Jerusalem as capital of Israel

[Hitman]

President Donald Trump has said his controversial decision last December to recognise Jerusalem as Israel‘s capital was a “wonderful thing” as he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also presented a united front against Iran.

“I think it’s something that’s very much appreciated in Israel,” Mr Trump said of his Jerusalem decision during a meeting with Mr Netanyahu, adding that US-Israel relations have “never been better”.

The president was vague on details of how a peace can be achieved between the Palestinians and Israel - one of the supposed main aims for his administration - but felt more confident that it can be brokered because the issue of Jerusalem and now “we’ve taken it off the table”.

Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu using similar rhetoric to that they have used since the Jerusalem decision was made in December, which will likely further aggravate the Palestinians and Arab allies already angered by the twin move to recognise Jerusalem as the capital and relocate the US embassy to the city. Mr Trump also suggested in the Oval Office that he might travel to Israel for the embassy opening, which is planned for May - a move that will not endear him to some in the region either.

“We’re looking at coming,” Mr Trump said.“If I can, I will.”

Most of the intrigue around the meeting centred around the role played by White House senior adviser and Mr Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner who has been tapped by the president to lead the process,

That move was also nearly universally criticised because Mr Kushner lacked any political or diplomatic experience prior to his appointment. He is, however, family friends with Mr Netanyahu.

Mr Kushner has played a role in Mr Netanyahu’s visit to Washington – the adviser’s first high-profile engagement since he lost access to top-secret intelligence amid a crackdown at the White House on interim security clearances. A day before Israeli leaders sat down with the President, Mr Kushner visited Mr Netanyahu at Blair House, the presidential guest quarters across Pennsylvania Avenue.

The White House said the downgrade in the security clearance of Jared Kushner did not affect Mr Kushner's role in Monday's meeting. “None at all that I am aware of,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said when asked at a news briefing what effect the security clearance downgrade had on Kushner's position in the meeting. “His role wasn't impacted today,” she added. He and his wife Sara were welcomed to the White House just hours after Israeli police announced that a third confidant of the prime minister had agreed to turn state's witness in the corruption case. Mr Netanyahu and his wife were questioned separately by police for hours on Friday before their departure for Washington. They have both denied any wrongdoing.

The president and Mr Netanyahu have bonded over their mutual hatred of the Iran nuclear accord, which was brokered by the Obama administration. Under the 2015 agreement with six nations, Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear programme for at least 10 years in exchange for the loosening of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy.

Mr Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister have complained that the deal failed to cover Iran’s ballistic missile programme or its support for anti-Israel militants in the region.

“If I had to say what is our greatest challenge in the Middle East to both our countries, to our Arab neighbours, it’s encapsulated in one word: Iran,” Mr Netanyahu said.“Iran must be stopped. That is our common challenge.”

The nuclear deal and Iran's position in the conflict in Syria were the main talking points for Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu, but it was the peace deal that took up much of the public section of the meeting.

Mr Trump said Palestinians appear to want to come to the negotiating table “very badly,” but commented that peace may not be possible – I’m not saying it’s going to happen,” he said.

“This is years and years of opposition and, frankly, hatred,” Mr Trump said about the peace process and recognition of Jerusalem as a solely Israeli capital.

During his announcement last December, Mr Trump said the decision was “long overdue” and “nothing more or less than recognition of reality.” He also said the US embassy in the country would move from Tel Aviv to the holy city which also serves as the home of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset.

He also had clarified in his announcement that the move is “not intended in any way to reflect a departure from” a mutually acceptable peace deal and a two-state solution, should “both sides” agree to it.

Mr Trump had repeatedly promised to be more cognisant of Israeli concerns during the 2016 campaign, painting himself as far more pro-Israel than his predecessor President Barack Obama - who had an openly cold relationship with Mr Netanyahu.

At least one Palestinian official, chief representative to Britain Manuel Hassassian, called the Jerusalem decision a “kiss of death” to the peace process.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis were among senior officials who reportedly advised Mr Trump against breaking decades of US foreign policy.

They and others feared it would be the beginning of chaos and violence in the region as a Hamas spokesman said it “opens the gates of hell” and “days of rage” were called for in the city.

Hamas called the decision about the city – home to holy sites for Jews, Muslims, and Christians – “a red line”.

The statement was unequivocal: “the resistance will not allow any desecration of it.”

The decision was nearly universally criticised by world leaders as well. The United Nations declared in a 128 to nine vote that it was “null and void” and would not be recognised by the world body.

While the vote had little practical impact – it is not legally binding – it was a considerable embarrassment for the US as it reflects global opinion.

As the US licked its wounds, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah seized on what he said was a “victory for Palestine”.

“We will continue our efforts in the United Nations and at all international forums to put an end to this occupation, and to establish our Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital,” Mr Rdainah said.

Thirty-five countries, many in Africa and Latin America, abstained from the vote.

Experts had predicted at least 150 votes in support of the motion. There was speculation that the high number of abstentions was a result of the Trump administration’s threat to “take names” of countries and cut off humanitarian aid funding.

The Associated Press had said UN Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley had written to most of the 193 UN members states warning of possible retaliation ahead of the vote and noted that the President took the matter personally.

In what appeared to be a retaliation for the majority of countries voting openly against the US, the Trump administration announced that it would withhold funding for the UN Works and Relief Agency, which provides educational, social, and health aid to millions of Palestinian refugees in the region and in US ally, Jordan.

Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...alem-capital-benjamin-netanyahu-a8241036.html

 

[Robert]

Playing to his base. Self interest ahead of world peace. Dreadful man.

 

[Hitman]

Playing to his base. Self interest ahead of world peace. Dreadful man.

Isn't that what the US has always been about?

 

[UN talkz]

World's best CLOWN

 

[Hitman]

World's best CLOWN

Not just a lot of PP'rs, but a lot of people from all around the world will agree with you

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

“If I had to say what is our greatest challenge in the Middle East to both our countries, to our Arab neighbours, it’s encapsulated in one word: Iran,” Mr Netanyahu said.“Iran must be stopped. That is our common challenge.”

Stopped from doing what? I'm nominally from a Sunni background, but I never really understood why Israel wants to team up with Arabs to stop Iran. If anything, I would have thought the Iranians are slightly less backward than the Arabs, Israel seems to be paranoid about Iran though. Is there really a threat or is this just Israel making a mountain out of a molehill?

 

[Reddy]

Stopped from doing what? I'm nominally from a Sunni background, but I never really understood why Israel wants to team up with Arabs to stop Iran. If anything, I would have thought the Iranians are slightly less backward than the Arabs, Israel seems to be paranoid about Iran though. Is there really a threat or is this just Israel making a mountain out of a molehill?

Iran has a state policy of exporting Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East including Arab countries and Israel, that is why you see Arabs and Israel fighting together against Iran.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Iran has a state policy of exporting Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East including Arab countries and Israel, that is why you see Arabs and Israel fighting together against Iran.

How do you have Islamic revolution in middle eastern countries which are already Islamic?

 

[Reddy]

How do you have Islamic revolution in middle eastern countries which are already Islamic?

Iran considers them Un-Islamic, they will be Islamic when the monarchies are overthrown and the Mullahs control the country just like Iran.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Iran considers them Un-Islamic, they will be Islamic when the monarchies are overthrown and the Mullahs control the country just like Iran.

Iran itself has seen a lessening of mullah influence, if anything there is more chance of them getting overthrown at home than them overthrowing monarchies in Sunni Arab countries.

 

[TQ89]

Iran itself has seen a lessening of mullah influence, if anything there is more chance of them getting overthrown at home than them overthrowing monarchies in Sunni Arab countries.

No bro you couldn't be more wrong. Never trust a western newspaper to give you good insight about what is happening in the middle east.

Although It is not like you have a choice as there no concept of independent media in middle east and all news websites/print media of every Arab country is state owned and will give you load of rubbish as well which is completely different from ground realities. Believe it or not, Iran is legit threat for lot of arab states in the region. It is like a middle eastern version of Russia. Whatever they say sounds cartoonish to the west but just like russia, they have got their hands everywhere and are extremely resilient in their beliefs/actions.

The uncanny behind the scene alliance between some arab state & israel follows the idiom" The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

[daytrader]

Australia’s foreign minister reverses recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

The Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, has reversed on Tuesday the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, despite the fact that on Monday she had denied in statements reported by local media that the Labor Government had taken a decision on the matter.

The Australian cabinet took the decision to reverse the status of Jerusalem on Tuesday morning, hours after the government insisted that there had been no change in the position, since in recent days the reference to the recognition of the Israeli capital had disappeared from the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

"Today, the Government has reaffirmed Australia's previous position that Jerusalem is a final status issue that must be resolved as part of any peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. This reverses the (former Prime Minister Scott) Morrison Government's recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," an Australian Ministry statement on its website said.

In this regard, the minister says Canberra will recognize Tel Aviv as the capital. "The Australian embassy has always been and remains in Tel Aviv," he remarked.

Wong has described Morrison's 2018 decision as an attempt to win votes in the Wentworth by-election.

"I regret that Morrison's decision to play politics has caused Australia's position to change, as these changes have caused distress to many people in the Australian community who care deeply about this issue," Wong has explained in the missive.

The minister reaffirmed her position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stating that the government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has recommitted itself to international efforts to seek "progress towards a just and lasting two-state solution".

"Australia is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders," he said before asserting that they would not support "an approach that undermines this prospect."

The Australian conservative government led by Morrison agreed in 2018 to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. For its part, the Labor Party - which currently governs the country - included in its electoral program to reverse the recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.

MSN

 

[Robert]

Isn't that what the US has always been about?

At their best, Americans stand for true liberalism - empiricism, individual liberty, religious toleration, human rights, rule of law, limits of government power. When they fight, it is to liberate.

At their worst, money is the motivator and corrupts their lofty ideals. Then when they fight, it is to make someone richer.

 

[sweep_shot]

Stopped from doing what? I'm nominally from a Sunni background, but I never really understood why Israel wants to team up with Arabs to stop Iran. If anything, I would have thought the Iranians are slightly less backward than the Arabs, Israel seems to be paranoid about Iran though. Is there really a threat or is this just Israel making a mountain out of a molehill?

Dajjal is supposed to come from Isfahan, Iran.

I wonder if it is a factor.

 

[Mirpuri Don]

At their best, Americans stand for true liberalism - empiricism, individual liberty, religious toleration, human rights, rule of law, limits of government power. When they fight, it is to liberate.

At their worst, money is the motivator and corrupts their lofty ideals. Then when they fight, it is to make someone richer.

Look up for "liberal imperialism."

Whites have done colonization precisely in the name of liberalism : if you talk of rationality, someone is never rational enough, thus you have to conquer & civilize ; if you talk of individual liberties, someone is never free enough, so you have to conquer & civilize ; etc.

Liberalism is an expansionist ideology like any other, but it's not seen negatively because... who can't be against freedom/rationality/etc, right ?

 

[Robert]

Look up for "liberal imperialism."

Whites have done colonization precisely in the name of liberalism : if you talk of rationality, someone is never rational enough, thus you have to conquer & civilize ; if you talk of individual liberties, someone is never free enough, so you have to conquer & civilize ; etc.

Liberalism is an expansionist ideology like any other, but it's not seen negatively because... who can't be against freedom/rationality/etc, right ?

But unlike communism, it makes people freer (of kingly despots) and wealthier.

The Liberal Imperialists were a splinter group from the UK Liberal Party of around 1900. They supported the Boer War which most Liberal MPs opposed.

Don’t get the philosophy mixed up with the political theory of neoliberalism coined in 1951.

 

[Robert]

Look up for "liberal imperialism."

Whites have done colonization precisely in the name of liberalism : if you talk of rationality, someone is never rational enough, thus you have to conquer & civilize ; if you talk of individual liberties, someone is never free enough, so you have to conquer & civilize ; etc.

Liberalism is an expansionist ideology like any other, but it's not seen negatively because... who can't be against freedom/rationality/etc, right ?

I am thinking more about individual Americans such as Jefferson, who broke the Barbary Pirates and ended that part of Arab Slave Trade predation on Europe. And Lincoln, who broke the slavery system in USA and the new Southern aristocracy that was arising. Or FDR who saved Western Europe from totalitarianism. These are the Americans I admire.

 

[Mirpuri Don]

But unlike communism, it makes people freer (of kingly despots) and wealthier.

The Liberal Imperialists were a splinter group from the UK Liberal Party of around 1900. They supported the Boer War which most Liberal MPs opposed.

Don’t get the philosophy mixed up with the political theory of neoliberalism coined in 1951.

Problem is that your very definitions of "freedom" and "wealth" are predicated upon Eurocentric models.

Why should an Indian-Hindu, an Afghan-Muslim, etc. be "free/rich" only going through the standards of an American or a British ?

Also I'm not talking of the Liberal Party subgroup, "liberal imperialism" is a notion denoting the tendency of liberals to become expansionists, especially during the colonial period, Uday Mehta has a good book on this.

Basically, if you're liberal, you believe in a set of ideas ("freedom", etc) and, in the name of these very ideas, you justify war against non liberal or illiberal societies/civilizations, which means against pretty much the whole of the non-White world.

I am thinking more about individual Americans such as Jefferson, who broke the Barbary Pirates and ended that part of Arab Slave Trade predation on Europe. And Lincoln, who broke the slavery system in USA and the new Southern aristocracy that was arising. Or FDR who saved Western Europe from totalitarianism. These are the Americans I admire.

This is one of the founding myths of the US, that has been criticized by the likes of Howard Zinn and Domenico Losurdo, the latter shows that virtually all liberal philosophers were for the slavery of non-Whites, their "anti-authoritarianism" only applying to Whites in Europe under the absolutist rule, for the simple reason that non-Whites were basically considered humans in their worldview.

The abolition of slavery was due to economic reasons, not anything ideological and especially humanist, because of growing industrialization you could do with machine way more/cheaper than with human labor, look up for the concept of "energy slave."

 

[Robert]

Problem is that your very definitions of "freedom" and "wealth" are predicated upon Eurocentric models.

Why should an Indian-Hindu, an Afghan-Muslim, etc. be "free/rich" only going through the standards of an American or a British ?

Also I'm not talking of the Liberal Party subgroup, "liberal imperialism" is a notion denoting the tendency of liberals to become expansionists, especially during the colonial period, Uday Mehta has a good book on this.

Basically, if you're liberal, you believe in a set of ideas ("freedom", etc) and, in the name of these very ideas, you justify war against non liberal or illiberal societies/civilizations, which means against pretty much the whole of the non-White world.

I don’t.

Jefferson certainly ended the enslavement of white Britons, Irish, and Southern Europeans by the Corsairs. But for him my ancestors might have been abducted and I might have been born in Tunisia.

Liberals believe in empiricism so change their minds when evidence changes. For example, all sixty British LD MPs voted against the invasion of Iraq. There was no liberal imperative to charge in and “liberate” Iraqis - that came from the Christian / Conservative tradition. I heard wise heads say that Saddam should be left in place as he was a stabiliser.

This is one of the founding myths of the US, that has been criticized by the likes of Howard Zinn and Domenico Losurdo, the latter shows that virtually all liberal philosophers were for the slavery of non-Whites, their "anti-authoritarianism" only applying to Whites in Europe under the absolutist rule, for the simple reason that non-Whites were basically considered humans in their worldview.

That’s a gross exaggeration.

It’s true that Locke considered Native Americans to be wild animals to be driven off, and also profited from slavery, but:

- Jefferson called slavery an “hideous blot” on the world.

- Benjamin Franklin was an abolitionist.

- Voltaire campaigned against slavery in the French West Indies.

- JS Mill wrote: “…this institution can have no place in any society even pretending to be founded on justice, or on fellowship between human creatures.”

The abolition of slavery was due to economic reasons, not anything ideological and especially humanist, because of growing industrialization you could do with machine way more/cheaper than with human labor, look up for the concept of "energy slave."

That’s simply untrue. It didn’t stop because it was uneconomic. Mechanisation in agriculture didn’t begin until forty years after the slaves were freed. Cotton was still hand-picked during the Great Depression.

What happened was that liberal USA fought a terrible war against slaver CSA to end slavery. The plantation owners were ruined by abolition. Decades of legal and economic Reconstruction of the Southern economy were required to convert to a model where all workers could earn from their labour.

 

[Mirpuri Don]

I don’t.

Jefferson certainly ended the enslavement of white Britons, Irish, and Southern Europeans by the Corsairs. But for him my ancestors might have been abducted and I might have been born in Tunisia.

Liberals believe in empiricism so change their minds when evidence changes. For example, all sixty British LD MPs voted against the invasion of Iraq. There was no liberal imperative to charge in and “liberate” Iraqis - that came from the Christian / Conservative tradition. I heard wise heads say that Saddam should be left in place as he was a stabiliser.

Individuals going against the war doesn't impact the fact that the ideology itself is weaponized.

After all Tony Blair's "third way" is just a neoliberal synthesis.

For something specifically about the role of liberalism during the WoT you can read Joseph Massad (Palestinian-Christian academic).

That’s a gross exaggeration.

It’s true that Locke considered Native Americans to be wild animals to be driven off, and also profited from slavery, but:

- Jefferson called slavery an “hideous blot” on the world.

- Benjamin Franklin was an abolitionist.

- Voltaire campaigned against slavery in the French West Indies.

- JS Mill wrote: “…this institution can have no place in any society even pretending to be founded on justice, or on fellowship between human creatures.”

We could literally go through all the names you bring one by one and see that it's way more complicated than that.

For example on Jefferson :

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/

Of course liberals will stands against "slavery" otherwise they'd go against the very basics of their own ideology.

That's not the point.

The point is that these liberals didn't consider non-Whites equal to Whites so even their parameters of freedom/slavery was biased.

The same way today liberals dictate world geopolitics and if you're not "free" enough from their own standards you're a pariah ready to be fought.

That’s simply untrue. It didn’t stop because it was uneconomic. Mechanisation in agriculture didn’t begin until forty years after the slaves were freed. Cotton was still hand-picked during the Great Depression.

What happened was that liberal USA fought a terrible war against slaver CSA to end slavery. The plantation owners were ruined by abolition. Decades of legal and economic Reconstruction of the Southern economy were required to convert to a model where all workers could earn from their labour.

You can read the works of Gerald Horne, often considered the leading African-American historian alive.

He shows the interconnection between higher technologization/transformed capitalism/new forms of segregation (how "Jim Crow apartheid" as he puts it shows that in the South anti slavery was never about race but economics, and when Blacks become less economically attractive the discriminiation became even worse.)

I'm sure deep inside you don't really believe in that cute feel good story of a whole country going into civil war just because they felt bad for Blacks.

Btw Horne has a whole book, The Counter Revolution of 1776, where he demonstrates that the foundations of the US themselves were based on anti abolitionist sentiments.

 

[Robert]

Individuals going against the war doesn't impact the fact that the ideology itself is weaponized.

After all Tony Blair's "third way" is just a neoliberal synthesis.

For something specifically about the role of liberalism during the WoT you can read Joseph Massad (Palestinian-Christian academic).

Ideology is made by individuals.

Again, let us not confuse economic neoliberalism with philosophical social liberalism.

We could literally go through all the names you bring one by one and see that it's way more complicated than that.

For example on Jefferson :

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/

Of course liberals will stands against "slavery" otherwise they'd go against the very basics of their own ideology.

That's not the point.

The point is that these liberals didn't consider non-Whites equal to Whites so even their parameters of freedom/slavery was biased.

It would be a mistake to apply modern morality to the eighteenth century. Of course Jefferson was flawed, as we all are. He didn't finish the liberator job, but he started it. Pulling down the institution of slavery took generations after him.

The same way today liberals dictate world geopolitics and if you're not "free" enough from their own standards you're a pariah ready to be fought.

The world is dividing into a liberal bloc (North America / Europe / Japan / Australia) and an authoritarian bloc (China / India / Russia / Iran). We don't have to fight each other, as thermonuclear obliteration will result. But don't expect the twain to meet.

You can read the works of Gerald Horne, often considered the leading African-American historian alive.

He shows the interconnection between higher technologization/transformed capitalism/new forms of segregation (how "Jim Crow apartheid" as he puts it shows that in the South anti slavery was never about race but economics, and when Blacks become less economically attractive the discriminiation became even worse.)

I'm sure deep inside you don't really believe in that cute feel good story of a whole country going into civil war just because they felt bad for Blacks.

Btw Horne has a whole book, The Counter Revolution of 1776, where he demonstrates that the foundations of the US themselves were based on anti abolitionist sentiments.

I'm not talking about the racist South but about the liberating Northern abolitionists, and yes I believe that many of the latter went to war "because they felt bad for Blacks". Else why fight at all? Just have two countries who trade with each other. Jeff Shaara's Pulitzer-winning novel The Killer Angels is very good on this.

Again, the Civil War didn't finish the liberator job. Jim Crow was not struck down for another hundred years. And the job still isn't finished, but each generation moves closer.

 

[Mirpuri Don]

Ideology is made by individuals.

Again, let us not confuse economic neoliberalism with philosophical social liberalism.

Economic liberalism leads to social or cultural liberalism.

Economic liberalism asks for individualized atoms in a deterministic world with rational actors only looking for the maximization of wealth (John von Neumann's zero-sum game).

Cultural liberalism is the social engineering of individuals so they follow economic liberalism (maximization of wealth = maximization of pleasure = consumerism.)

It would be a mistake to apply modern morality to the eighteenth century. Of course Jefferson was flawed, as we all are. He didn't finish the liberator job, but he started it. Pulling down the institution of slavery took generations after him.

Precisely, and this is why this whole projection of American founding fathers as some pure hearted humanists who were losing their sleep over the poor Black slaves is anachronistic.

The world is dividing into a liberal bloc (North America / Europe / Japan / Australia) and an authoritarian bloc (China / India / Russia / Iran). We don't have to fight each other, as thermonuclear obliteration will result. But don't expect the twain to meet.

I'm not denying this, I'm saying that liberalism as ideology contains militant expansionism like all other ideologies.

If you choose these two premises :

1) Everyone should be free
2) There are States against freedom

In geopolitical terms it means that you will have to fight the so called illiberal states or civilizations.

It's not as if the West was the peaceful dove attacked by illiberal wolves, they're all wolves, that's what I meant.

I'm not talking about the racist South but about the liberating Northern abolitionists, and yes I believe that many of the latter went to war "because they felt bad for Blacks". Else why fight at all? Just have two countries who trade with each other. Jeff Shaara's Pulitzer-winning novel The Killer Angels is very good on this.

Again, the Civil War didn't finish the liberator job. Jim Crow was not struck down for another hundred years. And the job still isn't finished, but each generation moves closer.

Again read an informed African American like Horne you'll see it's not as rosy as you seem to believe.

 

[Technics 1210]

It is no coincidence that some of the founding fathers of USA, and Democrats, were the largest owners of slaves.

Yet not a single Republican was a slave owner in the USA.

Sums up ‘Liberalism’

 

[KingKhanWC]

Australia’s foreign minister reverses recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

The Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, has reversed on Tuesday the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, despite the fact that on Monday she had denied in statements reported by local media that the Labor Government had taken a decision on the matter.

The Australian cabinet took the decision to reverse the status of Jerusalem on Tuesday morning, hours after the government insisted that there had been no change in the position, since in recent days the reference to the recognition of the Israeli capital had disappeared from the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

"Today, the Government has reaffirmed Australia's previous position that Jerusalem is a final status issue that must be resolved as part of any peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. This reverses the (former Prime Minister Scott) Morrison Government's recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," an Australian Ministry statement on its website said.

In this regard, the minister says Canberra will recognize Tel Aviv as the capital. "The Australian embassy has always been and remains in Tel Aviv," he remarked.

Wong has described Morrison's 2018 decision as an attempt to win votes in the Wentworth by-election.

"I regret that Morrison's decision to play politics has caused Australia's position to change, as these changes have caused distress to many people in the Australian community who care deeply about this issue," Wong has explained in the missive.

The minister reaffirmed her position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stating that the government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has recommitted itself to international efforts to seek "progress towards a just and lasting two-state solution".

"Australia is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders," he said before asserting that they would not support "an approach that undermines this prospect."

The Australian conservative government led by Morrison agreed in 2018 to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. For its part, the Labor Party - which currently governs the country - included in its electoral program to reverse the recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.

MSN

A good move by the Aussies for once.

No point giving the Israeli Jews the holy city of Jerusalem when the Temple Mount has no temple.

Lets now hope the dopy Zionist bootlickers in Downing Street do the same but of course wont.

 

[Technics 1210]

A good move by the Aussies for once.

No point giving the Israeli Jews the holy city of Jerusalem when the Temple Mount has no temple.

Lets now hope the dopy Zionist bootlickers in Downing Street do the same but of course wont.

Well the proud Zionist PM could be out of a job shortly!

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well the proud Zionist PM could be out of a job shortly!

One of the dumbest leaders in history. UK has become a laughing stock.

Dont be surprised if she makes this move knowing she is out soon. The Zionists will reward her with some UN or EU job.

Israel seems to be speeding up its arrival of the Messiah and the Temple. Satan must have landed from Mars now.

 

[Robert]

Economic liberalism leads to social or cultural liberalism.

Economic liberalism asks for individualized atoms in a deterministic world with rational actors only looking for the maximization of wealth (John von Neumann's zero-sum game).

Cultural liberalism is the social engineering of individuals so they follow economic liberalism (maximization of wealth = maximization of pleasure = consumerism.)




Precisely, and this is why this whole projection of American founding fathers as some pure hearted humanists who were losing their sleep over the poor Black slaves is anachronistic.



I'm not denying this, I'm saying that liberalism as ideology contains militant expansionism like all other ideologies.

If you choose these two premises :

1) Everyone should be free
2) There are States against freedom

In geopolitical terms it means that you will have to fight the so called illiberal states or civilizations.

It's not as if the West was the peaceful dove attacked by illiberal wolves, they're all wolves, that's what I meant.

Again read an informed African American like Horne you'll see it's not as rosy as you seem to believe.

Thank you for this civil, respectful and enlightening debate.

I think I have presented complex and nuanced arguments, though. The real world doesn’t fit into just one narrative vs another. Kentucky fought for the Union despite being a slave state, and non-slaver Texas came in with the CSA. Lincoln didn’t just go to war. Remember that the slave states seceded from the USA.

Europe’s colonial assault on the world was driven by a mixture of capitalism and Christianity - Onward Christian Soldiers, and all that.