trump supports obama

>>the u.n. security council hasvoted in favor of a resolution to denounce settlements inpalestinian territory. this is specifically in east jerusalem,also the west bank. this 15 member security council votedoverwhelmingly in favor of the resolution, 14-0, with theunited states abstaining. initially egypt sponsored theresolution but then they got a call from trump and decided tono longer sponsor it, and at

that point four other nationscame forward and said they would sponsor it -- >>the fact that they abstainedis actually -- it's a half measure but the world sees it asa very strong statement, and the obama administration has comeout in the past and said some negative things about thesettlements, and of course got a lot of criticism for that, nowthey are getting a lot of criticism for abstaining aswell. now --

>>also, donald trump hadsomething to say about this, unsurprisingly -- >>by the way, this isessentially nonbinding. they and announce it as much as theywant, benjamin netanyahu has made it clear that theywill probably continue with settlement building. >>i think it is a good stepforward, i'm always amused when the right-wing complains, ican't believe the united nations

would do something about thissituation in israel and palestine, it's an outrage, theyshould never do anything. except when they declared israel astate and you loved it. they always nitpick -- the way theydeclared it was not the same as they are declaring in this case,back then when the united nations made israel a country itwas wonderful and terrific, now i hate the united nationsbecause they didn't rule with us

-- convenient hypocrisy there. it's a half measure but it's a pretty good half measure. >>in this context it is. >>it's as far as any americanpolitician will go, so credit to obama for doing the right thing. this is not just about doing right by the palestinians, whichif you are a decent human being you should care about and wantthem to have their own peace and

security for their own sake,it's also about doing the right thing for israel. because if youdon't have a two state solution, and right now the u.s.ambassador, david friedman, says we should not have a two statesolution, israel should annex the west bank and east jerusalemand treat the palestinians as subjugated citizens. >>i'm sure that way of thinkingis the palestinians go back to other countries.

jordan, syria. >>maybe march them out in atrail or something. >>to be clear he wants to movethe capital from tel aviv to jerusalem, which of course is acontroversial thing to say. >>it is not controversial, it isantagonistic, hostile. i know what you mean, but just to beclear that is in the middle of a process that granted we are notin the middle of right now, sides are not particularlytalking, but that is a way of

saying eff you. i geteverything, you get nothing. is that controversial? let's keepnegotiating. >>and then you have that layerof hypocrisy where they say how dare the united nations talkabout how we should resolve these issues? but wait, a twostate solution is not

controversial, most everyone inthe world is for a two state solution, i believe israel'sposition is a two state solution. that is the leastcontroversial position there is. on the other hand, ourambassador to israel that is going to come in comes in andgoes, oh no, israelis and palestinians should not settleit and negotiate, i'm just going to declare jerusalem thecapital. that is at the heart of

the negotiations, if you declarethat time you don't get to go around saying people shoulddeclare things before negotiation. >>it is elementary to theprocess, jerusalem is the subject, the notion that theywould move the capital is as hostile and act as you could do. it is more hostile than continuing to build settlements,which is what this is about. it's the most hostile thing.

anoverwhelming majority of jews are against this in the unitedstates -- thankfully i'm proud to say some amount of jews arethoughtful, caring, considerate people. donald trump and davidfriedman are bad for jews. my dad always had the determiningfactor, is it good for the jews? even if it has nothing to dowith them. if the cubs are

beating the cardinals, is itgood for the jews? david friedman, the notion that hewould be the ambassador to israel, is at the top of thelist of things that should alarm people about what kind ofperson donald trump is. >>you make a good point, anotherportion of this resolution which isn't getting covered enoughaddresses palestinian hostility toward israelis. theyspecifically mention some

palestinians attacking israelicivilians, how they are denouncing that, that needs tostop. so it's not like they just use strong language againstisraeli settlements, this resolution seeks a two statesolution and the only way to do that is to stop taking measuresthat lead to hostility. building settlements inpalestinian territory will lead to more problems in thefuture. >>i don't know if palestinianswill get mad at this but my

opinion is that i don't care atall if jerusalem becomes the capital of israel. but that isif you have adjust peace, a solution with two differentstates, i don't care if it is the israeli capital or thenorwegian capital, i don't care about jerusalem because i don'tbelieve in yahweh or allah or magical creatures who talk to mefrom the sky, i don't care who's capital it is, i just want themto have peace. if it hurts the

peace process it is bad for allof us, in the case of the u.n. resolution, they are saying theworld is standing up and saying those jewish settlements in thewest bank and east jerusalem are illegal, you are violatinginternational law, for god's sake, for your own sake and thepalestinians' sake and for peace not only in the middle east butthroughout the world, get to the table and make a deal. you knowyou want to separate, just separate.

my personal opinion, iknow people are against this too, then upon the agreedborder, build the biggest wall the world has ever seen. havedonald trump pay for it. maybe he'll do it, he wants to build awall anyway. >>have mexico pay for the wall. >>anybody. i will pay for it.

>>i want to get to the reactionto the resolution, that is an important component. as you guysknow, trump was against it from the beginning, when egyptsponsored this resolution he gave them a call and theydecided to pull away. at that point new zealand, malaysia,venezuela and senegal got together and decided to sponsorit. after the resolution passed,

unanimous vote, there was somereaction, it was bipartisan agreement that this resolutionwas wrong. >>of course! >>now -- >>so we are going to cut offfunding for the entire world? there is some chance you are noton the right side when everyone else in the world disagrees withyou. in this case, literally.

no, we've got this thing figuredout. we should not be evenhanded, we should beone-sided. >>in a trump presidency it ispossible it will be one-sided and that we will pull fundingfrom the u.n. trump tweeted after the vote, things will bedifferent after january 20. in terms of who else was againstit -- >>they say you can't findbipartisan agreement in america,

there is one thing you canalways find it on -- supporting right-wing israeli policypositions. >>that's because we have astrong israeli lobby in the country, and you are not allowedto say that for some reason even though it is a fact. there is aspecific reason why we continue to give $3 billion a year inforeign aid to israel, it is thriving, why do we give so muchforeign aid? i'm not saying i'm

against it, i just say it'sinteresting. >>i know why people don't wantto say that, anytime you see jews have outsized influence inany country in history it goes bad when you use that language. but you can't deny things that are true -- and i'm not sayingoutsized influence, i'm saying are there lobbies in thiscountry? do lobbies have outsized influence?

yes. is oneof those lobbies the israeli lobby? yes. >>just to simplify, i get it, ihave the thing jews have, i'm barely jewish, but when i knowpeople are about to cross into dangerous territory, and youguys just aren't. they have an outsized influence regardingu.s. policy towards the middle east, nothing could be moreclear. our policy toward the

middle east is driven by theisraeli lobby and its loyalists in congress, and the issue isnot that that lobby shouldn't exist or try to influence policythat favors israel -- the rest of us should look at what policyreally favors israel, and what policy then really favors us? how do we make this world safer for americans? that's what ourpolicy should do, and unquestionably, not even as acaveat, that policy includes,

for every rational thinkingamerican, a strong, vibrant, safe, independent israel. it'sjust how you get there. and you don't get there by buildingsettlements, award i'm never going to use anymore, becausethey are not settlements, they are joint housing developments. they're towns imposed on areas. like, hey, i'm going to buildmesa, arizona on what was your

land. there will be like 80,000people. it's a town with townhouses and supermarkets. settlement makes it sound likethey are settlers, looking for gold and living in a tent. >>if you do that, will the cubsstill play in mesa in the spring? >>you can give 1000 examples,for example the turkish lobby

has an outsized influence whenit comes to matters related to turkey in this country. >>turkish lobby. good one.. >>everybody is talking about theturkish lobby. >>there are a lot of people thattalk about the turkish lobby. >>if you ask armenians, theycan't stand the turkish lobby for understandable reasons andthey do have an outsized influence because they havemoney.

and that's how this system works. the real shamethis year is from the democrats, because 70% of jews in americahistorically and consistently vote for the democratic party,are liberals and progressives, and there are wonderfuljewish-american groups like j street that argues for a twostate solution. but the chuck schumers of the world on thisissue go, i'm not a liberal, i'm

going to support the right-wingposition on israel. why? that is not what your constituents want,that is not what reasonable jewish-american groups want, butwhen it comes to israel i'm going to lose my mind and besuper right-wing even though i'm a democrat. >>you are right about it, withchuck schumer, but -- >>it's almost everyone.

>>but people with theprogressive, thoughtful addition, they are all most alldemocrats. >>there are almost norepublicans that have the position we think will befruitful and lead to peace, but the democratic party, schumer isnot alone. manchin, mccaskill -- you think those guys are goingto support right-wing positions on israel? of course they are.

there are only a handful ofdemocrats who stand up to it. one of them is on my shirt.