Donald Trump

President-Elect Trump Will Likely Not Oppose Israeli Settlement Expansion in West Bank

Every U.S. president since 1967 has officially opposed settlements as an obstacle to peace.

|

End of the two-state solution?
AdMedia/Newscom

A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump indicated that the next president will not condemn the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank as an "obstacle to peace," according to the Associated Press.

This would be a complete reversal of the avowed policy of every U.S. president since 1967—Democrat and Republican—that for a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians to hold, eventually the latter group would need the land in the still-occupied West Bank to establish a soveriegn homeland.

Jason Greenblatt—executive vice president and chief legal officer with the Trump Organization—also told Israel's Army Radio that he expects Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a controversial move because although Jerusalem is Israel's capital city, it was captured in 1967's Six Day War after being occupied by Jordan since Israel's 1948 founding. Any final agreement over a Palestinian state would also have to include the fate of primarily-Arab East Jerusalem, which is also internationally recognized as occupied by Israel.

Jerusalem Post reports Greenblatt also said Trump "is not going to impose any solution on Israel. He thinks that the peace has to come from the parties themselves. Any meaningful contribution he can offer up, he is there to do, it is not his goal, nor should it be anyone else's goal, to impose peace on the parties."

Trump had once promised to be "neutral" in any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but reversed course after Hillary Clinton jabbed him for being insufficiently pro-Israel.

Like many of Trump's policies, a coherent explanation of what he actually intends to do has not yet been presented, but all indications point to his administration being far more hands-off with regards to the long-dormant Mideast peace process, which one far-right minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government celebrated as the end of any meaningful discussions about the creation of a Palestinian state.

The fact that Israel is approaching 50 years of occupation of the Palestinians speaks to the ineffectiveness of the U.S. in helping to negotiate a meaningful peace. And despite President Obama's prickly relationship with Netanyahu, the outgoing president just gave both Israel and the U.S. military-industrial complex a record-breaking $38 billion subsidy.

Yet, despite the unflinching support of the U.S. for Israel, our government at least maintained the pretense that the ultimate goal was for Israel to have secure borders and peaceful (if always tense) relations with its neighbors, and also self-determination for the Palestinians. It's too early to tell for sure, but that pretense appears likely to end under President Trump.

NEXT: 'There are zero electoral votes in the State of Denial'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The palestinians were offered peace many times. They were offered their own country. They were even offered settlement removal. Time and time again, the Palestinian leadership has insisted on nothing less than the removal of Israel. They don’t want peace.

    1. ^ This

      Bill Clinton spent many months negotiating a peace settlement. When the time came to sign it, Arafat ran away and started an Infatada instead.

      1. Yep. That ended any illusions I had about “Palestinians.”

      2. I had the new crispy bean infitada at TacoTime last night…it’s not that bad.

        1. …though they did skimp a little on the shredded infants.

          1. Fears that Trump is going to shut down PP drove up the price of infant meat futures on the commodity market, so they had to skimp to make up for it

    2. No kidding. Any peace treaty that doesn’t end with Israel driven into the sea is no peace at all to these people.

    3. ^This.

      Fuckem.

    4. Gee, whenever I’ve mentioned that to someone who was trying to tell me that Israel is worse than the nazis, they call me a racist.

      They get really bent out of shape when I point out that if Israelis were actually as evil as they claim, there wouldn’t have been any Palestinians by the mid 1960s.

      -jcr

      1. Ask when they’re signing their land and property over to the nearest indigenous tribe (if they’re American).

        But make sure you don your scoff-n-sputter-proof mask first. Apparently “de-occupation” doesn’t apply to the lands that WE took in war.

        1. Luckily, my Dutch ancestors (including Peter Minuit) paid tribes for their land in NY/NJ/DE, so I’m set as long as I remain in the Mid-Atlantic!

    5. To be fair, what kind of peace deal would mollify us over the annexation of the western US by Canada?

      1. Which states? Because if it’s just Washington, Oregon, California, and maybe Colorado, I’d consider that a favor.

  2. Has U.S. policy opposing settlements actually done anything to prevent them? And if not, why should we care with this reversal? Or are we still interested in internal Middle Eastern affairs?

  3. I assume that US presidential opposition was the only thing holding Israel back. Now they’ll be able to settle the West Bank unopposed.

    1. And I should care…..why?

  4. It is past time that somebody pointed out to the Palestinins taht one of the very few iron laws of history is “When you lose a war, bad things happen to you.”

    1. I like to ask them to point to Prussia on a modern map.

      1. It’s in Poland (mostly).

        Speaking of, the history of poland says a few things about what happens after losing wars…

        1. Usually you get the shaft pole

      2. Carthage is another good country to ask about.

        1. But but violence doesn’t solve anything.

          1. But but violence doesn’t solve anything.

            It stopped the Holocaust.

            1. I know. I was referencing Starship Troopers.

              “My mother said violence never solves anything.” “So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that.”

          1. Although, while so many bitch about the Palestinians, it remains the Assyrians getting reamed to this day by folks ranging from ISIS to Assad to Shiite Iraq…

      3. Last time I checked, the Polish, Lithuanian, etc. governments that now cover the lands that were formerly Prussian territory don’t deny citizenship to ethnic Prussians who continued to live there….

        1. Maybe that’s because the ethnic Germans (including Prussians) were expelled from Poland, Lithuania, etc. after WW2.

    2. Long anecdote, but worth it imo:

      My dad was in Israel with a Palestinian guide who was trying to gin up sympathy due to the “injustice” of checkpoints. Dad remarked, “you lost the war.” When the guide questioned the relevancy of that my dad asked him what would have happened had they won instead. “There would be no Jews… they would all be gone” the guide answered without hesitation.

      Dad said, “If you won all of the Jews would be dead or exiled. The Israelis won and not only are the Palestinians still here, you have West Bank and Gaza to call your own. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving a shit that you are delayed at checkpoints that were erected to stop Palestinian terrorists from blowing up busses filled with civilians.”

      The tour group nodded in agreement and the guide ended his pitch

  5. Reversal of S.O.P. or not, I’m not offended by the idea of the U.S. government staying out of the Middle East’s business.

    1. ^This. As long as it works both ways.

      1. At this point, even this seems unpossible and inlogical.

        I’m not a war hawk by any means, but the ME doesn’t want to be left alone. They, rather adamantly, want the world to actively level the playing field in a way that destroys Israel. Anything short is aligning with Israel. If we declared a DMZ/Trade-Free/No-Go Zone from Turkey to Egypt, large swaths of the ME would still be pissed that we just now became impartial/ceased involvement. The No-Go Zone would quickly swell with explicitly Anti-US elements.

    2. Now to get Israel to stop meddling in the US Congress.

    3. Trump “is not going to impose any solution on Israel. He thinks that the peace has to come from the parties themselves. Any meaningful contribution he can offer up, he is there to do, it is not his goal, nor should it be anyone else’s goal, to impose peace on the parties.”

      This is what “smart diplomacy” actually looks like. It is not up to America to impose “solutions” on other nations.

      1. Then why do we have this big military?

        It’s like you guys don’t even know how to superpower.

        /McCain

      2. “smart diplomacy” means talking down to your own citizens and laughing about it later.

        /Obama

      3. Trump “is not going to impose any solution on Israel. He thinks that the peace has to come from the parties themselves. Any meaningful contribution he can offer up, he is there to do, it is not his goal, nor should it be anyone else’s goal, to impose peace on the parties.”

        If he would have that exact stance wrt to every faction, state, tribe, kingdom, or group in the ME he would have my full support. I’d turn into a Trumpkin.

        1. Yeah, let the crazy fuckers kill each other if they want to.

  6. OT: Who is really to blame for Trump? According to an article in The Intercept, it’s apparently Facebook.

    Let’s ignore the fact that the media that people are supposed to respect was full up with manipulative pro-Clinton hogwash that, according to the Wikileaks email dumps, shows that it was coming straight out of Hillary’s campaign and the DNC. Of course people are going to turn to alternate “news” sources where the narrative can’t be controlled, and they’ll seek out nonsense that fits their own narrative. The MSM has done this to itself. Nobody knows who to trust anymore because the media sold its credibility to one political party.

    1. You could have just said, “Sam Biddle”

      1. True. It’s sad that The Intercept, which has done a pretty good job disseminating leaks in a comprehensible fashion for the masses in the past, is now encouraging invisible systems of control.

        He’s actively advocating for Facebook to change their algorithms to force those terrible rightist Trump supporters to have to deal with the inundation of MSM left-flavored spin. Yes, that will go over really well. Those people are specifically avoiding the left’s more popular bubble in favor of their own bubble as a reaction to it.

        We need to shove those tendrils deeper if we’re going to bring those people into the fold. Can you believe it that there are places where people don’t even have telescreens? Let us all turn our attention to the telescreen as Big Brother leads us in our two-minutes hate. Donald Trump is Emmanuel Goldstein. He was always Emmanuel Goldstein.

        I’m not a Trump supporter, but god damn this shrill screeching from the left. The man is not a demon from hell. He’s a flawed human being. It’s OK to dislike his policies. It’s OK to dislike him. It is NOT OK to decide that it warrants deeply manipulative intrusion in people’s lives to proselytize to them. They already knew you were doing that and rejected it. If you want people to start trusting your “news” again, stop spinning it. Hire journalists that are more representative of the public they serve. All of the public. Not just the parts you like.

        1. True. It’s sad that The Intercept, which has done a pretty good job disseminating leaks in a comprehensible fashion for the masses in the past, is now encouraging invisible systems of control.

          I agree.

          But, maybe stealing a line from Hugh below… The Intercept is not = Sam Biddle. He’s retarded, most some people there are …. less so.

          They do occasionally write some epic ‘tardery, tho. I appreciate them for their contribution as “the intellectually-honest voice of leftism”, who are willing to criticize the Democrat establishment for their moral hypocrisy and corruption…. their generally good-take on civil liberties issues…. But, being hardcore lefties, they still have some gigantic fucking blind spots. Particularly re: anything “Corporate”. They don’t really believe in market-solutions.

          1. Yep, someone tried to sell me on The Intercept being balanced and fair to both sides. That’s how the left internalizes its own bias. They can’t even see it anymore.

            It’s not rose-colored glasses that these people wear anymore. No, their parents went to the family geneticist so their kids could be born with rose-colored eyes.

    2. There is one phenomena that I think needs to be examined. Right now, people are afraid to express their opinions, especially on social media, for fear of generating a shit storm of criticism. That’s a major reason why the polls were so wrong. People are keeping their “socially unacceptable” opinions to themselves.

      1. I doubt that the pollsters left the cities to find out what rural America wanted. That’s “deplorable land” where no sane liberal ought ever go. You might be mobbed by the people and they’ll bake you an apple pie and give you a cup of coffee and talk to you about Jesus for a couple of hours, which is super annoying but hardly threatening.

        It’s like they’ve gotten so used to the radicals on their own side attacking people who don’t agree with them and burning cities in mobs that they never even seem to notice that the same kind of shit doesn’t happen in small towns. They project their fears of violence onto others. Those backwards country bumpkins tend to internalize their anger rather than mob you and burn area businesses and overturn+firebomb police cruisers. But the left sees men in white hoods, burning crosses, and blacks strung up in trees whenever they peer outside of their ivory towers. They see oppressed women bare-footed and pregnant living in a squalid shack with sixteen children underfoot. They see a people lovingly stroking their guns and plotting overthrow of the government and all the right-thinkers in it.

        1. There is a huge divide between the politics of an area with intense population density versus those who live outside those tight spaces. Those on the left are completely, 100% unaware of those rural concerns and expect a one size fits all solution based on their own experience while completely writing off other opinions based on lived experience.

          Ultimately, there isn’t even a reason for it since both can coexist but the left has absolutely turned a deaf ear towards any differing opinions on what National policy should be. Why the left feels that the entire nation needs to suffer under laws and ideals intended for those in densely packed urban sprawls continually escapes me.

          A perfect example of this is the idea of a National minimum wage. It ignores the fact that purchasing power is widely disparate all over the United States, and that many municipal and state governments can do what they will within their own borders. Why push for a National minimum wage in area’s that are full of people they deplore anyway? For their own good? Hardly. They clearly don’t give a shit about that, so it must be about the power they wish to wield. The roots of Progressivism give away their morally bankrupt posturing, in my humble opinion.

          1. A perfect example of this is the idea of a National minimum wage. It ignores the fact that purchasing power is widely disparate all over the United States, and that many municipal and state governments can do what they will within their own borders.

            San Franciscans would be floored if they found out how much real estate the dollars they spend on renting an apartment that they share with roommates would buy in rural Kansas.

      2. Then you should change your opinion!

        /sjw

  7. What’s the nature of the Opposition ?

    I certainly don’t like the U.S. going a round telling other countries what to do for the “greater good”

    Sounds like more globalism bull.

    1. globalism

      this is becoming the new “Cuck” in terms of give-away

      1. Is it a low-price give-away?? Cuz I like those.

        *Picks nose*

  8. Of course not. His agenda is to instigate strife with arabs to justify a ‘surprise’ nuke attack on North Africa.

    1. “Pay attention to meee!” the troll explained.

    2. Asshole, I will bet you $1 Trillion US Dollars, payable the day after the nuclear strike, that there will be no nuclear attacks by the US under Trump’s watch.

      If you lose, you owe me $1,000 on the new president’s inaugration day.

    3. Hijacked! Let’s talk about the Battle of Tripoli, when Americans kicked the shit out of the Mohatmans.

        1. The crusades were led by racist, imperialist, xenophobic Americans. Duh. learned that in public school

        2. Doesn’t count, because no Murica.

    4. Isn’t most of North Africa nothing except one gigantic stretch of desert, otherwise known as the Sahara? Why would Trump even bother nuking an area of land with exactly fuck all on it? Even when you consider places like Egypt, why the fuck would Trump nuke them? Or anyone? It would be like nuking the 15th century: we don’t need to do that. One Abrams tank division could conquer the entire region on it’s own for a fraction of the cost and international outcry.

      1. Back when the Romans ran the place it was fairly fertile – aqueducts and irrigation, roads, and laws requiring olive trees maintained along routes. All that collapsed a generation after the Mohhameds took over.

        1. Yeah, but then later on those same people invented modern math so…what’s your point other than history sucks and North Africa is basically a shit hole in the modern era due to nothing humanity could have controlled or caused?

          1. The Romans didn’t know math? I learn something new everyday here.

            1. The Romans didn’t know about a ton of stuff that seems obvious today, double-entry bookkeeping for example. And of course Roman numerals are a really inefficient system.

              Persians did a lot of good word advancing algebra. North Africa less so, instead they just produced an extremely influential political theorist and economist who developed the pre-cursor to the Laffer Curve.

              Also, his definition of government is solid: “An institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself”

            2. You didn’t know that Muslims “invented modern math?”

              And that it was twice as delicious and nutritious as all that useless agriculture that disappeared?

              How un-woke.

              1. ^Boom. As a Latin teacher my heart feel warm to see somebody get rhetorically nuked like this for shitting on the Romans 😀

                +1 gratias tibi ago

        2. True, but that’s superimposed on a long-term climate change that’d gone on since the Mediterranean opened to the Atlantic.

        3. Nope, North Africa was in decline way before that, even before the Vandals carved out their little kingdom. There was a big climate shift between the 2nd and 4th centuries that caused a lot of damage in Europe and North Africa. Sorry, Muslims don’t magically show up and destroy everything good and beautiful in a generation.

          Now, you want to talk about the failure of irrigation systems in Mesopotamia, that’s totally the locals’ fault.

      2. That tank division would have hella bad fuel supply issues tho. Those things drink fuel like drunken soldiers swill rum…to mix metaphors er services a bit. I guess if it was a Marine tank division my original thought stays on track – metaphor wise. Get it? On track. I kill myself.

        1. I’d think tank fuel supply issues would be easier to control for than nuking anyplace you care to point at on a globe. We do that, and basically the entire world would turn into the biggest shit storm humanity could imagine. Something tells me that anyone saying that any American President would honestly nuke anywhere is entirely speaking from their nether orifice. If nuclear armed countries in the Middle East can restrain themselves from ending humanity I’m pretty sure the most advanced nation on Earth can do the same no matter what retard happens to be leader at the time.

          This is already more of a response thread than Dajjal deserves though. It’s just a sock puppet with no intention of actual conversation.

      3. If Emperor Trump wants to restore the Roman Empire, he’ll eventually need Duchy of Tunis and Duchy of Alexandria in North Africa.

        But maybe he should work on reclaiming the Anatolia and Thrakia first. We need the capital back in Constantinople where it belongs.

      4. Can’t tell if serious, but the Sahara is a tad South.

        IIRC, global warming models predict rainfall in the Sahara, which was once the home of ancient civilizations. Before it dried up.

        1. ^ Sorry, but there is nearly zero archaeological evidence for any human civilization ever inhabiting the Sahara except for scattered nomadic tribesmen (i.e. hardly the “home of ancient civilizations”). Were you thinking instead of Mesopotamia or something like that?

  9. “Greenblatt also said Trump “is not going to impose any solution on Israel. He thinks that the peace has to come from the parties themselves. ”

    This.

    1. “Let the locals sort it out” is almost always the best solution.

  10. Every U.S. president since 1967 has officially opposed settlements as an obstacle to peace.

    And wow look at the huge effect it had.

    1. American foreign policy for the middle east sure has been a boon for peace and stability there.

  11. Greenblatt also said Trump “is not going to impose any solution on Israel. He thinks that the peace has to come from the parties themselves. Any meaningful contribution he can offer up, he is there to do, it is not his goal, nor should it be anyone else’s goal, to impose peace on the parties.”

    Oh, so now he’s got people out there saying completely sensible stuff? WHAT GAME ARE YOU PLAYING, TRUMP?

    1. The more Trump says (and acts as if) he doesn’t give a fuck, the better off we all are. Hopefully he’s just as disinterested in domestic matters.

  12. Haredim votes Republican now. So it’s a conspiracy.

  13. Wow, Trump is so anti-Jew that he’s giving them what they’ve wanted from the get go.

    What an anti-Semite he is.

    /sarc

    1. Aren’t both parties in this conflict Semitic people?

      1. It depends how broad you want to be with that definition, but the quick answer is ‘no’.

    2. He loves The Jews. They’re very smart. They do his taxes.

      1. And one of them married his daughter. And she converted.

        -jcr

  14. There is not going to be any Palestinian state. The Palestinians are incapable of creating or maintaining a functioning state.

  15. So we’re going to cease sticking our nose in their business? Fine by me. Hopefully that principle will drive the rest of our foreign policy as well.

  16. Wait…. WAIT A MINUTE…..

    I have it on good authority that all of the Jews were going to be persecuted under President P-Grab. What is this?

    1. Luring them into a false sense of security, like Hitler.

  17. I don’t know why I’m posting this, but I’m doing it anyway. Old article, by the way:

    Abedin: Can you hang up the fax line? They will call again and try fax.

    Clinton: I thought it was supposed to be off hook to work?

    Abedin: Yes, but hang up one more time. So they can reestablish the line.

    Clinton: I did.

    Abedin: Just pick up phone and hang it up. And leave it hung up.

    Clinton: I’ve done it twice now. Still nothing.

    =========

    Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows [S]ingh is at 8?

    Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her.

    Abedin: Very imp[ortant] to do that. She’s often confused.

    This is the woman who’s the most qualified presidential candidate in History.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news…..on-adviser

  18. I am wondering if Trump drains the swamp, cuts federal regs, cuts taxes, appoints relatively good SC justices etc etc how much screeching and squawking we will get from Reason about how he is the devil.

    1. This article is pretty weird. You’d think wanting to get out of other countries business would be something Reason would celebrate.

      1. Just out of curiosity, do the morons who see RAISIN as an undifferentiated monolith see it as a man or a woman? I need to know which pronoun to use.

        1. There are no female libertarians, so obviously male.

        2. The editorial staff do direct content. That’s how a publication can manage to claim to be something like a “libertarian magazine” or a “progressive magazine” or a “economics newsletter” or whatever the case my be.

          There are editorial decisions being made at Reason, including hiring and firing.

        3. The editorial staff do direct content. That’s how a publication can manage to claim to be something like a “libertarian magazine” or a “progressive magazine” or a “economics newsletter” or whatever the case my be.

          There are editorial decisions being made at Reason, including hiring and firing.

      2. No, because reasons. And Trump.

        1. That is what I expect.

  19. What does “stopping settlements” mean? Legally preventing Jews from developing land that nobody is using. Why would either the USA or libertarians want to side with stopping settlements?

    1. Nobody is using? Otherwise know as private property??.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00482.html

      1. That kind of goes back to when you lose a war, bad things happen.

        1. That is actually the most honest rationalization.. Hearing people say there was nobody there and Israel just created a state when they found some empty, unused space is really just detached from reality..

          1. I think that every single nation state border was determined by a war. (please don’t get pedantic about coast lines)

            We went to war with Britain, Spain and Mexico to determine our borders and territories. We fought a war with Japan over pacific islands.

            Why the hell would Israel be any different?

  20. It is really just being intellectually honest about America’s position. Hillary’s private position even refered to this as a Potemkin peace process.

    Fact, is two state solution has been dead for years but never admitted to.\

    I just don’t know what the Israeli’s are going to do with Gaza and West bank forever. Allow them to be citizens? definitely not. Just Nakba number two and force march them into Jordan and the Sinai? Might be hard to get away with this day in age. It just seems they said, meh, status quo and we’ll just go with that until we can’t.

    1. Allow them to be citizens?

      That is the libertarian solution.

        1. They lost a war with Jordan. They don’t get to be Jordanian.

          1. The Confederacy lost a war against the U.S., they still get to be U.S. citizens.

            1. The Confederacy lost a war against the U.S., they still get to be were forced to remain U.S. citizens.

              FTFY

    2. Israel doesn’t have to do anything about Gaza; they aren’t occupying it, except in the fantasies of morons. It’s a de facto independent state that is at war with Israel. If the Hamas regime wants to end the war, they can send the Israelis their unconditional surrender any time they choose.

  21. Seriously, people should seriously just stfu about Israel.

    After 8 years of Obama, the US basically has zero fucking pull with who should (in theory) be one of our strongest allies. They haven’t answered John Kerry’s phone calls for like 3 years now.

    Anyone who claims to give a wet-fart about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should take a look at the history of US diplomacy in the region and ask what exactly we’ve gained *ourselves**

    (*which, in my opinion, is the only rational-guide for foreign relations – not what’s ‘best for others’, but what’s ‘best for ourselves’)

    Either we should stop giving them money to buy US weapons, or we accept that they’re our ally and stop trying to micromanage them via Washington. The false-pretense of trying to be an intermediary has gained us nothing but contempt, and undermined our diplomatic credibility.

    1. I attribute a lot of our meddling in Israel to our long standing relationships with the Saudis, Jordan and Egypt, our supposed Arab allies who supposedly assist in maintaining the peace and keeping that sweet sweet crude flowing.

      Trump is signaling to them as much as Israel that the equation just changed.

    2. Additionally, this alignment of interests developed during the Cold War when our number one priority was limiting Soviet influence in the ME. Since the fall of the USSR, the entire arrangement has been suspect.

  22. From my libertarian perspective, Trump’s positions as described in this article are great.

    Foreign policy was one of the few areas where I kind of liked Trump. I was just never sure what we would actually get. This is the first time that it seems like he is doing what he said he would do.

  23. Every U.S. president since 1967 has officially opposed settlements as an obstacle to peace.

    And yet years of presidential sanctimony has done what for the peace process? Foreign meddling actually hinders the peace process. There should be neither support nor opposition for the state of Israel. Engage in relations with them and regard their own policy problems as theirs, not ours.

    The two state solution is doomed to failure anyways, that is unless you’re talking about the real two state solution, that of Jordan (which is Palestine) and Israel.

    1. Jordan (which is Palestine)

      Not geographically.

      Israel = Palestine (mostly). The name “Palestine” stems from the Roman Emperor Hadrian renaming Judea into Syria Palaestina (i.e., Philistine Syria) when the Jews got upset that he gentrified (from his perspective) Jerusalem, in part by destroying their temples (which were still in bad shape from the last time the Jews fought the Romans) and replacing them with pagan ones.

      Jordan was Transjordan, i.e. “across the Jordan River (from Palestine)”.

      1. If you’re citing Roman Emperors, you’re going way too far back to be talking about the “legitimacy” of modern state boarders. Same goes for ultra-orthodox Jewish revanchists that cite King Herod in their territorial claims.

        The fact is, there was a two state solution when a former province of the Ottoman Empire known to us as the Mandate of Palestine was carved out of a province of the collapsed Empire. ‘Trans-Jordan’ was a term referring to as you say, the portion of the Mandate to the east of the Jordan River. The mandate was to be divided into a Jewish State and an Arab state. Jordan is Palestine in all but name. Those dinky little exclaves we now call Palestine ought to have been absorbed into Israel and everything east of the Jordan river ought have been regarded as Palestine as per the mandate. But you know, shit went sideways and the Arab players shunned the two state solution very early on. Jordan is Palestine even if it makes political hay to call it something else.

        1. Debunking the Palestine Lie
          A brief video, worth a watch. Provides a nice summation of what I’m talking about.

        2. The British mandate was a misnomer, though. Palestine only referred to the lands east of the Jordan before WWI happened and the League of Nations got involved.

          1. Palestine only referred to the lands WEST of the Jordan

            1. I agree that today, for all purposes, “Palestine” refers to land west of the Jordan. But the British mandate included all of what is now Jordan and the whole of the mandate was for “Palestine.”

              Read the text of the mandate to see for yourself: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20t…..lmanda.asp

              In 1922 the British (Winston Churchill, specifically) separated the east bank from Palestine, designated it “Trans-Jordan” and created a Hashemite kingdom in it. The mandate effectively allowed them to do this (see Article 25). But afterwards they repeatedly violated the terms of the mandate in what was left of Palestine.

  24. Excellent article. Good points on all Trump’s mistaken ideas.

    They may get what they voted for.

  25. Every U.S. president since 1967 has officially opposed settlements as an obstacle to peace.

    And how’s that worked out for you folks so far?

  26. “President-Elect Trump Will Likely Not Oppose Israeli Settlement Expansion in West Bank” Good. If you’re against the “lines in the sand” process and its results then you have to renounce the so-called “Palestinians” who are a product of that process. They are Philistines but not _the_ Philistines. These violent poseurs are the obstacle to peace.

  27. The article is misleading in at least implying that all of Jerusalem was captured by Israel in the Six Day War. West Jerusalem, where the US embassy would certainly be located, has been under Israeli control since the country was founded. US policy has been not to recognize even that part of Jerusalem as Israeli, as was demonstrated in the recent Supreme Court case involving the child who was born in West Jerusalem and whose parents wanted his passport to say that he was born in “Israel.” The State Department uses “Jerusalem” without a country as the place of birth for such people. It’s a ridiculous fiction since the legal status of West Jerusalem is in doubt only to those who will never accept any state of Israel.

  28. “Every U.S. president since 1967 has officially opposed settlements as an obstacle to peace.”

    And look at how much peace has broken out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.