It sounded good when Bill Clinton said it. It sounded very good when George Bush said it. It sounded wonderful when Obama said it!!!! Oohhh but now it is sooo bad because.... Trump did it!!

I'm sure it was just his dentures. It's OK Bob.

I think this is less of a commentary on Trump, and more of a commentary of how being Muslim is clearly not a religion of peace.
Clear evidence in many forms that they lean on the side that opposes peace.

It sounded like a provocation of the dowtrodden displaced natives and their allies every time to me.
It also sounded like the end of middle east peace process, which is the reason all previous presidents didn't follow through. I guess all that nonsense about Iran being months from a nuke was just that, nonsense, or they wouldn't consider this unless they want Israel to be nuked.

Edit: chances are, he won't follow through because his advisors will explain what a horrible idea it is, and what a giveaway of a major bargaining chip for absolutely nothing in return but trouble.
Nobody knew middle east peace was so complicated!

We get it. It is a common campaign promise to get the Jewish vote/support and it is (until now) never executed.

Of course, Trump is trying to use it to divert attention from the severe problems he is having right now. He does this sort of thing. Look at how he was using the possibility of recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, plus the arms sale, to tweak China over trade.

However, if you recall, the first questions about Flynn and his role were being asked by the FBI/Comey in December 2016. So, misdirection, get the news on something else, deal with Flynn (fired later), and get rid of Comey.

This has nothing to do with Israel and what they want. They are simply the tail being wagged.

This is a nonsense argument and the reason this video is also nonsense. If you hold christianity up to the same standards then it is clearly not a religion of peace either. It's a stalemate, therefore a pointless line of argument.

The video rant is over the top, but so is the reaction to moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

Saying something like "there goes the peace process" is just bizarre.

Can anyone honestly tell me that in our wildest dreams a future two state solution with Jerusalem split down the middle was EVER going to happen? That's like a Miss America speech level naivety.

Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, but now it's unequivocal that we aren't working for peace, we are working for Israel, and finding a solution that's acceptable is exponentially harder, especially since no one trusts us to keep our word anymore and we can't mediate.

This gave Israel their biggest wish (besides all Palestinians just evaporating) and offered the Palestinians nothing but a nice "Fuck you", stay off our holy land. For that concession, we got nothing, zip, nada. Great mediating...give one side what they want, then pretend mediation doesn't work. What a negotiator, the best ever. Fuck.

Can anyone honestly tell me that in their wildest dreams this somehow advances the peace process? That's like Miss America thinking she won't be oogled while changing by the pageant owner in her dressing room level naivete.

Trump's a buffoon randomly dancing around from one tire fire to set off another. This is no defence of him or any 'thought', motive or goal behind anything he does.

I'm just pointing out that the world's reaction of horror and outrage to moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is naive and hypocritical. It is naive in that clearly the peace process has been dead since WW2.

I'm going to list points that seem to clearly indicate the peace process didn't exist and tell me anything you disagree with cause I suspect we are working from different 'facts'.

Israel clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Hamas clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Fatah clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
The Muslim world clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with an Israeli state.
The Israeli state clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state.

With the above, and Israeli's militarily dominant position over the Palestinians the only 'peace' process is going to be whatever Israel decides it wants that to be. Morality, wishes, blundering American 'presidents' and anything else we want to pull out doesn't really matter in the face of that. Israel has the might and the ability and so they will do what they want. My hope is to influence the Israeli state towards equitable, fair and compassionate treatment of Palestinians. If Israel decides to create a one state solution, but abides by that fine. Two states with borders unilaterally laid out by Israel, fine. So long as popular opinion in Israel can be won in favour of fair, equitable and compassionate treatment of Palestinians then that's the most I hope or wish for. I think it's a realistic goal that can be realized.

Imo, the peace process isn't dead, but it's deathly ill because Israel keeps expanding.

Want and can accept are two different things.

We give them most of that military might, and back it with ours. Without that interference, they might be more fair and equitable, with it they clearly won't, they'll continue to bully their weaker, poorer, displaced neighbors.

Popular opinion in Israel seems to be the Palestinians should be eradicated, so fair, equitable, compassionate treatment is incredibly unlikely and not realistic without being forced into it.

I think I see things more jadedly than you do.

Here's what I see of the situation. On a nation state level, nobody cares about the Palestinians. The Palestinians only influence on the chess board is their suffering. All of their 'allies' like Syria, Egypt and Iran don't care about the Palestinians for anything more than making sure that they suffer, the greater and the more public that suffering the better propaganda it makes. Israel and it's allies only care about the Palestinians in so far as that same suffering makes them look bad and sways public opinion as well. The threat from the Palestinians is a police and humanitarian matter, not a military one.

So everybody with boots on the ground doesn't care about the Palestinians. The Israeli side will take what they want as long as public opinion isn't too onerous on it. The Arab nations will actively arm, encite and push the Palestinians from peace to violence at ever turn because it ensures they serve their 'purpose' of public suffering better.

I count exactly zero hope for a two state solution reached between Palestinian and Israeli's as equals. A future of the region where the Palestinian people are afforded a better future either in a province of Israel, or their own state created under terms dictated to it by Israel I see as at least an existent possibility. I honestly believe seeking something more is simply not a possibility because NOBODY wants it. The Israeli's don't, the Palestinians allies don't, even the Palestinians themselves don't.

You seem to think maybe the parties can be made to change their minds on that, but it runs contrary to their self interests.

Israel gains nothing by backing down and negotiating as equals for a two state solution.

Palestine's 'allies' actually lose out greatly in any resolution to the status quo because it currently ties down Israel and makes for great propaganda. They'd lose that and gain nothing in return but less suffering for the Palestinians whom they don't care about.

Palestinians themselves might be persuaded to change their minds, but the only ones swaying their public opinion are their 'allies' with a vested interested in making sure they continue to fight forever for all of Palestine and not settle for two states. Additionally, for all intents and purposes their opinions don't matter anyways because they lack the power to make a meaningful difference.

None of the above is my opinion on how I would like things to be, nor how I think they should be, but rather how I see it actually looking. Nation state actions can usually be stripped down to narrow self interest and naught else. The exceptions are failures of the state representation, like say a dictator choosing their personal interest over a national one, or a buffoon blundering off into idiotic random actions...

I doubt that. ;-)

Except for territory they hold, I agree, Palestinian suffering is their only influence, and that's not much.

I agree, because we back them, Israel does as it pleases. I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints beyond Palestinian suffering, like constantly expanding borders and expulsion from historical holy sites.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state (where only barren desert is Palestinian with all water and access controlled by Israel, shut off at any hint of complaint).

The Palestinians do want a two state solution, just not one where any land worth having is Israel and the leftovers are Palestine.

Israel gains nothing from negotiating when they can get what they want, like recognition of another land grab (Jerusalem) without negotiating. That's why this move is horrendous, it gives them incentives to not negotiate and just act unilaterally.

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed. Given that, what's the option? Outright war? With us backing Israel, that's a no go.

I think, if given a solution that didn't give everything to Israel, the Palestinians would jump at it (maybe not Hamas, but the people). Being offered second class citizenship after having all their land and possessions taken is not workable, and it's what they seem to get.

If N Korea sells Iran a nuke, I hope we can we go back to negotiations instead of genocidal one sided dictations.

Moving this video to bobknight33's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

@newtboy

I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints

Gonna stop you there, I never said anything about validity or number of complaints or grievances anyone had. In a better world things like that would matter, in a military conflict though they don't change the outcome.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state...

You misunderstand me. I said nothing about the chances of those outcomes working for Palestinians or even being better for them. I stated that whether we like it or not, Israel has more than the required military might to do so and whichever moment they decide the cost of implementing one of those options is better than the status quo they are gonna do it. Do you really see 'no chance' of that happening?

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed.

Then on this we vehemently disagree. Israel wasn't the only one that expanded their borders in the war in 1948. The Arab Palestinians allies snatched up parcels of land as well. They haven't even considered ceding that land back to facilitate a Palestinian state. In fact, Israel's very existence is pretty widely accepted as being due to the fact that each neighbouring Arab state went to war with the intent of securing sections of Palestine fro themselves and thus each fought independently giving Israel a chance to survive facing off against each of them rather than facing a united coalition in a co-ordinated strike. That they all mobilized their forces and sent them in the second they could to try and get the most land allowed Israel to fight them, with the exception of Jordan whom Israel cut a deal with by agreeing to not fight for the land Jordan wanted so jordan just silently took that part of Palestine for themselves.

In short, the neighbouring Arab states are not true allies to Arab Palestinians.