Let’s assume Kerry is not an idiot - a hard assumption to defend given his tenure at State, but let’s assume it regardless. What’s to be gained by saying all hell will break loose if Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem? And not just saying it, but implying the violence would be justified because of how ‘important’ the Dome of the Rock and El Aksa are to Muslims? By saying this you guarantee there’ll be violence because how can any righteously aggrieved young Muslim now not go nuts should Trump move the embassy since Kerry has signalled ‘hey, I get your anger’? So that’s the point, right, to guarantee irrational rage in order to box in Trump? And that’s helpful how? And that makes sense how? And this is me trying to assume Kerry isn’t just an idiot and actually knows what he’s doing regardless of whether or not what he’s doing makes any sense whatsoever.
By signalling that the outrage would be justified Kerry is essentially saying Muslim claims re Jerusalem supercede or outweigh Jewish or Christian claims - this flies in the face of pure history and both biblical and archaeological evidence, which establish a significant Jewish connection to Jerusalem dating back more than a thousand years before Islam even existed - but also flies in the face of the supposed two state solution which at the very least must hold that equal access to Jerusalem's holy sites for both Israel [and with that Christians too] and Palestine is not negotiable. When Allenby walked into Jerusalem in 1917 and said the city was important to three religions and the claims of each would be treated equally and with respect, he was addressing a reality [not necessarily a ‘truth’] that would absolutely have to be acknowledged by any final status agreement - and yet apparently Kerry doesn't see the logic of that because anyone who saw the logic of that would strongly condemn any proposed violence [because that’s exactly what this is] and not signal that it was understandable. If it’s understandable then I guess for Kerry the Crusades were ‘understandable’ or it would have been perfectly understandable, when Jordan controlled Jerusalem and wouldn’t allow Jews to access the Temple Mount, for Israel to have lay siege to Jerusalem and taken the city back - I mean, if Palestinian rage would be ‘understandable’ [and we’re only talking about an embassy here, not blocking Muslim access to the Temple Mount as has happened to Jews for much of the last 2000 years] and the claims of the three religions are viewed as equal, then Christian and Jewish rage would be understandable too, no? Unless of course Kerry et al do indeed believe Muslim claims to Jerusalem supersede and outweigh Christian and Jewish ones.
[I mean, Jerusalem isn't even mentioned in the Quran - in the 17th Sura Muhammad talks about the ‘Night Journey’ to the distant place or furthest temple or something like that - but that place doesn’t get associated with Jerusalem until after Muhammad's death - and the motivation for the association seems to have been quite political. But regardless, Jerusalem has evolved into an important site for Muslims, so fine - the point is, the reality of the situation in Jerusalem demands that the claims of the three pertinent religions be treated as equal whether or not one may think the imputed equality precisely accurate - no other approach makes sense - moving the embassy to Jerusalem does nothing to refute that reality - in fact it simply acknowledges it - to suggest otherwise amounts to irrational chauvinism - to do or say anything that seems to legitimize that irrationality is idiotic - bringing us back to the beginning - is Kerry an idiot? Or is it simply that he and Obama et al are ideologically predisposed to see Israel in and of itself as problematic and indicative or representative of something they are inherently opposed to?
And it’s the hypocrisy here that totally annoys - Israel goes out of its way to ensure Muslim access to the temple Mount is not impeded - does anyone believe if the situation were reversed, if a Palestinian state or even Jordan again were in control of Jerusalem, that Christian and Jewish access would be similarly guaranteed? C’mon. I mean just look at the recent UNESCO attempt, backed by the palestinians, to expunge a Jewish connection to the Temple Mount - I mean that’s pure insanity - and yet Kerry thinks Palestinian rage over a entirely legitimate embassy move to Jerusalem wouldn’t be. I dunno, it’s hard for me to believe these people are that stupid - which means it has to be an ideologically predisposed contempt for Israel]