For Palestinians, US Embassy move a show of pro-Israel bias [barf]

Associated Press ^ | May 13, 2018 6:14 AM | Karin Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh

[Olog-hai]

Monday’s opening of the U.S. Embassy in contested Jerusalem, cheered by Israelis as a historic validation, is seen by Palestinians as an in-your-face affirmation of pro-Israel bias by President Donald Trump and a new blow to dreams of statehood.

The festive inauguration helps harden Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ rejection of Washington as a future mediator in the conflict with Israel, likely ushering in a prolonged period of diplomatic vacuum in which other powers are unwilling or unable to step up as brokers.

Such paralysis and loss of hope have been major drivers of Palestinian unrest.

Underscoring the conflict’s volatility, thousands of Gaza residents plan to march Monday toward Israel’s border and possibly breach it in an attempt to break a decade-old blockade of their territory. Israel has vowed to stop any breach by force, raising the possibility of major bloodshed at a time when Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner preside over the embassy ceremony just 70 kilometers (45 miles) away. […]

It would be politically difficult for any Trump successor to move the embassy back to Tel Aviv, though the next administration could theoretically still try to broker talks on the future of Jerusalem, said Nathan Thrall of the International Crisis Group think tank. …

[I got the rope]

Ummm...we are pro-Israel

[windsorknot]

If it weren’t for that dang US embassy move, the “Palestinians” would embrace Israel and renounce terrorism.

[saintgermaine]

For Palestinians, US Embassy move a show of pro-Israel bias

And what is wrong with that?

[sparklite2]

I have a bias against people who advocate the eradication of Israel, too.

[captain_dave]

Bias? Yes. Bias in favor of Western Civilization. Bias in favor of Judeo-Christian culture. Bias in favor of de facto ally.

Yes, it was a biased decision. It was a good decision.

[vigilence]

I have long wondered why the notion that the U.S. could be considered an honest broker when it came to mediating peace in the Arab-Israeli dispute. Every President since Ike has tried to do so without success and instead paid to kick the can down the road. Trump is the first to shake things up by openly supporting Israel over the Palestinians and their terrorist leaders who stubbornly refuse to recognise the right of Israel to exist. By ramping up pressure on them by siding with the Israelis he is creating more leverage via bargaining chips for them to use if negotiations between the two renew. Supporting Israel and walking away from the table will soften their stance

[papertyger]

I have long wondered why the notion that the U.S. could be considered an honest broker when it came to mediating peace in the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Never underestimate what "globalist" diplomats can convince themselves ABOUT themselves.

[Olog-hai]

Nothing will soften the stance of the “Palestinians”. Their stance is the obliteration of the state of Israel. There is no brokering peace when the objective has to be victory over such an enemy as the Caliphate revanchists.

[MNJohnnie]

Peaceful Democratic nation vrs terrorists and their enablers? Of course we biased to Israel.

[airborne]

So not moving it shows pro-Palestinian bias?

I choose Israel.

[Olog-hai]

I would call Israel a de jure ally; de facto implies questionable legality the government of the state of Israel, whereas they are perfectly legal and legitimate. Now “Palestine” OTOH should not even be given de facto status.

[captain_dave]

I think without a formal defense treaty it is de facto (in practice) and not de jure (in law)

[onedoug]

palestinian is a made-up identification, and Ishmael always be, “...a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.” (JPS Tanakh 1917)

[elcid1970]

In 1967 Lyndon Johnson told the Israelis they were on their own, no U.S. aid. Israel became popular in America after their stunning victory but it was only in 1973 that Richard Nixon came in solidly on Israel’s side with a massive airlift that probably saved the country, and from that point the U.S. & Israel were de facto allies.

Tomorrow has been looked forward to for far too long. If the Pallies rush the border & the IDF responds with force, it will only prove the point that Israel is beset with savage enemies as much now as in 1948.

Long live Israel! Thank you, President Trump.

[DoodleDawg]

For Palestinians, US Embassy move a show of pro-Israel bias

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[Iron Munro]

So what’s their point?

[Iron Munro]

LIVING IN ISRAEL

Imagine if you lived in New Jersey and every other person in the United States wanted to kill you and your family.

Israel is home to about 6 million Jews and has a land area about the same as New Jersey.

At its narrowest point Israel is only about 9 miles wide.

Except for its shoreline on the Mediterranean Sea, the country is surrounded by the countries of the mid-east with a population of more than 200 million muslims.
Most of those muslims want to kill every Jew on earth, beginning with Israelis.

[Verginius Rufus]

They are calling themselves after a town in Texas.

They could have done worse. They could have picked "Muleshoe."

[Little Ray]

And their point is?
In any conflict between Civilization and Barbarism, support Civilization.
It is really that simple.

[BillyBoy]

>> For Palestinians, US Embassy move a show of pro-Israel bias And what is wrong with that? <<

Sorry, I don't see placing your embassay in the capital city of a nation to be "bias" in favor of that country.

The U.S. Embassy to Pakistan is in the country's capitol city of Islamabad. Is that "pro-Pakistani bias" on the part of the USA?