9 thoughts on “Trump’s Bankruptcy Lawyer to be New U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Kahanists Now Control U.S.-Israel Relations – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. [Comment deleted: major comment rule violation. Comments must be DIRECTLY RELATED to the post on which they comment. Nor will I permit comments claiming this blog should deal with subjects outside the ones which are the focus of this blog]

  2. The current U.S. ambassador is no prize himself. The fact is that the Obama administration has been the greatest friend to Israel and its reactionary policies, even if reluctantly so. Obama has done nothing for Palestinians, and his time in office has been nothing but a boon for Israeli occupation. His ambassador was a rubber stamp for Israeli entrenchment in the Occupied Territories ((I literally cannot recall even a single occasion he ever criticized Israel). Now that the Trump administration is about to take office, a refreshing new path is being forged for Israel and Palestine – one that does away with the pretense of the two-state-solution and moves headstrong towards the one-state-solution.

    I say to the new ambassador – welcome!

    1. @ Danny: Only an Israeli could write the cynical tripe you’ve just written. I assume & hope that your comment is meant ironically. But with Israelis, you can never tell.

      The problem with Friedman’s one state solution is that it offers Palestinians nothing. They have no guarantees under a one state solution that they will become citizens in that state. Certainly Friedman & his fellow Kahanists will never permit this.

      So where does that leave you? You think the world will unify against Israel as they did against South Africa & demand an end to apartheid? That they’ll sanction Israel as they did S. Africa? Even if they did, Israel is in a much stronger position financially than S. Africa was then.

      So it could work & it might not. If it doesn’t, then you may guarantee yourself 100 years of Middle Eastern apartheid.

  3. “There will be riots. Not just in Jenin or Ramallah. But in Beirut, Damascus, Cairo.”

    If you are making this argument, then an important city is missing here: Amman.
    Riots in Jenin and Ramallah is something Israel can contain, and the US needn’t worry about (except perhaps evacuating the diplomatic personnel in those cities, if there is any). Riots in Cairo would be Al-Sisi’s problem, and he can deal with it (as a not-quite-benign dictator which he is). Beirut, and the Lebanese politics in general, focus mainly on other issues, and the situation in Jerusalem is unlikely to produce a radical change there. Damascus is hardly worth mention in this context given the bloodbath in Syria.
    But Amman is different. Jordan is a stable Arab state, whose king is considered the guardian of the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem. If the US makes a move perceived as recognition of Jerusalem as an exclusively Jewish city, King Abdullah of Jordan will be the first Arab leader to be hurt by popular rage. Jordan is also a key state with regard to preserving what has been left of security and stability in the Middle East. It has absorbed millions of immigrants from the wars in Iraq and Syria (with only a limited international aid, unfortunately), and it has a long border with Israel. Let the Hashemite regime fall, and ISIS with its affiliates will be sitting along the border of Israel and of the Palestinian territories. I don’t think anyone in Trump’s team has given a damn thought to this possibility.

    1. I’m not sure why you think its OK to give a “kosher stamp” to violence in response to a symbolic political act. They same holds true for the religious cartoons, etc.

      1. @ Yehuda: Oh you are funny today! Moving the embassy is as much “a symbolic political act” as Sharon’s “visit” to the Haram al Sharif was. As much as the first tent pitched by an Israeli Jewish settler in the West Bank after the 67 War. As much as the continuing illegal outposts are symbolic political acts.

        Of course there will be violence when the embassy moves to Jerusalem. Massive violence on a world scale. In which not only Arabs & Muslims will die, but Jews as well. In both Israel & the Diaspora.

  4. “What exactly is the ‘rational argument’ favoring moving the embassy to Jerusalem? C’mon it’s just a building. And we’re building it in West Jerusalem on good, ol’ Jewish-owned land (well, Jewish now, but before 1948…ah who the hell cares?)”

    Indeed, what exactly the problem with having the embassy in west Jerusalem? West Jerusalem is not more “occupied territory” than Tel-Aviv is. In fact, yes, Most of west Jeruslaem was indeed Jewish (In terms of having Jewish inhabitants) before 1948. Mishkenot Sha’ananim was built already in 1880, when Jews started live outside of the walls of the old city. What is the problem with having the Embassy there? or in Mahane Israel built in 1888?

    1. @ Amico:

      what exactly the problem with having the embassy in west Jerusalem?

      You are indeed obtuse. If the U.S. can move its embassy to west Jerusalem let’s also demand the U.S. build an embassy in Palestine in, shall we say, East Jerusalem? If not, let’s demand the new embassy serve the interests equally of the states of Israel AND Palestine. Or better yet, let’s change the embassy mission to serve the unified state of Israel-Palestine.

      So when you’re willing to accept that reciprocity then come back to us & we can talk. Till then, stop the drivel. It embarrasses you & us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link