declaration 22 YEARS AGO. Why is the UN whining about it now?

Resolutions don't mean much of anything in the grand scheme of things. No US President has AFAIK ever publicly proclaimed it as such nor discussed moving our embassy there, which seems to be a much bigger deal.

a resolution. And yes, that resolution also talked about moving the embassy - as has every single president or presidential candidate has done since then. Why the angst about it now?

basically being outspoken and "in your face" about it in a way that nobody else has been? Because Trump is actually trying to DO something about it? Who really cares why? The point is that Trump is being a douche to the rest of the world (except Russia)- and Muslims in particular- and the rest of the world (except Russia) is upset and angry about it (and rightfully so IMHO). Plus, he's slinging raw red meat to the Christian fundies in his "base" whom are eating it up.

Him sucking up to his evangelical base. They're the only people he can depend on now. But there is really zero reason people here or at the UN should be runnning around with their hair on fire about this.

Nobody knows WHAT he is going to do or say next. The whole world right now is holding their breath just to see if Trump is going to light a nuclear war up with North Korea or pick a fight with Iran. There's no reason why people here or at the UN should NOT be running around with their hair on fire about *anything* he does IMHO.
:-/

Is there some reason you're trying to calm everybody down about this or make it out to be no big deal?

troubling things donnie is doing and has done than this. That's really it.

the embassy. Trump actually did that, but in a statement saying he WIIL move the embassy. While true that many FUTURE Presidents have said they will move the embassy when elected, NO SITTING PRESIDENT has ever said this.

Not to mention, if it is nothing new and does nothing, why do you support it as it HAS caused angst in the world. US policy has long been that this should wait until there is a peace acord and Jersalem is a settled issue.

out and quote me where I said I support this, we can continue this conversation.

The Democratic platform for the last three general elections says the same thing.

that it can't build an embassy in Jerusalem. If Trump succeeds in building it, it will surely become a target as so many American embassies have in the past. And when that day comes, someone needs to replay Nikki Haley's comment in the aftermath of the 1 to 14 vote. The casualties will be hers and Trump's legacy.

of the blame on the terrorists that would attack the embassy. I mean, heaven forbid they behave like human beings.

Once we realized our embassies became targets, we began to shut them down in volatile areas BECAUSE terrorists would target them. Now we're putting one in, in an area that could easily create a scenario for World War.

Terrorists are a fixed factor. The only thing we have control over, is eliminating easy targets for them.

an embassy in Jerusalem would be any more of a target than the one in Tel Aviv. The security would be stellar either place and giving into the terrorists by moving or not moving an embassy just hits me the wrong way.

denominations that are already in strife?

but I don't see your point. Why would one be in more danger than the other? And why give into those who threaten violence? Doesn't that give them license to threaten violence every time they don't get what they want?

If you are underwriting the safety of civilians and American diplomats and soldiers, I think there is no harm in being prudent.

I haven't taken a position on this here. I'm just pointing out this was decided and declared by the US government long ago - this is not new. I'm decidedly not in favor of giving into terrorism - that goes for anywhere, including Israel.

It's almost always everyone vs. US/Israel.

La-di-da! That's sooooo old!

We want stuff and we're takin' it!