If they really want it over, do the two state solution. Let Palestine be it's own thing. Israel should get their settlements out of there. Make Jerusalem an international city. If fighting continues after that, then I will STFU.
Every. Single. Time. This has been on the table and not only did the Palestinians reject it they initiated open conflict against the Israelis. It's literally how the conflict started. Israel is open to the idea of the above and if you look at how they actually govern this is how it works in all but name.
"But it matters for that one starfish..." But that's just it. Talking points aren't a rational discussion meant to inform about a topic or have a different point of view. They come from both sides and half the time they're political nonsense. They're just small quips with no information to get people who have no deeper interest in a topic to agree. Platitudes that don't really have any room for nuance or information. It's a snip to get people angry and on your side. Don't be so surprised if you're dismissed after throwing a talking point at someone who doesn't agree with you and might know a little about your topic.
*smacks head against wall* Yes, coming to the table to declare Trump's decision to move the embassy as the end of rational foreign policy and the breakdown of America as a world leader was definitely not a talking point. There is nothing I can argue to a liberal that disagrees with their worldview that doesn't get me dismissed. That was my whole point, thank you for proving it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
You cannot reason with the unreasonable. You just do the right thing and you deal with what happens.
Does this count as Godwin's Law?
Technical violation perhaps. In the context of making concessions to foreign powers in the interest of peace, particularly foreign powers intent on wiping out the Jews, I don't think the sentiment of the Godwin's Law observation is as relevant here as you might like. What I would like, for my own ability to come up with a cogent argument for appeasement, is an example of where it worked. Like for instance, if the U.S. refusing to recognize Israel's capital had led to a sustained peace for Israel, the U.S., or the region in general. Oh wait. There isn't one. The experiment has been tried a dozen times now all over the world and it has always led to open conflict.
It makes sense to lowkey not acknowledge Taiwan as an independent state, no need to antagonize the Chinese, and not antagonizing the Chinese has a benefit. The residents of the region are still trying to convince each other that unification with China is good or that, alternatively, independence is good. Peacefully. When the unification talks break down, neighbors don't go home and plot to exterminate each other. They don't sponsor state terrorism against us or our allies. It makes sense not to antagonize the North Koreans, they're chillin' brutalizing their own people in a horrific regime of death, agony, and hopelessness, but I understand the willingness to say "not my monkey, not my circus."
In the context of U.S. state department official diplomatic actions, there is no reason not to recognize Jerusalem, failing to recognize it bought us nothing. It made no difference. It was a hollow gesture, without meaning. Our leadership on the issue is likely why lots of other nations did the same, it is not that we did it made us leaders, us being leaders is why everyone else did it.
Recruiting tool for Al Qaeda? Really? We destroyed two nations, leading to apocalyptic conditions that killed millions, devastation so bad that the word decimate definitionally is inadequate, and sat by and watched as the whole region descended into chaos. It's been open recruitment for awhile. How about that's a bullshit reason not to do the right thing.
You've had your opportunity to explain why not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a terrible idea, and that's all you've come up with. People who already hate us will still hate us, Palestinians who refuse to negotiate (we don't even know what they want because they won't propose anything, choosing instead to reject any proposal as offensive, leave the table, and start killing Israelis in open, armed, conflict), and worries over the safety of our personnel, which is the only one I'd accept, if we didn't already have a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem that'll be a shit-sight more safe with a full embassy contingent on hand for emergencies. Oh, and also, you can't explain it because I clearly should just know, because it's that obvious.
For your own edification, go look at what places in the world the state department has lost the most people, where our embassies have been taken out by hostile forces. Since 1979 there have been 24 attacks that I know of conducted by/carried out by the type of person likely to be offended by us moving our embassy to Jerusalem. 22 of those since Congress passed the act to move the embassy, the first since that passage (which probably should have stirred up some trouble all on its own if it was going to, yes?) the first was 1998. The only place in that part of the world where our personnel have been safe is Israel, because it's the only place in that part of the world where the authorities respect the value of a non-muslim life.
The national security argument is a bullshit one. It was fine in 1995, but it clearly hasn't made a damn bit of difference, except to be a slap in the face to the only ally over there who isn't secretly hoping we fail as a nation/outright calling for our extermination in a rain of fire and death.
And what drives me crazy, what drives me absolutely batshit crazy, is that ignorant liberals with no concept of the context and depth and history of the struggle in the middle east, who think the beauty pageant answer of "peace in the middle east" is just that, who see the nation of Israel as powerful and the Palestinians as weak and therefore Israel must have done something wrong, who have probably hundreds of things they could focus on with what Trump is doing wrong, instead choose to say that not only is he out of his depth on foreign policy, but that this somehow marks the end of...
Of course he's an idiot. Of course he did this, and I shit you not I wouldn't be surprised at all if he did this: because six months ago they asked him to sign the waiver, he recognized it coming across his desk again, and said, "what do I have to do to not sign this waiver every 6 months, I came here to golf not sign shit twice a year", and so they're moving the fucking embassy.
That's what the criticism should be about. He clearly has no fucking clue what he's doing. Doesn't make moving the embassy a bad idea though. I say we recognize Israel as the leader of the Arab League the next time jihadi's blow shit up. Just keep upgrading our offensive rhetoric. You kill a bunch of comics? We put an image of your prophet giving Jesus a handy on our currency. You decapitate an american journalist, we air drop translations of the quran that your people can actually read all over the countryside. You go on TV and call for the extermination of the West, we announce we found your prophet's body and he had an inter-cranial infection of parasites, entire religion is actually a hallucination, also, was a hermaphrodite, technically female in terms of chromosomes. You'll note I say your prophet, I actually didn't use the name, because I didn't want some fucked-up crazy person to murder people because I posted something offensive on the internet.
Passive Aggressive is a foreign policy strategy I can get behind. It's cheap and effective.