First point... Trump is clearly right. Jerusalem is very obviously the capital of Israel. The trick for working this out is going up to some Israelis and asking them what the capital is. You can use a similar technique successfully everywhere in the world, with the possible exception of Catalan.

So the question becomes "is Trump's recognition of the truth and fulfilling his election promise worth the political fallout?"'. Until it happened I would have said obviously not. That it was madness to make such a statement. However, the fallout has been remarkably limited. Once again, as with the election itself, what I thought of as common knowledge has been proven to be bollocks, and Trump's idiotic opinion has turned out to be a lot closer to right than mine.

Well, at least you can admit it.

It's another Trump deflection to distract from the Republican tax plan the middle class and poor. North Korea isn't working as a distraction anymore.

Great Britain recognized the island state of Singapore.
How do you recognize an island? Do you go, exc-- Hey, wait. No, don't tell me.
Wait, wait. Didn't we meet last year at the Feinman bar mitzvah?
You look a lot like Hawaii. Didn't we meet last year at the Peninsula Club?

bastard democrats! bastard democrats! bastard democrats! bastard democrats!

Guys. Before commentng on what is fair and what is not, one should at least study the history of the events there during the last 100 years.

What I often find bewildering in these forum discussions is how no one ever points to whether or not American, or US allies', actions are in line with the UN Charter or the Security Council resolutions. As someone from a third world country, I often get the impression that you have somehow been taught this for so long that you now believe international law to be absolutely irrelevant, when compared to your own interests or ludicrously biased sense of justice. Rather distressing, to be honest.

stefanodangello - You have NO IDEA.

The UN resolutions have no teeth without American lead and steel enforcing them. There's no point to discussing that angle when it comes to actions taken by the US government, since the UN couldn't do anything to prevent the US government from taking those actions, even if it wanted to do so.
Quite frankly, it _is_ irrelevant. Who's going to come do anything to us about it? China? Russia?
Not irrelevant in an ethical sense; we could have quite a robust discussion about the degree, if at all, to which self-proclaimed international authorities like the UN should have sovereignty over otherwise-sovereign member states.
But it's all empty when the UN has no real means to enforce any sovereignty it might claim.

What generates conflicts and wars is when people feel strong enough not to respect the Law.

UN Security Council Resolutions are binding for all the countries who signed to be members of the United Nations.

We are not at the Cave Age. We are expected to respect what we say we would respect and that way avoid conflicts.

Dubya proved to the world that cowboy diplomacy works!

"What generates conflicts and wars is when people feel strong enough not to respect the Law."

Why do you say that? I don't agree with this in the least -- mankind was in conflict with itself before laws ever existed and frequently finds itself in conflict even when laws exist. The existence of laws and a powerful entity to enforce them is not a prerequisite for conflict.

"We are not at the Cave Age. We are expected to respect what we say we would respect and that way avoid conflicts."
"Dubya proved to the world that cowboy diplomacy works!"

Acknowledging reality isn't advocating for it.
It is fact that if the US decides to defy the UNSC, the UN has no realistic means of punishing the US for doing so.
This is why discussions about the Security Council are rare in discussing American governmental affairs: the SC has no practical impact on them.
None of that is saying that this is how things SHOULD be. But denying that this is how things ARE is counterproductive.

That may be a bad example because the 'resort to force' in Iraq was agreed by the UNSC the 2 times. And Georges W Bush is not responsible of 9/11 by the way. He had to react to it. Same against Daesh.

The point is that the 'resort to force' should be the last attempt and when it is done it is important to take care of the next steps. See what was done in Europe and Japan after WW2 and not achieved in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And it is ignoring history to expecting that people will agree supporting oppression and the 'resort to force' against them.

"It is fact that if the US decides to defy the UNSC, the UN has no realistic means of punishing the US for doing so."

US cannot decide to defy the UNSC. It is against the principle to be a member of the UN. It would mean the US is a rogue state.

"This is why discussions about the Security Council are rare in discussing American governmental affairs: the SC has no practical impact on them."

No. The UNSC doesn't discuss US governmental affairs because there is nothing to discuss there for the UNSC. US is a working democracy where people rights are well respected.

"None of that is saying that this is how things SHOULD be. But denying that this is how things ARE is counterproductive."

That's not true at all. This advocacy of "pragmatism" ("de facto") against the "agreement/law" ("de jure") is not at all the way world works. It is the way some unconscious or dangerous people think it should work because they dream it would be more "efficient".

Whether we chose a civlised world ("de jure") or we play Far West ("pragmatism"). But today world is civilised. We don't cross at the "red light". We don't hit old people in shops to take their place in the queue. We don't cut the grass on Sunday in villages where we all decided not to do so. We don't use guns when we disagree with our neighbours because he cut the grass anyway...

"Why do you say that? I don't agree with this in the least -- mankind was in conflict with itself before laws ever existed and frequently finds itself in conflict even when laws exist. The existence of laws and a powerful entity to enforce them is not a prerequisite for conflict."

You don't need a "powerful entity" to "enforce" laws. You need a powerful entity to intervene when laws are not respected. You don't need policemen in the streets to prevent people to respect the law. You need poiicemen in the area to intervene when some people felt strong enough not to respect the law... (What you advocate for and/or what you think is the working rule).

There have been laws since ever and very first day. Animals have laws, ie agreed principles to live in community. And people respect them because whether they were educated to respect them or understand why it is important to respect them even when they could not in practice.

Look at the US's military-industrial complex. It is not the free-market capitalism of liberal ideals (what you now call libertarians) it is very much the state capitalism which many fascists advocated.

Sorry, wrong thread.

Pardon the all caps, but...

DO NOT CONFUSE OR CONFLATE CLASSICAL LIBERALISM WITH LIBERTARIANISM.

Libertarians never grow up.

Just trying to avoid confusion between modern (US) liberals (who believe in a liberal social policy) and classical european liberal (who believed in a liberal economic policy).

Fair point. But there are *many* guttersnipe libertarians in the U.S. who try to claim the mantle of classical liberalism without any functional knowledge of the deep differences in philosophy just because Dinesh d'Souza did some shitty piece on PragerU about it.

Well here's an interesting development. At the UN a resolution calling for the US to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has been backed. Notable abstentions include Mexico and Canada. The idea of the heroic Justin Trudeau standing up to Trump the bully had been well and truly crushed. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.

hey its the 'golden' rule. we have the gold. we make the rules.

Putin supported the resolution.

Isolate the US and give Trump enough rope.

DILLY DILLY

the UN voted like 128-9 not to recognize the USA moving the embassy to Jerusalem. 100% posturing. I can't help but feel like they've been in denial since Obama left

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn-enjcgV1o

Give Oklahoma back to Native Americans!

Give the UN a chance to vote against Israel and US and you easily get a turnout.

Ask them to vote against human rights violations in a third world country and …. *hear crickets*

they elect the perpetrators as leaders of the commission

the UN is full of Harvey Weinsteins only the abuse isn't limited to sex