Prevent Donald Trump from making a state visit to the United Kingdom - petition

[CHAPPERS]

Oh super.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ine-donald-trump-two-state-solution-netanyahu

In a single sentence, and without detailed elaboration, Donald Trump has casually discarded decades of US diplomacy – pursued by both Democratic and Republican administrations – on the Middle East peace process.

Standing alongside the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the White House, the US president declared himself unconcerned whether negotiations should be aimed at the two-state solution, which has long been guaranteed by Washington. Instead, Trump indicated that it would be left to Israelis and Palestinians to sort out the “ultimate deal” he had once promised he would make.

“I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like,” Trump said. “I can live with either one. I thought for a while it looked like the two-state might be the easier of the two – but honestly if Bibi, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best,” Trump said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname.

Trump barely mentioned the Palestinians at all, and at times, his comments seemed identical to the Israeli government’s talking points: he mentioned the threat of Iran, incitement in Palestinian schools, and the Palestinian need to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu, it seemed, could barely contain his pleasure. In return for a public request to hold back on settlement building “a little bit” he was able to hear the new US president commit himself to Netanyahu’s own obsession – pushing back Iran – while offering a formulation with the Palestinians that offers little concrete prospect of real negotiations or a lasting peace. But it was in what the neophyte president did not say – and perhaps does not even understand – that the real substance lay.

Gone was any talk about Palestinian ambitions for a state. Instead, Trump’s remarks reinforced the inherent asymmetry in the two parties’ positions.

Israel is a state with widespread international recognition. It has a powerful military and is a technological power. Crucially, it is the occupier of the Palestinian territories, an occupation now entering its 50th year, which has seen continued Jewish settlement building and settlement announcements – 6,000 since Trump’s inauguration.

With America’s withdrawal as a shaping force, the negotiation devolves to a non-process between an occupying body that doesn’t really want to end its occupation, and an occupied body with little leverage outside of the international support for its cause.

That is not all. In other aspects, Trump’s comments were deeply contradictory, showing an apparent ignorance of the subject he was addressing.

Having said he wanted to leave the negotiations to the two sides – as Israel has long wanted – he then suggested many other countries and players could be involved, something that has long and explicitly been rejected by Israel.

Trump’s position appeared to diverge even from that of the pro-Israel US lobby group AIPAC, which says it “strongly supports a two-state solution”, describing it on its website as “the clear path to resolving this generations-old conflict.”

Most serious of all, Trump’s indifference to a one-state or two-state solution demonstrated a shocking lack of understanding of what a one state solution would entail – not least for Israel as a Jewish democratic state.

Even with Gaza removed from the formula, the demographics mean that in a single unitary state with democratic rights for Jews, Christians and Muslims between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean, Jews – in all likelihood – will soon be in the minority. In that case, Israel’s character as a Jewish state risks being erased.The unspoken alternative would be a single state with two systems which critics such as the chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat say would be the definition of “apartheid”.

 

[Exile]

Oh super.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ine-donald-trump-two-state-solution-netanyahu

Its almost getting quite FUNNY now. The bloke is utterly clueless. Amazing

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It's hard to keep up.

Has NSC covered The Donald's views on anti-Semitism?:-

[tweet]831924048716300288[/tweet]

Yep I watched that in amazement. Trump knows he can get away with it though because many of his detractors won't express outrage at anti Jewish sentiments. If he had answered in a similar way in response to a question on Islamophobia then there would have been an extra 25 pages in this thread and a statement by Jeremy Corbyn by now...

 

[knocky1]

Its almost getting quite FUNNY now. The bloke is utterly clueless. Amazing

He knows what apartheid is but doesn't need to say it. Just a nod and a wink.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Yep I watched that in amazement. Trump knows he can get away with it though because many of his detractors won't express outrage at anti Jewish sentiments. If he had answered in a similar way in response to a question on Islamophobia then there would have been an extra 25 pages in this thread and a statement by Jeremy Corbyn by now...

Well his presser with 'Bibi' probably helped.

 

[mikeyjh]

Its almost getting quite FUNNY now. The bloke is utterly clueless. Amazing

I was thinking something very similar, aside from the fact that they're the most powerful country there is, they are a complete laughing stock. Of course, to many Trump supporters that will mean diddley squat as they won't give a flying duck what the rest of the world thinks,

 

[daveinprague]

I was thinking something very similar, aside from the fact that they're the most powerful country there is, they are a complete laughing stock. Of course, to many Trump supporters that will mean diddley squat as they won't give a flying duck what the rest of the world thinks,

Not found one American, and theres a lot here, who isnt embarrassed. There maybe a Trump supporter here somewhere, but im yet to meet him.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Well his presser with 'Bibi' probably helped.

I'm not sure that Trump's cosy set up with Israeli politicians is an excuse for ignoring anti scemitic incidents in the US. Your response ( I mean you as a proxy for a certain world view, I don't mean to single you out) demonstrates how Trump won and how he will continue to win. Unfortunately the loudest voices on the anti Trump side lack credibility with the silent majority.

 

[BigGully]

You're clutching at straws here. Most people will see banning an entire nation because of a few as tarring everyone with the same brush.

What is the difference in terms of your 'tar-everyone' on Obama making those people from and to those travelling through those indentified countires having greater travel restrictions and greater detailed vetting than anyone else, or the almost ban on Iraqi and Syrian refugees ??

Where does your 'tar-everyone' barometer start and where does it finish, I suspect just everything Trump, it lacks consitency and we are soon back on to hypocrisy.

 

[studio150]

It's hard to keep up.

Has NSC covered The Donald's views on anti-Semitism?:-

[tweet]831924048716300288[/tweet]

Can anyone explain which question Trump was answering, given that it wasn't the one posed. He is so off into another world with his response that it would seem that he has been taking lessons from NSCs own master who avoids answering questions or answers a question but not the question and then says they have and its their view so it must be right.

Could British TV not set up a Trump exclusive interview with Jeremy Paxman with instructions to Paxman to not let go until the direct question has received a direct answer, I'm sure it would be riveting.

 

[beorhthelm]

What is the difference in terms of your 'tar-everyone' on Obama making those people from and to those travelling through those indentified countires having greater travel restrictions and greater detailed vetting than anyone else, or the almost ban on Iraqi and Syrian refugees ??

i'd have thought the difference was one policy imposes more detail vetting, while the other policy is a ban on anyone even if they passed the vetting.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Can anyone explain which question Trump was answering, given that it wasn't the one posed. He is so off into another world with his response that it would seem that he has been taking lessons from NSCs own master who avoids answering questions or answers a question but not the question and then says they have and its their view so it must be right.

Could British TV not set up a Trump exclusive interview with Jeremy Paxman with instructions to Paxman to not let go until the direct question has received a direct answer, I'm sure it would be riveting.

It seemed to me that he chose his words carefully to convey a message to any of his supporters who are anti Semitic. His answer was all about himself as is often the case.

 

[CHAPPERS]

You only have to listen to Steve Bannon on hos old radio shows to see why there might just be a 'tar everyone' policy going on. The man is an anti all immigrant white supremacist who know sits on the National Security Council.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What is the difference in terms of your 'tar-everyone' on Obama making those people from and to those travelling through those indentified countires having greater travel restrictions and greater detailed vetting than anyone else, or the almost ban on Iraqi and Syrian refugees ??

Where does your 'tar-everyone' barometer start and where does it finish, I suspect just everything Trump, it lacks consitency and we are soon back on to hypocrisy.

If you cannot understand the difference between vetting, and a ban, then there is no point continuing this discussion.

As for my barometer I don't have one...for me it's case by case. If Trump comes up with an idea I like I'll let you know. I have supported some Tory policies in the recent past.

 

[Soulman]

As we have no clue as to what will be the outcome. Move on to what?

Actually, forget that.. You have no idea.

Lets keep the thread devoted to SCROTUS

"No idea". Best you keep an eye on where you live, why are you so worried you are still in the EU. You may get your say in the future.
The Czech Republic may choose to follow Britain out of the European Union, the country’s prime minister said, amid growing fears in Brussels of a “contagion”.

Bohuslav Sobotka said that a “Czexit” may take place. The Czech Republic only joined the EU in 2004 and has been the beneficiary of billions in development funds, but has some of the most hostile public opinion.

 

[Exile]

It seemed to me that he chose his words carefully.

Unlikely.

 

[BigGully]

i'd have thought the difference was one policy imposes more detail vetting, while the other policy is a ban on anyone even if they passed the vetting.

The implementation is the point at which it becomes tar-everyone, you are just indentifying one difference between two policies.

 

[The Clamp]

"No idea". Best you keep an eye on where you live, why are you so worried you are still in the EU. You may get your say in the future.
The Czech Republic may choose to follow Britain out of the European Union, the country’s prime minister said, amid growing fears in Brussels of a “contagion”.

Bohuslav Sobotka said that a “Czexit” may take place. The Czech Republic only joined the EU in 2004 and has been the beneficiary of billions in development funds, but has some of the most hostile public opinion.

Whereas Brexit could in the long run be arguably (very arguably) good for Britain, I'm really struggling to see any reality where Trump is doing any good for the US.

While it is early days, he seems to already be on a course of destruction with foreign policy, security issues and PR. While he may be doing some of the negative things he promised I have yet to hear of him implimenting all those jobs for Americans and economic boosts he promised.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Whereas Brexit could in the long run be arguably (very arguably) good for Britain, I'm really struggling to see any reality where Trump is doing any good for the US.

While it is early days, he seems to already be on a course of destruction with foreign policy, security issues and PR. While he may be doing some of the negative things he promised I have yet to hear of him implimenting all those jobs for Americans and economic boosts he promised.

His eventual impeachment might mark a fresh start for US politics?

 

[BigGully]

If you cannot understand the difference between vetting, and a ban, then there is no point continuing this discussion.

As for my barometer I don't have one...for me it's case by case. If Trump comes up with an idea I like I'll let you know. I have supported some Tory policies in the recent past.

The point at which the polcy is implemented is the 'tar everyone', but I am happy not to continue further discussion on this particular issue.