that law included a 6 month waiver to delay the move and every President from Bill Clinton onwards perpetually signed those wavers. Donald Trump allowed it to lapse, which is the point I'm making; he's an outlier.
The fact remains that Bill Clinton (2 terms), George W Bush (2 terms) and Barack Obama (2 terms) all utilised the waiver in the original legislation. Donald Trump in his first term didn't, which makes him an outlier.
My point is that one can suggest that as opposed to being supportive to Israel like former presidents that Donald Trump is friendly to Israel, giving them what they want without asking for anything tangible in exchange.
Please note that I will not continue to talk to you if you reply again without referencing the additional context I added. Talking past your conversational partner is rude.
>The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37). The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.
Your context is deflecting that this is US law, adopted by more than supermajority in both houses and trying to dump it on trump. This law was essentially the will of american people; and presidents that you enumerated avoided implemented provisions of it.
also, waiver in question was not blanket, but 6 months long and based on "national security" grounds". i guess under trump there were no more national security grounds to get a waiver
and "I guess" that Donald Trump is an outlier when its comes to how US presidents treat Israel. That the Sentate passed the law is not entirely pertinent because I am talking about how US presidents treat Israel not US Presidents and the Sentate. I get your point that the senate passed the law in 1995 and its good context, however it doesn't do anything in showing how the sequence of US presidents since then have decided to hold it over Israel's head until Donald Trump's first team, he remains as a suspected outlier.
I remain perplexed about how that was given up for seemingly nothing, much like how Donald Trump curiously decided to betray the YPG for seemingly nothing too. You got any guesses on that one, given the YPG were the troops that did great work in defeating ISIL for us all? I feel like they didn't deserve that.
it can be as simple that there was no more "national security ground" to delay it.
and btw, to address "I feel like they didn't deserve that", israel didn't really want embassy moved. because (obviously) palestinians got angry and started a wave of violence that lasted for year or so and resulted in bunch of dead and wounded.
The "I feel like they didn't deserve that" was about the YPG in Syria, not Israel.
> it can be as simple that there was no more "national security ground" to delay it.
Maybe but what had changed exactly at that point? Without a contextual argument that explains it, I can't help but feel like its a tell that Donald Trump is more friendly to Israel than previous presidents.
it could be as simple as previous presidents playing realpolitik to pacify arab countries and trump didn't.
another point, arab countries dropped "no normalization without palestinian state" approach (the see in past decade palestinian leadership as corrupt and incapable) and signed abraham accords. saudia was supposed to seal the deal as well but oct7 happened.
