Blog powered by Typepad

« Excuse me, darlings, whilst I go OTT | Main | Anniversary of the second biggest mistake in history »

Wednesday, 06 December 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"peace process" ...that's the key. There is no such thing the way diplomats use the term. There is an ongoing process where Western diplomats and all the right people nag Israel to trade land for peace. Any Israeli concession will be met with Palestinian scorn, refusal or maybe acceptance and then the next uprising begins. The Pallies never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They need to grow up, wise up and step up. Or, peace can be brought the old fashioned way: One side wins and dictates terms.

The embassy can be where it is, put in Jerusalem, or put on Mars. It won't change anything with the Pallies.

The senate passed a resolution to this effect by a vote of 90-0. So Trump is upholding th law as passed by Congress. Monster!

Also, let’s get real. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Full stop. Everything else is a denial of reality.

Finally, propping up is real IS the peace process that the US backs.

It's a bold call and one which will almost certainly have dire consequences but - yes, it's the right thing to do and may well be Trump's best move so far.

The approximately 90 embassies currently in Israel are all in Tel Aviv. There are 0 in Jerusalem. The countries you named above are not alone.

You mark your calendar as I advised David?

Israeli jets, by the way, let loose with a salvo of air-to-surface missiles (roughly) 60 miles south of Damascus last Friday. I seem to recall bringing that possibility to your attention recently as I'd advised there was an Iranian base (appeared) under construction just north of the Golan?

Bob it matters not where other countries have their embassies in Israel. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel now and was in the ancient Jewish State so the US having its embassy in Jerusalem is no different to it having its embassy here in Oz in Canberra or London in the UK.

I only wish my government had the guts to do the same.

How many times do the Arabs have to say that they want Israel destroyed completely before the West actually gets the message that the western idea of peace in that region is a mirage?

Congress passed an act in 1995 recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (subsequent presidents have declined to implement it).
Congress backed that up last June, together with a promise to stop funding the Palestinian authority unless it stopped paying people to kill Israelis and visitors.
Trump promised it during his campaign.
Presumably some people prefer to be governed by a President that ignores both the people and their representatives. They should be careful what they wish for.
And since Arabs acting under one name or other are constantly taking hostile action against Israel and the West, I deduce that the only peace on offer involves the subjugation of Israel and the west- and that only when they've finished fighting amongst themselves.

Anyone who takes on Islamic fascists is to be commended. The Islamist nutters will no doubt go on their usual bloodlust spree to save us infidels.


Most of the people in the US who are strong Israel supporters say that the embassy should be in Jerusalem. These people were overwhelmingly strong supporters of Trump in the election. People who are strongly against it voted for Clinton, and will not support Trump at all. He is paying back a favor at little political cost.( I suspect he sort of thinks this is a good idea on it's own merits.)

In the medium and long run it will not effect anything important. In the short run it will make a lot of noise.

The New Yorker of course claims that Trump "sabotaged the mid-east peace process". Like one even exists at this point. Can you believe it? Placing an embassy in a country's capital is now an act of sabotage.

The big worry of course is that throngs of Moslem terrorist extremists will attack other embassies, as they did in Iran. Hopefully, trump is better prepared than Carter and will get our people out before that happens.


"Hopefully, [T]rump is better prepared ..."

I gotta be kinda careful as I'm certain you understand but

I suppose its safe to say, we shall see.

Figured David, I'd just lay that in here.


The move could result in ethnic and religious conflicts as well as attacks on American embassies around the world. JK is right that we'll see.

"Trump’s Move Frees Palestinians to Focus on Peace, Not Jerusalem. Assuming, of course, that they want peace." Hint...they don't. They want it all.

Also, I gather that some years back the Congress with support from both sides passed a motion to the same effect. The problem has been that no president has yet had the balls to enact it!

David, noticed that did you? Same with the diplomatic types...say it, just don't do it. Enough of that stuff.

“The move could result in ethnic and religious conflict”. In the Middle East? What are you suggesting? That the Turks will genocide the Armenians? That the Iraqis will try the same with the Kurds? That Moslems will attack Hindus? That Sunni will attack Shia? That Christians will be beheaded all over the region? That imams will use cartoons to instigate mass murder of Europeans? That the cartoons will have been secretly drawn by the imams themselves? Impossible! You go too far, sir.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act waiver had been renewed every 6 months to keep the Israelis involved in negotiations. Its constitutionality had been disputed, since the executive branch makes foreign policy:

Also, there's less to Trump's pronouncement than meets the eye, and he's expected to delay the move at least another 6 months:

If an American embassy is burned down and personnel killed you will all be as appalled as you were about the embassy in Benghazi. Right?

If an American embassy is burned down by angry Muslim extremists, you’ll tell us “not all Muslims”, right?

Dom, do you think all 1.6 billion of them will turn up at an embassy?

Dom sums it up neatly.

There comes a time when you have to say "enough is enough and any further trouble will earn you a response you will not like".

History teaches us that appeasement usually leads to a greater tragedy than an initial strong response would generate.


"If an American embassy is burned down and personnel killed you will all be as appalled as you were about the embassy in Benghazi."

That's ignorance I'd not be expecting from even yourself Bob.

The US-to-Libya Embassy was located in Tripoli Libya. Further, as typical I'd expect for guys/girls unfamiliar with - except those depending on US Media reportage - there wasn't even a Consulate in Benghazi Libya.

What was "burned down and personnel killed" in Libya was what in diplo-circles was what is properly and accurately identified as a Mission,
- are you even the least aware Bob, why there'd never even be considered "an Embassy" in such a godforsaken place such as Benghazi Libya?

(Page 12, Figure 6)

Are you even Bob, at the very least, familiar at all with Libya's LIFG?

Aaah, JK. That's why we love you. Keep the bastards honest@!

"If an American embassy is burned down by angry Muslim extremists, you’ll tell us “not all Muslims”, right?"

I can't imagine anyone commenting on Mr Duff's blog saying that. We'd probably urge you Americans to throw the "angry" muslims onto the fire!

JK, we might share the honor of being wrong. The Benghazi facility was widely reported to be a consulate and Wikipedia agrees:

"State Department officials were later criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack."

The facility in Benghazi was also reported as a "station" and "compound".

BOE, et al, I was possibly being too much of a wise guy and will try to restrain myself in the future.

Well Bob,

True enough that, "The Benghazi facility was widely reported to be a consulate and Wikipedia agrees" however the fact remains as I've asserted above: "What was "burned down and personnel killed" in Libya was what in diplo-circles was what is properly and accurately identified as a Mission."

I'll give you a quick and easy primer on how to tell whether either Embassy or Consulate is accurate. And easy too Bob, you can search the answer yourself (via your preferred search site) the Department of State's perhaps?

What entity provides security for officially designated State Department Embassies and Consulates?

If your answer comes back as anything except USMC units specially attached, then, you'll need to get a little further into the weeds. I'd suggest avoiding Wiki.

This might help Bob:

Still weirder Bob (in the context as it existed that September night) was that even despite the facility in Benghazi being an, ostensibly, "official US presence" under then and current US Statute, "outside-the-wire security" had been contracted to a US company by the name of Triple Canopy.

Make of that last as you will Bob. As for myself ... well I've received a few paychecks - and signed enough 'non-disclosures' that I ought know better than to "argue" with suchlikes as yourself on a public blog.

In my defense I'd merely state I allowed any clearances I may've, at some point in the past, lapse - and surely the procedures have changed in the interim.

Have a nice day Bob, I'm done here.

Well ... on this subject anyway.


Thanks for that. I admit to no special knowledge of diplomatic or security protocol and defer to yours. Evidently a lot of reporters share my ignorance.

That's the first I've read of the obviously incompetent Blue Mountain. What do you think about privatizing military functions?


"What do you think about privatizing military functions?"

"What do I think?" that's Bob aside from being "complicated" something where, in the rarest of circumstance, I might allow David [our Duff] to go ahead and "connect us [email speaking-wise]" ... BUT - and consider carefully Bob (you being a "?former?" NASA guy) that there's a chance we might find ourselves ... uhmm overstepping knowingly?

A tidbit I'm aware of - the Norkies last launch "which proved" was powered by a Ukrainian supplied rocket motor [how that happened ... well you see how fraught you and I directly communicating could be Bob?] ... Recall as the USSR fell, the only instance of "a country giving up its [confirmed] Nuked"-ICBMs happened then?

I'm damned well confident of your Bob "doing not" as I'm, pretty much, aware you're confident that I haven't - but you do see where we could find ourselves screwing-up-bigtime?

What say you Bob that, allowing such time to pass as we'd expect procedures to change; requesting David (or SoD as the case may be) to do whatever you know is a really iffy proposition?

I was gonna extend Bob but ... well ... this is a public blog and worse, for we two (despite our being allies with the UK) I'm fairly certain you're aware I'd prefer unsupervised visitation with my Grandkids.


The comments to this entry are closed.