It's official , Jerusalem is Israel's capital - Trump

"During the 1950s, Israel was frequently attacked by Palestinian fedayeen, nearly always against civilians,[174] mainly from the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip,[175] leading to several Israeli counter-raids. In 1956"


It might benefit some of you that are making claims which seem based solely on emotion and kneejerk to study the history just a tad better.

en.wikipedia.org...

SOME points are valid, while OTHER points are pure fiction. Would that not be fair ?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So the Jews invaded the Brits?

a reply to: ketsuko

They fought back the Brits..

a reply to: ketsuko

It's the old Middle Eastern the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. I'd be including Egypt with that. They know who butters their bread so to speak.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

He never said it was his idea and you got played I guess I knew this already. He has certainly used it to his advantage and of course he had to sign the wavier or be in violation of the law, you cant move an embassy overnight.

I think it is a way to get both parties back to the table, a tool to lure Hamas to leave the rockets and sit at the peace table. We shall see.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ignore him, he's obviously not familiar with many violence caused by the Muslims against the Israeli during the British authority over the region, hes not even familiar with the violence by Muslims in the past 17 years.

Great news for Israel!

I stand with Trump and our allies in Israel

a reply to: Nikola014


I can't believe the anti-Israel rhetoric from some people here. It is good to see some common sense here though ]

Star for you, sir

a reply to: scraedtosleep

It's the legalese of the actual law, from what I've heard and read. If he hadn't, certain things would have taken effect immediately and no one is ready for instant implementation of it. Plus it's probably a nice bargaining chip to have in your pocket.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So the Jews invaded the Brits?

Been an interesting thread to follow. The expectations for
violence might exceed the violence for once.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: pavil

But the media agreeing with this move is a bad thing isn't it? That damn lying liberal communist media is evil! Until they agree with me, then they're alright in my book. Right?

I could care what the media wants me to think. I know it's a good decision to make. What have the Palestinians done that I should be glad about? The PA has thrived on being in opposition to peace, not for it, much to the detriment of their own citizens. Time from them to S$#* or get off the pot. I'm tired of playing their game.

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So the Jews invaded the Brits?

Been an interesting thread to follow. The expectations for
violence might exceed the violence for once.

We can only hope so. It's rather ironic that the folks in here defending Palestine like it's a victim are predicting indiscriminate murdering of Israeli civilians in response to something as silly as moving a building. These are the people they're defending like it's ok or they have some justification. There's no justification for that.

originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: ketsuko

They fought back the Brits..

To expound a little

"On 22 July 1946, Irgun attacked the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing[132] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[133][134][135] A total of 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[136] The hotel was the site of the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan.[136][137] The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah. It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era.[136][137] It was characterized as one of the "most lethal terrorist incidents of the twentieth century."[138] In 1947, the British government announced it would withdraw from Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews."

a reply to: face23785

You may have missed my earlier comment.

Aren't we really worried about giving people with anger issues and Daddy drama an excuse they're already looking for anyway? How could we be worried about enflaming a peaceful religion?

I agree.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Grambler

With America knowing full well what the consequences will be beforehand and still doing it anyways then yes it IS a threat of violence! We know it will cause them to react and we know we're going to react right back.

Asking for violence in the hope of returning it is a threat of violence.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

But it is a great look into your mindset.

No, moving an embassy is not a threat of violence.

Your twisted logic does not make that so.

If a woman knows leaving her husband will cause him to act violently, well then by threatening to leave she is threatening violence!

I could go on, but any person with any sense of common sense sees just how dumb this is.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: face23785

You may have missed my earlier comment.

Aren't we really worried about giving people with anger issues and Daddy drama an excuse they're already looking for anyway? How could we be worried about enflaming a peaceful religion?

I agree.

The way I look at it, they don't need an excuse. It's not like if we didn't announce this move there would never be another terrorist incident over there. They're gonna act like animals anyway. We've deferred moving it for 22 years thinking it might help with the peace process. It hasn't. Time to change strategies.

a reply to: Grambler
Yes, this expectation of violence is premature I think.

When push comes to shove he signed the waiver just like all his predecessors did, so realistically all he's done is flap his big silly looking circular mouth and piss a lot of people off.

originally posted by: JBurns
Great news for Israel!

I stand with Trump and our allies in Israel

I was just reading that every president since Clinton has done this very thing.

Apparently, Trump even signed a document postponing the move of the embassy for another 6 months. Which was also done by the presidents mentioned.

I'm not sure how this is really any different than what's been done before.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DJMSN

So you wouldn't have any issue with a foreign country invading America and claiming parts of the East or West coast as their own? What if the Native Americans started their own country somewhere in America and started booting Americans out of their homes saying that they no longer owned them? How would you feel about that?

So you have a problem with Israel existing.

Ok fine.

I could say that this was over half a century ago.

I could say that there have been invesaions and stealing of land by both sides for hundreds of years, so it seems very odd that you set a point arbitraily over 50 years ago and say that the people on that land right then are the real owners, nevermind that their ancestors also took that land from others in the past.

But instead i will just ask you that if you feel that way, then why does where the US has its embassy effect that in anyway whatsoever?

Israel is bad and evil and stole land.

OK.

But evryone is just complacent with that.

Now the US moves an embassy, and NOW its a big deal.