Connect with us

Politics

10 Countries May Also Move Embassy To Jerusalem, Following Trump’s Lead

Published

on

(Via The Daily Wire)

On Monday, after Guatemala courageously decided it would follow the United States’ lead and move its embassy to Jerusalem, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely announced that at least 10 other countries are discussing moving their embassies to Jerusalem as well.

As The Times of Israel reports, when Hotovely spoke to Israel Radio, she would not confirm which states were discussing the move with Israel, but Channel 10 reported that the first country likely to announce such a decision would be Guatemala’s neighbor, Honduras.

On Sunday, Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales announced on his official Facebook account that he had told his foreign ministry to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He spoke of his talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying:

We spoke about the excellent relations that we have had as nations since Guatemala supported the creation of the state of Israel. One of the most important topics [of the conversation] was the return of the embassy of Guatemala to Jerusalem. So I inform you that I have instructed the chancellor to initiate the respective coordination so that it may happen.

On Monday, Netanyahu saluted Guatemala in the Knesset, stating:

God bless you, my friend, President Jimmy Morales. God bless both our countries, Israel and Guatemala. I told you recently there would be other countries that will recognize Jerusalem and move their embassies. I repeat: There will be more, this is just the beginning.

Also on Monday, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein told attendees at a Likud party event that the parliamentary heads of two other countries had echoed their desire to move their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. According to the Walla news, Romania and Slovakia are planning to make such a move. Paraguay and Togo are reportedly also considering such a move.

In recent years, Israel and Honduras have had close relations; in 2016 the two countries signed an agreement so Israel could aid Honduras’ armed forces to fight organized crime. Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez graduated from MASHAV, Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation.

Honduras joined Guatemala last week to vote against the U.N. General Assembly’s resolution condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Guatemala has been friendly to Israel since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948; its embassy resided in Jerusalem from the 1950s until 1980. Before 1980, Guatemala, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, The Netherlands, Panama, Venezuela and Uruguay had their embassies in Jerusalem, but when Israel declared in 1980 that Jerusalem was its indivisible and eternal capital, the U.N. Security Council passed U.N. Security Council resolution 480 urging those countries to move their embassies to Tel Aviv, prompting their transfer.

The vote in the U.N. Security council in August 1980, 14-0 with one abstention, could have been defeated with one negative vote from one of the five permanent members of the Council, (the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China) but the Carter Administration would not vote against the resolution, instead abstaining from the vote. Resolution 480 followed U.N. Security Council Resolution 476, in June 1980, which stated that Israel had no right “to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem.” The vote was 14-0, with one abstention; the Carter Administration abstained from that resolution, too.

Of course, Jerusalem has been acknowledged as the eternal capital of the Jewish people for more than three millennia; so announcing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital isn’t changing the status of anything.

The Czech republic and Russia have not committed wholly to accepting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but they have recognized West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Donald Trump 45 – 47

Published

on

Donald Trump’s political journey over the last eight years has been a vivid illustration of modern populism, defying conventional political odds. Starting with his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump, a real estate mogul and reality TV star, harnessed populist sentiments to propel his candidacy. His message resonated with many Americans feeling left behind by globalization and economic shifts, promising to restore jobs, combat what he described as unfair trade deals, and prioritize American interests over international cooperation. This populist wave was marked by his direct communication style, bypassing traditional media to connect with voters through rallies and social media, where he spoke of “draining the swamp” in Washington, suggesting a deep-seated distrust in the political establishment.

The struggle of Trump supporters has mirrored this populist movement, characterized by a sense of alienation from what they perceive as a detached political and cultural elite. This group, often labeled pejoratively by some in the mainstream, found in Trump a voice for their frustrations with immigration policies, economic policies favoring global trade over local jobs, and cultural shifts they felt were imposed without their consent. The Trump family, from Melania’s fashion choices to Ivanka’s political involvement, became symbols of this populist resistance against the perceived elitism of politics. The criticism they faced only deepened the solidarity among Trump’s supporters, who saw in his family a reflection of their own battles against the establishment.

The alt-media ecosystem was instrumental in this populist surge, serving as both a battleground and a bastion. Outlets like Breitbart and Infowars, and later platforms like Parler and Truth Social, became the echo chambers where Trump’s narrative of being a victim of political witch hunts and media bias was amplified. These platforms didn’t just report news; they crafted a narrative where Trump’s every move, from policy to personal tweets, was framed as part of a larger fight against a corrupt system. This interaction between Trump, his supporters, and the alt-media has redefined political discourse, showcasing how populism can harness media, both traditional and digital, to challenge and reshape political norms. Trump’s journey has thus not only defied odds but has also redefined what political success looks like in an era where populism can sway elections and influence policy discussions at the highest levels.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First

Published

on

Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance

Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.

A Historical Backdrop

On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.

The Symbolism of the Return

Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:

  1. Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
  2. Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
  3. Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
  4. A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.

The Broader Impact

The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.

This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.

In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.