Can Biden move the US Embassy back to Tel Aviv?

[Loren Pechtel]

Traditionally, embassies have been in the capital city because their purpose is to facilitate communication with the country's government. Hence, it's logical to be co-located wherever the seat of government is. In this modern age it's not that crucial, thanks to advances in communication and transportation technology. In case of Israel it's a political decision either way.

This is all true, but there's another crucial element.
Jerusalem is not just another old city. It's a Holy site for three competing and militaristic religious groups. Tel Aviv is a better place for secular purposes like government.

I think moving the secular capital to a Holy city was little more than militaristic posturing intended to incite trouble with the Muslims and Palestinians. I admire a great deal about Israel, but the Zionists are quite capable of appalling behavior as well. I'd rather the USA didn't support that.
So, of course, it was our most appalling president.
Tom

The original proposal which the Arabs rejected was that Jerusalem be an independent city.

 

[Swammerdami]

Embassies that already exist shouldn't be moved without good reason if a capital moves. We shouldn't have moved it, but we certainly shouldn't move it away from the capital.

If Russia decides to move its capital to Sevastopol, should we move our embassy to there?

Anyway, soon the U.S. won't be the only superpower to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. As I mentioned, Malawi and Equatorial Guinea are both planning to join the U.S.A. there. Tel Aviv is fast turning into a pariah capital, full of embassies of American enemies like France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, the U.K. and so on.

Would it send a message to move our Embassy back to where it belongs? I sure as hell hope so!

 

[Gospel]

Traditionally, embassies have been in the capital city because their purpose is to facilitate communication with the country's government. Hence, it's logical to be co-located wherever the seat of government is. In this modern age it's not that crucial, thanks to advances in communication and transportation technology. In case of Israel it's a political decision either way.

This is all true, but there's another crucial element.
Jerusalem is not just another old city. It's a Holy site for three competing and militaristic religious groups. Tel Aviv is a better place for secular purposes like government.

I think moving the secular capital to a Holy city was little more than militaristic posturing intended to incite trouble with the Muslims and Palestinians. I admire a great deal about Israel, but the Zionists are quite capable of appalling behavior as well. I'd rather the USA didn't support that.
So, of course, it was our most appalling president.
Tom

The original proposal which the Arabs rejected was that Jerusalem be an independent city.

One can only dream. An independent City would be nice. Maybe we should just hand Jerusalem over to Disney who can call it the earthly kingdom or whatever.

 

[TomC]

Traditionally, embassies have been in the capital city because their purpose is to facilitate communication with the country's government. Hence, it's logical to be co-located wherever the seat of government is. In this modern age it's not that crucial, thanks to advances in communication and transportation technology. In case of Israel it's a political decision either way.

This is all true, but there's another crucial element.
Jerusalem is not just another old city. It's a Holy site for three competing and militaristic religious groups. Tel Aviv is a better place for secular purposes like government.

I think moving the secular capital to a Holy city was little more than militaristic posturing intended to incite trouble with the Muslims and Palestinians. I admire a great deal about Israel, but the Zionists are quite capable of appalling behavior as well. I'd rather the USA didn't support that.
So, of course, it was our most appalling president.
Tom

The original proposal which the Arabs rejected was that Jerusalem be an independent city.

Plenty of blame to spread around. I know that.

I have next to no influence over the Zionists or Palestinians. But I do have a bit over the main power, the USA. Because I'm an American who votes.

I oppose the federal government helping the most violent Zionist factions create more violence with stupid policies like this. The ancient Jewish texts do not qualify as land deeds in the modern world. Modern Jews haven't any more rights than the Greek, Roman, Canaanite, or Muslim people who have had control in the past.
They've just got more military dominance than they used to have, because the USA government keeps supporting whatever the Zionists decide, because it's politically expedient.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They've just got more military dominance than they used to have, because the USA government keeps supporting whatever the Zionists decide, because it's politically expedient.
Tom

We support Israel rather than the Arabs because we don't want to see genocide.

 

[TomC]

They've just got more military dominance than they used to have, because the USA government keeps supporting whatever the Zionists decide, because it's politically expedient.
Tom

We support Israel rather than the Arabs because we don't want to see genocide.

I don't believe that's true.

I think our top reason for supporting Israel is political expediency. The top reason used to be a beach head within tank driving distance of the Gulf oil region.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was bullshit window dressing.

Moving it back would be the same thing.

 

[Derec]

If Russia decides to move its capital to Sevastopol, should we move our embassy to there?

Israel did not move its capital to Jerusalem - it has always been the capital.

Tel Aviv is fast turning into a pariah capital, full of embassies of American enemies like France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, the U.K. and so on.

Tel Aviv has never been the capital. It was the seat of government until the rest of Israel's capital city was liberated from Jordanian occupation in 1967, but it has never been the actual capital.
As to those other countries, they are just trying to appease the Palestinians.

Would it send a message to move our Embassy back to where it belongs? I sure as hell hope so!

It is now where it belongs.

 

[Derec]

I oppose the federal government helping the most violent Zionist factions create more violence with stupid policies like this.

Israel is an actual nation state. It is not a "faction" or a group of factions. To refuse to refer to the state of Israel and instead use "Zionist faction" language is reminiscent of the language used by the Iranian theocracy.
In any case it is not Israel/Zionists that are violent, but rather Palestinian factions like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, etc.

The ancient Jewish texts do not qualify as land deeds in the modern world.

Neither do fever dreams of an illiterate wannabe prophet. That's right - the sole Islamic claim to Jerusalem is a dream Mo had that he flew to the "farthest mosque" on a winged horse - and the interpretation that he actually flew (in his dream) to Jerusalem. At least Israel has a history of statehood and keeping Jerusalem as a capital going back to the Iron Age/early 1st Millennium BCE.

Modern Jews haven't any more rights than the Greek, Roman, Canaanite, or Muslim people who have had control in the past.

I disagree.

They've just got more military dominance than they used to have, because the USA government keeps supporting whatever the Zionists decide, because it's politically expedient.
Tom

Alliance with US helps defend Israel from military aggression and from Islamic terrorism, but Palestinians are supported by Iran, many Arabs, international Far Left etc.

 

[Derec]

Secondly, there are a lot of other ways the US is biased towards Israel.

And most other countries are biased toward the Palestinians. But even the slight US bias in favor of our ally is seen as problematic.
Of course we need to be biased in favor of our allies. Was it a problem when US was biased toward West Germany and against the Soviet Block during the Cold War?

 

[Jayjay]

Secondly, there are a lot of other ways the US is biased towards Israel.

And most other countries are biased toward the Palestinians. But even the slight US bias in favor of our ally is seen as problematic.
Of course we need to be biased in favor of our allies. Was it a problem when US was biased toward West Germany and against the Soviet Block during the Cold War?

West Germany wasn't trying to ethnically cleanse the East so it could move in and take over the land. In fact, it was the opposite, they would welcome anyone who managed to escape. It wasn't West Germany that built the Berlin Wall. In fact, now East and West Germany are a single country again and getting along fine. Are you saying that should be the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well?

Also you completely missed the point. If Biden or any other president were to burn political capital to help the Palestinians, there are more effective ways to do that than the purely symbolic act of moving the embassy. The military and economic aid that the US is giving to Israel could be used to bribe them not to annex Jordan Valley, for example.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They've just got more military dominance than they used to have, because the USA government keeps supporting whatever the Zionists decide, because it's politically expedient.
Tom

We support Israel rather than the Arabs because we don't want to see genocide.

I don't believe that's true.

I think our top reason for supporting Israel is political expediency. The top reason used to be a beach head within tank driving distance of the Gulf oil region.
Tom

1) The Arab nations intend to kill the Jews. If they had won that would be genocide.

2) Israel is a nuclear power. Don't expect to destroy a nuclear power with their weapons unused.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was bullshit window dressing.

Moving it back would be the same thing.

Exactly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also you completely missed the point. If Biden or any other president were to burn political capital to help the Palestinians, there are more effective ways to do that than the purely symbolic act of moving the embassy. The military and economic aid that the US is giving to Israel could be used to bribe them not to annex Jordan Valley, for example.

That isn't going to make any difference. It's not about "occupied territory", it's about the very existence of Israel.

 

[Swammerdami]

Also you completely missed the point. If Biden or any other president were to burn political capital to help the Palestinians, there are more effective ways to do that than the purely symbolic act of moving the embassy. The military and economic aid that the US is giving to Israel could be used to bribe them not to annex Jordan Valley, for example.

That isn't going to make any difference. It's not about "occupied territory", it's about the very existence of Israel.

Here's a recent article about illegal Israeli annexation of Palestinian land. Was this "about the very existence of Israel"? Show your work.

 

[Swammerdami]

Also you completely missed the point. If Biden or any other president were to burn political capital to help the Palestinians, there are more effective ways to do that than the purely symbolic act of moving the embassy. The military and economic aid that the US is giving to Israel could be used to bribe them not to annex Jordan Valley, for example.

That isn't going to make any difference. It's not about "occupied territory", it's about the very existence of Israel.

Here's a recent article about illegal Israeli annexation of Palestinian land. Was this "about the very existence of Israel"? Show your work.

No response?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a recent article about illegal Israeli annexation of Palestinian land. Was this "about the very existence of Israel"? Show your work.

No response?

For some reason yesterday's post didn't show up as a new message.

Note that there is nothing in that article to say that any land is being taken. It's about construction, the activists are using the word "annexation" but nothing says this isn't just infilling. If there was any actual border change the article would almost certainly have said so.

In practice it means Israel is less likely to give up the settlements--but that's meaningless as the chance of them giving them up was already basically zero. Israel was pressured into that once, it didn't help things. They're not going to make that mistake again.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's a recent article about illegal Israeli annexation of Palestinian land. Was this "about the very existence of Israel"? Show your work.

No response?

For some reason yesterday's post didn't show up as a new message.

Note that there is nothing in that article to say that any land is being taken. It's about construction, the activists are using the word "annexation" but nothing says this isn't just infilling. If there was any actual border change the article would almost certainly have said so.

In practice it means Israel is less likely to give up the settlements--but that's meaningless as the chance of them giving them up was already basically zero. Israel was pressured into that once, it didn't help things. They're not going to make that mistake again.

So Israel can do "construction" on Palestinian land but Palestinians can't do construction on Palestinian land. Got it.

 

[Jayjay]

For some reason yesterday's post didn't show up as a new message.

Note that there is nothing in that article to say that any land is being taken. It's about construction, the activists are using the word "annexation" but nothing says this isn't just infilling. If there was any actual border change the article would almost certainly have said so.

In practice it means Israel is less likely to give up the settlements--but that's meaningless as the chance of them giving them up was already basically zero. Israel was pressured into that once, it didn't help things. They're not going to make that mistake again.

So Israel can do "construction" on Palestinian land but Palestinians can't do construction on Palestinian land. Got it.

Loren's categorization of Israeli land grabs goes something like this:

1. Illegal outpost - no problem, they are illegal and you can't blame Israel for them.
2. Legalization of illegal outposts - no problem, it's just acknowledging facts on the ground.
3. Construction inside settlements - no problem, these are not new settlements.
4. Construction between settlements - no problem, this is just "filling in"
5. Building walls on Palestinian land - no problem, necessary for security
6. Evicting palestinians who end up on Israeli side of the wall - no problem, what are they doing on the wrong side anyway?

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Swammerdami]

Ask me 20 or 30 years ago, I was a typical pro-Israel anti-Palestinian American.

But the despicable inhumanity of Netanyahu's Israel is now far too blatant to ignore. Many Jews think so too. I am also disgusted with the U.S. government(s) for not exercising its leverage to stop Israel's crimes.