The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Remus West]

Not everyone protesting is a terrorist.

Sure, they're just trying to breach the border. But even if they were all completely peaceful is no reason to agree to their demands. Whether or not moving the embassy is the right thing, the opinion of a third party is irrelevant.

(Ironically, the embassy isn't the motivation for why these protests started when they did, a couple of months ago - they started protesting because they want to "return" to what is now Israel, hence why their stated aim is to breach the border).

I never said that their opinion was relevant but it is. It is but only is so much as it should be weighed when making our decision.

I agree with Rip that it should have been done when the legislation was passed given the information available to us but it wasn't done for a reason based on the information given each POTUS between then and now. Both parties had the chance to do it and neither followed through - all stating national security interests. So why is it the right thing to do if multiple Presidents thought it not the right thing? What have we gained compared to what we have lost.

[El Guapo]

Not everyone protesting is a terrorist. Although the numbers of them will certainly grow due to today's events. So I ask again. Given the cost why is it the right thing? If you can not come back to me with something better than "we traditionally have our embassy in the nation's capital" then you're losing. What have we gained through this move? What have we lost?

We've certainly lost any sort of status as a neutral arbiter or facilitator in the peace process. I can't see what we've gained, though.

Favor with evangelical zealots/idiots who couldn't care less about Israel, except inasmuch as it's a step along to road to their end times prophecy. The Jeffress crowd is over the moon today.

What I would say is that we basically know the rough countours of what a negotiated two-state framework would look like. There would be a Palestinian state encompassing 95%+ of the West Bank and Gaza (with some negotiated land swaps), probably including East Jerusalem as its capital, and essentially no right of return for Palestinians to Israel proper, and the rest of Israel would remain as a Jewish state. Working from that as an end point, we should do what we can to shape events towards that ultimate destination, and push back on each sides' maximalist ambitions that contravene that ultimate reality. I'm fine with moving the embassy to West Jerusalem because that's 100% consistent with that ultimate two-state framework. On top of that, anything that makes it crystal clear to Palestinians that they are never getting West Jerusalem as part of a Palestinian state - that's just not on the table and never will be, and the sooner they come to terms with that the better.

Now, what the Trump administration should be doing more of is leaning on Israel to impede West Bank settlement expansion as much as possible, because that is contrary to the ultimate two-state resolution, and only makes a two-state agreement harder to negotiate.

Ideally the embassy move would be accompanied by some type of move to make clear to the Palestinians that the U.S. supports a Palestinian state including East Jerusalem as its capital.

That sounds rational, though I'm not sure that clarity is something we've "gained" rather than made more difficult. In either case, I wish I thought the Trump administration had given the whole thing 1/10 of that amount of forethought :/

Question though - I'm not particularly well-versed on the specifics of the Jerusalem issue, but what makes West Jerusalem and a right of return non-negotiable? Is it a security issue, or a cultural/religious issue?

West Jerusalem is not on the table because it's overwhelmingly Jewish / non-Palestinian in population, and because of historical / cultural issues (Jerusalem as the historic Jewish capital and center of Jewish life).

Right of return is not on the table because (depending on how the right of return is defined) it would threaten to undermine or destroy Israel's future as a Jewish state / homeland. If Israel is going to agree to give up the West Bank (which is also part of the traditionally / religiously defined Jewish homeland), and also presents MASSIVE security issues for Israel, the essential thing that it would have to get in return is a guarantee of its continued and perpetual existence as the Jewish state.

[Defiant]

What El Guapo is describing is the basics of the Clinton Parameters and some of the other talks, which you can look at to get a more detailed look at roughly what it would entail. (It would also have given Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to a Palestinian state and Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to Israel, or various variations on that theme.)

Question though - I'm not particularly well-versed on the specifics of the Jerusalem issue, but what makes West Jerusalem and a right of return non-negotiable? Is it a security issue, or a cultural/religious issue?

West Jerusalem was never under Jordanian control the way East Jerusalem was when it was captured in 1967, so in theory it shouldn't be in dispute any more than Tel Aviv or Haifa. (with regards to religious issues, all the major religious sites in Jerusalem are in East Jerusalem)

With regards to the Right of Return, aside from that people haven't had such a right in other conflicts, the way the proposals put it was that there would be a Right of Return to the Palestinian state, and that, in addition to that, there would be a monetary fund to give some compensation to refugees from both sides, and that there would be some defined number of Palestinians allowed into Israel for the purposes of family reunification.

[Defiant]

I agree with Rip that it should have been done when the legislation was passed given the information available to us but it wasn't done for a reason based on the information given each POTUS between then and now.

I would have either done it at the time Arafat failed to compromise or offer counterproposals during the talks, as Clinton seriously considered doing (but with his term almost over, ultimately deciding to give the decision to his successor), or when Israel pulled out of Gaza. In other words, either as a stick for the Palestinian leadership, or as a Carrot for the Israeli leadership.

So why is it the right thing to do if multiple Presidents thought it not the right thing?

And what makes all those congresspeople wrong, though? And Presidents are allowed to have differences of opinions.

Some of us think it's historically just to recognize a countries capital. Others of us think it's a good countermeasure to Obama's last minute tacit approval of that last UN resolution (which denounced any Israeli presence in Eastern Jerusalem, which would have run counter to Clinton's proposal that would have split up Eastern Jerusalem's neighborhoods and holy sites based on whether they were Arab or Israeli). And some simply think it's realism.

You can disagree with the decision (And you can absolutely disagree with how it's carried out). That's ok - it's not a matter of fact but of opinion and judgement. But it's one for Trump, for all his faults, to decide.

[Zarathud]

Presumably this will peel some American Jews away from the D Party, too. That's what I thought was the motive, anyway.

Doubtful that would be a major motive. Even if you had seen an unheard of massive shift of, say, 15%, that would still be a tiny, tiny amount, since Jews aren't a very big constituency.

It's not about the votes. It's about the money.

[geezer]

What El Guapo is describing is the basics of the Clinton Parameters and some of the other talks, which you can look at to get a more detailed look at roughly what it would entail. (It would also have given Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to a Palestinian state and Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to Israel, or various variations on that theme.)

Question though - I'm not particularly well-versed on the specifics of the Jerusalem issue, but what makes West Jerusalem and a right of return non-negotiable? Is it a security issue, or a cultural/religious issue?

West Jerusalem was never under Jordanian control the way East Jerusalem was when it was captured in 1967, so in theory it shouldn't be in dispute any more than Tel Aviv or Haifa. (with regards to religious issues, all the major religious sites in Jerusalem are in East Jerusalem)

With regards to the Right of Return, aside from that people haven't had such a right in other conflicts, the way the proposals put it was that there would be a Right of Return to the Palestinian state, and that, in addition to that, there would be a monetary fund to give some compensation to refugees from both sides, and that there would be some defined number of Palestinians allowed into Israel for the purposes of family reunification.

Thanks (and thanks El G too). I appreciate the outline.

[Pyperkub]

Assholes.

Scott Pruitt’s EPA and the White House sought to block publication of a federal health study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis, after one Trump administration aide warned it would cause a "public relations nightmare," newly disclosed emails reveal.

The intervention early this year — not previously disclosed — came as HHS' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry was preparing to publish its assessment of a class of toxic chemicals that has contaminated water supplies near military bases, chemical plants and other sites from New York to Michigan to West Virginia.

The study would show that the chemicals endanger human health at a far lower level than EPA has previously called safe, according to the emails.

“The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge,” one unidentified White House aide said in an email forwarded on Jan. 30 by James Herz, a political appointee who oversees environmental issues at the OMB. The email added: “The impact to EPA and [the Defense Department] is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.”

So bury it. That will make it go away.

[Holman]

The so-called leaks coming out of the White House are a massive over exaggeration put out by the Fake News Media in order to make us look as bad as possible. With that being said, leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they are!

This is nuts.

[Defiant]

Presumably this will peel some American Jews away from the D Party, too. That's what I thought was the motive, anyway.

Doubtful that would be a major motive. Even if you had seen an unheard of massive shift of, say, 15%, that would still be a tiny, tiny amount, since Jews aren't a very big constituency.

It's not about the votes. It's about the money.

That guy already votes and donates to Rs.

[Rip]

Presumably this will peel some American Jews away from the D Party, too. That's what I thought was the motive, anyway.

Doubtful that would be a major motive. Even if you had seen an unheard of massive shift of, say, 15%, that would still be a tiny, tiny amount, since Jews aren't a very big constituency.

It's not about the votes. It's about the money.

Because most of the money behind the D party belongs to Jews?

[Pyperkub]

Presumably this will peel some American Jews away from the D Party, too. That's what I thought was the motive, anyway.

Doubtful that would be a major motive. Even if you had seen an unheard of massive shift of, say, 15%, that would still be a tiny, tiny amount, since Jews aren't a very big constituency.

It's not about the votes. It's about the money.

Because most of the money behind the D party belongs to Jews?

When Rip goes over the line...

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Now the ZTE deal all makes sense...

WH spokesman declines comment on Trump’s family company seeking Chinese government funding for Indonesia project on grounds that the company is “a private organization”

[Defiant]

The so-called leaks coming out of the White House are a massive over exaggeration put out by the Fake News Media in order to make us look as bad as possible. With that being said, leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they are!

This is nuts.

The leaks are exaggeration, but the leakers are traitors who will get caught?

[Kurth]

Presumably this will peel some American Jews away from the D Party, too. That's what I thought was the motive, anyway.

Doubtful that would be a major motive. Even if you had seen an unheard of massive shift of, say, 15%, that would still be a tiny, tiny amount, since Jews aren't a very big constituency.

It's not about the votes. It's about the money.

Because most of the money behind the D party belongs to Jews?

When Rip goes over the line...

In Rip's defense, I don't think he's putting that old canard forward. He's asking if that's the intent of the previous post, and, if it is, pointing out that it's bullshit. At least, that's what I think is going on here.

[geezer]

Now the ZTE deal all makes sense...

WH spokesman declines comment on Trump’s family company seeking Chinese government funding for Indonesia project on grounds that the company is “a private organization”

I can't believe there's a single person that thinks this doesn't matter - Trumpaloos really are some special kind of grossly stupid. Of course I could say the same about the buried HHS report on toxicity, but a chunk of my fellow Americans think that's fine too, I'm sure. We're so screwed.

[Rip]

Presumably this will peel some American Jews away from the D Party, too. That's what I thought was the motive, anyway.

Doubtful that would be a major motive. Even if you had seen an unheard of massive shift of, say, 15%, that would still be a tiny, tiny amount, since Jews aren't a very big constituency.

It's not about the votes. It's about the money.

Because most of the money behind the D party belongs to Jews?

When Rip goes over the line...

In Rip's defense, I don't think he's putting that old canard forward. He's asking if that's the intent of the previous post, and, if it is, pointing out that it's bullshit. At least, that's what I think is going on here.

Winnar!

[LordMortis]

Now the ZTE deal all makes sense...

WH spokesman declines comment on Trump’s family company seeking Chinese government funding for Indonesia project on grounds that the company is “a private organization”

I can't believe there's a single person that thinks this doesn't matter - Trumpaloos really are some special kind of grossly stupid. Of course I could say the same about the buried HHS report on toxicity, but a chunk of my fellow Americans think that's fine too, I'm sure. We're so screwed.

When Trump finds the spokesperson he plans to pursue charges of treason for leaking information to the fake news media.

[Rip]

In 1992, Bill Clinton proclaimed: “Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain an undivided city accessible to all.”

Likewise, George Bush campaigned on moving the embassy.

“As soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital,’’ Bush said in 2000.

Running in 2008, Barack Obama also promised to move the embassy.

“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, and I have said that before, and I will say it again," Obama said. "And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Trump too promised on the campaign trail to move the embassy: “We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. (Cheering and Applause) ... Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise they failed to deliver. Today I am delivering. I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement.”

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Just to point out the (what I thought) was obvious: Obama and Clinton saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel does not equal wanting to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

[LordMortis]

blah blah blah

we are negotiating with China and my personal relationship with President Xi.

Treasonous leaker of fake news we will find him!

Make Trump Great Again!

So he makes his business backroom business deals through Hary Tanroe but fake news because it's not about the profits of Trump brand in China and indoesia it's really about "my personal relationship with President Xi."

Word.... Hard....

Day after day after day you can't make this stuff up. And support digs their heels in. Or click them together with right arm raised high, I'm not sure which.

I remember thinking the generalization of deplorable was extreme. It's hard to think back and swallow my pride and see how right she was.

[Holman]

This article on Trump's media consumption habits and especially on his relationship to Sean Hannity is a chilling must-read.

Senior staffers worried about this pattern of behavior: By the time his day was formally under way with the daily intelligence briefing in the Oval Office — scheduled as late as 11 a.m. — the whole world was often thrown off course, wondering whether there were “tapes” of his conversations with a fired FBI director (May 12, 2017, 8:26 a.m.) or if a TV host had been “bleeding badly from a face-lift” at Mar-a-Lago (June 29, 2017, 8:58 a.m.).

With the hope of calming him down, then–chief of staff Reince Priebus and then–press secretary Sean Spicer began a subtle campaign. “It got to the point that they were just like, ‘We need to get him off these channels and onto Fox & Friends or else we’re going to be chasing down this crazy-train bullshit from MSNBC and CNN all day,’ ” one former White House official said.

Like all other ideas, this had the highest chance of implementation if Trump believed he’d thought of it on his own. Priebus and Spicer worked talking points about the network’s high ratings and importance to his base of supporters into conversation until, eventually, it stuck, so that the president’s television consumption is today what the current White House official called “mainly a complete dosage of Fox.” The former official added, “Trump’s someone who loves praise more than he likes hate-watching Morning Joe.”

But the current official acknowledged that it has created a different set of problems: “Sometimes on Fox, a lot of stories are embellished, and they don’t necessarily cover the big news stories of the day. When they cover the smaller stories, if that gets the president riled up, then that becomes an issue. Whenever he tweets, all of us do a mad dash or mad scramble to find out as much information about that random topic as possible. We’re used to it in a lot of ways, so it’s part of our morning routine.”

Also: Trump talks to Sean Hannity on the phone every night.

Every. Night.

[Holman]

[raydude]

Assholes.

Scott Pruitt’s EPA and the White House sought to block publication of a federal health study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis, after one Trump administration aide warned it would cause a "public relations nightmare," newly disclosed emails reveal.

The intervention early this year — not previously disclosed — came as HHS' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry was preparing to publish its assessment of a class of toxic chemicals that has contaminated water supplies near military bases, chemical plants and other sites from New York to Michigan to West Virginia.

The study would show that the chemicals endanger human health at a far lower level than EPA has previously called safe, according to the emails.

“The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge,” one unidentified White House aide said in an email forwarded on Jan. 30 by James Herz, a political appointee who oversees environmental issues at the OMB. The email added: “The impact to EPA and [the Defense Department] is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.”

So bury it. That will make it go away.

The only consolation, and it's a grim one, is that deaths and illnesses will be too hard to cover up.

[Defiant]

Maybe he should go talk with Abbas while he's there. They have a lot in common

Abbas says Jews’ behavior, not anti-Semitism, caused the Holocaust

[Victoria Raverna]

Not everyone protesting is a terrorist. Although the numbers of them will certainly grow due to today's events. So I ask again. Given the cost why is it the right thing? If you can not come back to me with something better than "we traditionally have our embassy in the nation's capital" then you're losing. What have we gained through this move? What have we lost?

We've certainly lost any sort of status as a neutral arbiter or facilitator in the peace process. I can't see what we've gained, though.

Favor with evangelical zealots/idiots who couldn't care less about Israel, except inasmuch as it's a step along to road to their end times prophecy. The Jeffress crowd is over the moon today.

What I would say is that we basically know the rough countours of what a negotiated two-state framework would look like. There would be a Palestinian state encompassing 95%+ of the West Bank and Gaza (with some negotiated land swaps), probably including East Jerusalem as its capital, and essentially no right of return for Palestinians to Israel proper, and the rest of Israel would remain as a Jewish state. Working from that as an end point, we should do what we can to shape events towards that ultimate destination, and push back on each sides' maximalist ambitions that contravene that ultimate reality. I'm fine with moving the embassy to West Jerusalem because that's 100% consistent with that ultimate two-state framework. On top of that, anything that makes it crystal clear to Palestinians that they are never getting West Jerusalem as part of a Palestinian state - that's just not on the table and never will be, and the sooner they come to terms with that the better.

Now, what the Trump administration should be doing more of is leaning on Israel to impede West Bank settlement expansion as much as possible, because that is contrary to the ultimate two-state resolution, and only makes a two-state agreement harder to negotiate.

Ideally the embassy move would be accompanied by some type of move to make clear to the Palestinians that the U.S. supports a Palestinian state including East Jerusalem as its capital.

That sounds rational, though I'm not sure that clarity is something we've "gained" rather than made more difficult. In either case, I wish I thought the Trump administration had given the whole thing 1/10 of that amount of forethought :/

Question though - I'm not particularly well-versed on the specifics of the Jerusalem issue, but what makes West Jerusalem and a right of return non-negotiable? Is it a security issue, or a cultural/religious issue?

West Jerusalem is not on the table because it's overwhelmingly Jewish / non-Palestinian in population, and because of historical / cultural issues (Jerusalem as the historic Jewish capital and center of Jewish life).

Right of return is not on the table because (depending on how the right of return is defined) it would threaten to undermine or destroy Israel's future as a Jewish state / homeland. If Israel is going to agree to give up the West Bank (which is also part of the traditionally / religiously defined Jewish homeland), and also presents MASSIVE security issues for Israel, the essential thing that it would have to get in return is a guarantee of its continued and perpetual existence as the Jewish state.

So the important reason is that Israel is a racist country and having too many Palestinians in Israel can change that?

[Rip]

No, they are free to convert and become citizens. Heck 20% of the Israelis are of Arab ancestry now.

That pretty much blows the race card out of the water.

[Defiant]

Well, it's not like the Palestinians would accept any Jews at all, whereas Israel actually has a significant minority of non-Jews. And add to that that Palestinians grown up in a society that lauds suicide bombers that target Jews as martyrs, which might be a little harder to integrate.

But it's the Israel that's the racist country, got it.

(Not at all suggesting that Israel is free from racism, but that accusation really takes the cake)

[Rip]

Funny we are talking about the jewish faith and race right the day after I was reading this.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/amare-sto ... o-judaism/

Former NBA All-Star Amar’e Stoudemire has for years claimed to have “Hebrew roots,” studied Judaism and practiced its cultural customs. Now he is making the ties official by converting to the Jewish religion.

Stoudemire, 35, told HBO sports reporter Jon Frankel at an event at Harvard University on Sunday that he is “in the process” of converting.

Frankel first asked Stoudemire whether he wanted to become a citizen of Israel, a country he lived in briefly while playing for Hapoel Jerusalem last year, a club he partly owns. Stoudemire said he is trying to become a citizen, and Frankel asked whether he was being told to convert before achieving citizenship status.

Stoudemire responded by saying he is converting “simply to get acclimated to the culture in Israel and also to apply for citizenship.”

But he added: “My journey on this path really has nothing to do with citizenship, it’s just really truly a spiritual journey, and my goal is to get into the kingdom, and that’s the only mission.”

[Victoria Raverna]

Well, it's not like the Palestinians would accept any Jews at all, whereas Israel actually has a significant minority of non-Jews. And add to that that Palestinians grown up in a society that lauds suicide bombers that target Jews as martyrs, which might be a little harder to integrate.

But it's the Israel that's the racist country, got it.

(Not at all suggesting that Israel is free from racism, but that accusation really takes the cake)

I'm just trying to understand this part:

"Right of return is not on the table because (depending on how the right of return is defined) it would threaten to undermine or destroy Israel's future as a Jewish state / homeland."

[Holman]

I am pro-Israel (though not pro-Likud), but... yesterday's carnage was carnage. Yes, a violent protest is violent, but it's obscene to cover the killings and maimings as if the protesters all deserved it or were somehow all asking for it in a bid for propaganda (as the WH seemed to imply).

FWIW, the social media network of my American Jewish friends lit up like wildfire in disgust and opposition to this.

That is all.

[hepcat]

Funny we are talking about the jewish faith and race right the day after I was reading this.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/amare-sto ... o-judaism/

Former NBA All-Star Amar’e Stoudemire has for years claimed to have “Hebrew roots,” studied Judaism and practiced its cultural customs. Now he is making the ties official by converting to the Jewish religion.

Stoudemire, 35, told HBO sports reporter Jon Frankel at an event at Harvard University on Sunday that he is “in the process” of converting.

Frankel first asked Stoudemire whether he wanted to become a citizen of Israel, a country he lived in briefly while playing for Hapoel Jerusalem last year, a club he partly owns. Stoudemire said he is trying to become a citizen, and Frankel asked whether he was being told to convert before achieving citizenship status.

Stoudemire responded by saying he is converting “simply to get acclimated to the culture in Israel and also to apply for citizenship.”

But he added: “My journey on this path really has nothing to do with citizenship, it’s just really truly a spiritual journey, and my goal is to get into the kingdom, and that’s the only mission.”

Why is it funny?

[LordMortis]

but... yesterday's carnage was carnage. Yes, a violent protest is violent, but it's obscene to cover the killings and maimings as

It's very Hunger Games or Running Man or Iraqi Information Minister

I mean it's not like "rioters" as rip would call them weren't warned when snipers were placed and started killing people over a month who were "specifically violent" like here

Don't watch.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... w-unarmed/

I'm not smart enough to have an opinion on embassy placements and I am not pro Palestinian by any stretch, but yeah, no...

[hepcat]

Has Trump ever trotted out any spokesperson for an event who hasn't looked like a Bond villain or a hand model?

[pr0ner]

Good God.

[El Guapo]

Well, it's not like the Palestinians would accept any Jews at all, whereas Israel actually has a significant minority of non-Jews. And add to that that Palestinians grown up in a society that lauds suicide bombers that target Jews as martyrs, which might be a little harder to integrate.

But it's the Israel that's the racist country, got it.

(Not at all suggesting that Israel is free from racism, but that accusation really takes the cake)

I'm just trying to understand this part:

"Right of return is not on the table because (depending on how the right of return is defined) it would threaten to undermine or destroy Israel's future as a Jewish state / homeland."

It's a fair question. The problem is that if Israel (however constituted and whatever its ultimate borders look like) ceased to have a Jewish majority, it would cease to be a Jewish state / homeland essentially by definition. Beyond the historic and ancient ties of the Jewish people to Israel, it is important to have a Jewish state because (among other things) non-Jews have been attempting to annihilate the Jewish people for literally millennia (culminating in but not limited to the Holocaust), and history shows that the Jews can't count on non-Jews to give them sanctuary when the latest dictator comes for them.

FWIW I think it's similarly important to have an independent Kurdish state (whose ultimate borders would be subject to dispute and negotiation) for similar reasons.

[Rip]

Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Tuesday.
Mr. Turnbull said the loss of life was “tragic” but Hamas had to be held responsible for pushing people – including young children – to attack the border in violent confrontation with Israel.

“Any loss of life like this is tragic in circumstances like this, but Hamas’ conduct is confrontational. They’re seeking to provoke the Israeli defence forces,” Mr Turnbull told Australian radio outlet 3AW.

“If they’re pushing people to the border in that context, in that conflict zone, you’re basically pushing people into circumstances where they are very likely to be shot at as Israel seeks to defend itself.”

Let's place blame for the deaths where it belongs.

[LawBeefaroni]

[Remus West]

Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Tuesday.
Mr. Turnbull said the loss of life was “tragic” but Hamas had to be held responsible for pushing people – including young children – to attack the border in violent confrontation with Israel.

“Any loss of life like this is tragic in circumstances like this, but Hamas’ conduct is confrontational. They’re seeking to provoke the Israeli defence forces,” Mr Turnbull told Australian radio outlet 3AW.

“If they’re pushing people to the border in that context, in that conflict zone, you’re basically pushing people into circumstances where they are very likely to be shot at as Israel seeks to defend itself.”

Let's place blame for the deaths where it belongs.

Yes, let us not own the repercussions of our actions let us place the blame on others. With or without us moving the Embassy there would have been wide spread protests regarding our embassy....oops.

[Defiant]

Yes, let us not own the repercussions of our actions let us place the blame on others. With or without us moving the Embassy there would have been wide spread protests regarding our embassy....oops.

The embassy (as well as the historically relevant date) may have brought more attention and more energy to the protests, but they had already been going on for a couple of months, and were motivated by the Palestinians claim for a "right of return", which is why they are trying to breach the border.

[Combustible Lemur]

Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Tuesday.
Mr. Turnbull said the loss of life was “tragic” but Hamas had to be held responsible for pushing people – including young children – to attack the border in violent confrontation with Israel.

“Any loss of life like this is tragic in circumstances like this, but Hamas’ conduct is confrontational. They’re seeking to provoke the Israeli defence forces,” Mr Turnbull told Australian radio outlet 3AW.

“If they’re pushing people to the border in that context, in that conflict zone, you’re basically pushing people into circumstances where they are very likely to be shot at as Israel seeks to defend itself.”

Let's place blame for the deaths where it belongs.

Yes, let us not own the repercussions of our actions let us place the blame on others. With or without us moving the Embassy there would have been wide spread protests regarding our embassy....oops.

Actually there would have, the protests were in large part a protest of the original catastrophe of forced relocation and an act of pilgrimage back to their homeland.

Now, making a unilateral statement about who makes the fucking rules then killing dozens of people including children surely exacerbates the issue, but the original protest wasn't the embassy.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk