall see if people decide Pence is the person to replace Trump or whether there is a way to contro, Trump's irrational outbursts. Until then its a crap shoot. Iran faces a possible civil war and so does Turkey. For that matter Egypt is never far away from a food wa on the streets, and The Korean peninsula is volatile. Anything could trigger unintended consequences

I personally think North Korea is not the huge war theatre many think its destined to be. I think it more probable we shall see more t errorist attacks in Europe and a European financial collapse threaten as the next major political destabilization issue than Iran or Korea. I think China is able to control Iran militarily just as the Russians have with Syria.

Its Muslim extremists working in fragmented cells we have to watch for. They  owe allegiance to no one but their own cells. They are unpredictable in origin, make-up and agenda. They evolve and disappear very quickly like sandstorms of the desert. They defy cycles of attack conventional intelligence used to be able to predict.

[OftenWrong]

Might explains the current US administration position on Pakistan-

Pakistan says UN vote on Jerusalem will send message

“United States should decide whether to stand with the world or an occupying force which is the reason for instability and chaos in the Middle East. Pakistan is among the countries which have co-sponsored this resolution. We are hopeful that the General Assembly will adopt this with a heavy majority.” Dr Lodhi’s statements came ahead of a United Nations vote on a motion rejecting US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, under strong pressure from President Donald Trump who has threatened to cut funding to countries that back the measure.

ETA- Rand Paul:
"I’m introducing a bill to end aid to Pakistan in the coming days. My bill will take the money that would have gone to Pakistan and put it in an infrastructure fund to build roads and bridges here at home."

I can't see that as being a bad decision. Trump economics?

Edited January 6, 2018 by OftenWrong

[DogOnPorch]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

The Russians as we now now know were threatening to use nukes on Israel and at one point a drunk Colonel ordered a nuke attack. It was the Americans we now know who as many as 3 times prevented nuke attacks on Israel back in the cold war era from the Russians....

 

Yes...the Russians were hoping to draw the Americans into things back in 67. Plus, they supplied the Arabs with false information about the massive defeats the Arabs experienced at the hands of the Israelis...Syrian/Egyptian. Kept them both fighting longer...

Jordan...a different story. Israel got on the phone and TOLD them what happened and not to make a move. The King did his infamous Caesar impression...claiming the Die Was Cast....and attacked Israel from their annexed West Bank.

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/6/2017 at 7:05 PM, Scott Mayers said:

BBC: Jersusalem is Israel's capital

I commented on some thread last night of someone from the U.S. asking if Trump was all that bad for them. I tried to relate without prejudice. I assumed that much of the world's problems in communication/miscommunication deal with today's technology. However, today this announcement appears as though he may be setting up for some suicidal 'fuck you' before he possibly gets impeached. ?? 

I'm a bit surprised no one else here even mentioned it yet. What do you guys think?

Could be a negotiating tactic for more leverage in a peace deal.  More likely he's just being an ass though,