The last time Jerusalem was independent was when it was an Outremer state (the Kingdom of Jerusalem) which lasted around 200 years, between 11th and 13th centuries CE as I recall. The whole levant was then under various Arab dynasties for the next few hundred years and the Ottoman Empire from around 17th Century until it's dissolution in the early 20th century. The modern day state of Israel has only existed since the mid 20th century.

The people who have been there the longest are the people who are still there, living under occupation by a "western" (but particularly US) backed faction.

Trump was elected by an overwhelming proportion of fundamentalist protestants. These people take the Bible literally and so are even more likely to give unconditional support to Israel than US Jews. They also believe that the temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem before the "end of days". For a Jewish criticism of Trump's action, see
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827558

Absurd petty squabbling between institutions, not individuals, all of it. Invisible arbitrary borders that only serve to define areas under the power and control of institutions. Meanwhile, like all people, individuals just want to get on with their lives and feed and protect their families from aggression while they are the ones called and/or compelled to fight and/or die while the rich and powerful sit back and watch and plan their next move to rouse the rabble. If individuals stopped buying into this ridiculous, counterproductive and endless crap the beginning of the end would commence, but I doubt I will live to see it. Some people are just never satiated.

I assure you that the present American President was not elected "by" any particular "cabal" of people, let alone people who have adopted any such views.

If anything, I daresay he was elected by people who are far more interested in "America first!™" than in any pointless squabble between people who are shouting (and, shooting ...) at one another on both banks of a thoroughly-inconsequential stream. They're probably more-than tired of watching their country being endlessly dragged into a thing which should not matter to their country at all.

Some people might be looking for "the end of days," but plenty more just look for days to continue. Some people might be fixated on the idea of a religious structure being rebuilt yet-again, but plenty more frankly, don't give a damn.

Maybe not but Evangelicals are big Trump backers and appear to be the majority in his cabinet including the VP. According to the exit polls 80% voted for him more then any other religious group.

https://www.charismanews.com/politic...-trump-cabinet

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/...onal/president

Although meaningless statistics were up 5% last year.

Hopefully I have not offended any members.

American Jews are divided on Trump's move on Jerusalem with 44% percent opposing. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...-to-jerusalem/

Evangelicals are divided on the move and a majority of Americans oppose it:

"While 53 percent of Evangelicals support the move, 40 percent oppose it."

"Our poll also shows that 63 percent of all Americans oppose moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, including 44 percent of Republicans."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/marka...tal-of-israel/

I think its the interest of highly organized lobbies (AIPAC, CUFI) and oligarchs (Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban). Sheldon Adelson wanted Trump to keep his promise on moving the embassy to Jerusalem. Money buys influence and they have it.

To butcher Mark Twain's quote: "There are lies, damned lies, and polls."

You're most likely to hear from people who are anxious to have something to say. The questions that you ask inevitably affect the answers that you receive and the conclusions (sic) that you reach.

You can, of course, determine if a person is "Jewish" using a DNA test. But there is no test for "Evangelical." A portion of the populace which has religious beliefs might be overt in those beliefs and might make political decisions because they think "it's God's will" or because they want to "save us all from Hell" or what-not. And, it may well be that it's easy to find those people using opinion polls. It becomes a gigantic typecast: almost a sandwich-board sign that you're expected to wear.

- - - - -

I frankly think that most folks under-estimate Donald Trump because they don't know what he's up to. He threw a gigantic monkey-wrench into a political process which had become thoroughly fossilized and self-absorbed. He brought negotiation skills of a kind that made him a multi-billionaire. And, fundamentally, he is the first American President who was neither a career politician nor a retired Army General. They want to typecast him, force him to fly away from the East Lawn in a helicopter (or be hauled away in a box ... they really don't care), and hurry back to the stasis-field which is their comfort zone. But the American people elected him because they didn't. And he's doing what they hired him to do, upsetting one apple-cart after another after another.

There are things like "Peace in the Middle East™" which are well-known political footballs that will, of course, never go out-of-play. If those people wanted to make peace with each other, they would have done so long before now. But, they don't. Instead, they use the prospect of peace, in a never-ending feud of their own making, as a tool to manipulate other nations (particularly, the United States), and to keep their nation improbably in the center of attention. Perhaps the US should simply withdraw its explicit political support – which puts it taking-sides in a pointless squabble that is going nowhere – and, having done that, quietly suggest to both sides that they really do need to settle their own differences, once and for all. Why should they ever be motivated to "settle their own differences," if by not doing so they can lead the USA around like a pig with a ring in its nose?

Planet Earth does not revolve around Israel or Palestine. Seriously.

That's an over simplistic view of a very complex issue. The US fully backs Israel (Trump has only ditched some of the hypocrisy and confirmed that publicly) and that's not likely to change. Support will not be withdrawn.

The biggest error is on the part of the Palestinian groups in trusting the US, at all, to be able to mediate or negotiate anything which benefits them. Israel has made it clear for the past several decades that the end goal is Jewish colonisation and clearing Palestinian settlements is one of the means to achieve that end and that is precisely what they have been doing.

You won't have a meaningful peace process while you have a US backed state with high tech weaponry vs what amounts to a stateless people who have little or no international support, no real power or influence and who live in an effective apartheid state. When the 'mediators' are Israel's allies and when neighbouring Arab states do pretty much nothing except funding paramilitaries, this sad farcical mess can only continue as it has been.

So are you saying that the Israeli government and/or the population (which as I understand it is a mix of ethnic background) desires to steal land from Palestinians and drive them away making them homeless so they can give it "to their own kind" however "own kind" is defined ?

USA Politics = Navel Gazing?
 

Glad someone can see what's really going on there! Well said cynwulf!

If the people in this region actually wanted to, they could find a way to make peace among themselves. Perhaps they do it simply by finding some other place to live. But, "stubborn meets stubborn," and the presence of the United States only makes it worse.

Nobody has to be "homeless," unless they are determined to be. If the two parties want to settle this matter peacefully, they are entirely capable of finding a way to do it ... on their own. Any group of human beings can do that, if they choose. But, if they don't resolve it, the world will continue to revolve around an axis of their choosing. (Among other things, the US will continue to give them money.)

Thus, a squabble over a very small patch of land (so to speak ...) on the shores of a desert stream becomes a matter that is supposed to be of principal concern to all of the known Universe, and it is in the interests of both parties never to resolve it. As long as they never make peace, they've got the United States by the nose. But they, not the USA, are setting the rules of engagement, and they do so to suit their own purposes, not the USA's.

Hence my very-serious suggestion: "what's actually in this for the United States?" If we're doing all of these things just to broker a squabble over an insignificant piece of land – insignificant except to the desert-people who are still arguing over it and who obviously always will be – what's our benefit? Are we actually leading the situation to an amicable settlement, i-f these people actually want one, or are we simply making things worse?

I frankly believe that – thanks to our State Department – the USA has "had its fingers in everybody else's pie" for far, far too long. Everybody's regional squabble becomes "a vital American interest." That might be a great thing if you're a State "lifer" with billions of dollars to spend each year, but I think that it's long past time for the US to be challenging these things: "what, if anything, is actually in it for U.S.?" :mad:

As long as the USA can be kept in the picture, neither party has any motivation to want the conflict to end. Quite the opposite. They'll just keep grabbing headlines, every single day, constantly manipulating the situation to their own mutual(!) ends.

I want to see the US State Department be made to go down its entire list of "vital American interests" and start culling that list. Starting, maybe, with this. It could well be that our presence is what keeps the flames burning in many of these cases, especially if we are "$upporting" one side or the other, or both.

It is also well worth remembering that the "boundaries" that now exist in this region were imposed following the end of World War 1. Desert dwellers often had very fluid boundaries, and tribal organization. They didn't draw fixed boundaries, as westerners do. By literally creating lines in the sand, we created a cultural clash.

The US isn't "brokering" anything - it's Israel's sponsor and ally. The Israeli state dwarfs the Palestinian groups and population centres in the West Bank and Gaza. There is no "let them sort it out between themselves" element to all of this.

Technically Israel isn't a US ally.
http://natsummit.org/transcripts/ray_mcgovern.htm

So cynwulf am I to interpret you answering sundial's response to my question made directly to you, that you are not going to answer?

Here... so you don't have to scroll up...

Maybe comment on how "own kind" is defined by you.

If being an "ally" of Israel means that we continue to be locked into a conflict that is basically never going to end, should we maintain that alliance?

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but this situation isn't moving and it hasn't moved in a very long time.