US Jews urge Obama to move embassy to Jerusalem

[oberliner]

JERUSALEM (AFP) — A group of American Jews urged president-elect Barack Obama on Thursday to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which the international community does not recognise as the capital of the Jewish state.

The move would make the United States the only country to have its main diplomatic mission in Jerusalem, which both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act requires the United States to move its embassy to Jerusalem by 1999, but both President George W. Bush and his predecessor Bill Clinton have deferred its implementation every six months.

Some 100 members of the US Jewish Orthodox Union gathered on Thursday near the site which Congress earmarked in a 1995 bill as the location of the future US embassy in west Jerusalem.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i4jGf3zi7RLEmJJM9b2XyeI1kQxA

[Selatius]

1. I'm sure the Likudniks would love the symbolic victory they would achieve with that.

Now that the Democrats run both houses of Congress, perhaps the Jerusalem Embassy Act will be abolished by saner heads for the rubbish heap. The US cannot seriously contemplate moving the embassy onto disputed land if it is also serious about being an honest broker in any peace process between Israelis and Palestinians.

[oberliner]

3. Joe Biden and Harry Reid co-sponsored the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act

Only five Senators voted against the resolution - four of them Republicans (The only Democrat who voted against it in the Senate was Robert Byrd).

Other co-sponsors included Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry.

[BeFree]

5. Well

Wouldn't want to piss off AIPAC now (then) would they?

Especially knowing that the move would never happen anyway.

[oberliner]

7. Whatever you say

Pro-Israel lobby groups have donated little to no money to those Senators, none of whom would have had any problem getting re-elected regardless of whether or not they co-sponsored this resolution.

If you want to claim that Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid would co-sponsor a resolution just to not piss off AIPAC then you must not hold those individuals in very high regard.

None of the five Senators who voted against the resolution had any problems getting re-elected in spite of "pissing off AIPAC".

[BeFree]

29. Why even go there?

If you knew it would never happen, then why even go there? They figured, "what the heck, vote yes, and never be attacked for THAT". Of course, I don't know, and neither do you, but knowing politics it is plausible, eh?

[oberliner]

33. I don't agree that they knew it would never happen

In fact, I think they were somewhat surprised by Bill Clinton's reaction.

One article from October of 1985 said:

The president's vehement reaction surprised supporters of the legislation, who had expected a more favorable response from the White House.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2261/edition_id/37/format/html/displaystory.html

But I do agree with you that neither one of us knows for sure.

[azurnoir]

11. That resolution was passed 13 years ago

and there has been much water not to mention blood under the proverbial bridge since then. The resolution was passed apparently in the "honeymoon" phrase post Oslo1 not to mention if the resolution passed why is the embassy still in Tel Aviv? Someone must have felt that such a move was premature, who had that authority in 1995? It would seem that if this group really wanted to move the embassy them Mr Bush would have been more friendly to such a political move, perhaps Mr Emmanuel could speak on this issue as the incoming SoS it would be within his preview to speak albeit not make the final decision

[LeftishBrit]

12. Good points - lots has changed -

but Emmanuel won't be SoS. It looks as though it will be Hillary Clinton.

[azurnoir]

13. Yikes I am embarrassed

OK the SoS is Hillary and Rahm is chief of staff but still either could speak, must finish coffee now then post thanks:blush: Thank you for so quickly pointing that out.

[oberliner]

14. Bill Clinton and the GW Bush both delayed implementation of the resolution

According to the resolution, the President can delay implementation for six months due to national security interests. Both Clinton and Bush have exercised that option every six months since it passed Congress.

See below:

Memorandum for the Secretary of State on Jerusalem Embassy Act

Presidential Determination No. 2005-24

SUBJECT: Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104 45) (the "Act"), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act. My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our Embassy to Jerusalem.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish the determination in the Federal Register.

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[azurnoir]

15. Yes both Clinton and Bush have suspended the resolution

every 6 months since it was passed, that would be something like 26 times, perhaps there is a broader message in that than I first thought. As I stated though to move the embassy now would in advance of a settlement would be premature and give the possible appearance of a presumed conclusion.

[oberliner]

18. Here is Obama's response to the question from Charlie Gibson

Gibson: If you were president would you move the US embassy to Jerusalem?

Obama: Charlie, you know I think we're going to work through this process before we make these kinds of decisions.

Gibson: Aren't these things that you've thought through in your head?

Obama: Well, they are, but they aren't necessarily things that I should say on Charlie Gibson's evening news.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5433416

[azurnoir]

24. That was a well worded non response

although I am left with impression Obama will wait for the conclusion of negotiations also, given that they happen while he is in office be for 4 or 8 years, I am not holding my breath for that to happen however.

[oberliner]

26. I agree that it was an evasive response

It will be very interesting to see what role his administration takes in helping to resolve the conflict.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Bad idea.

(1) It prejudges and constrains the results of negotiations, to a degree that Livni herself has refused to do.

(2) It would place Embassy staff at high risk for violence and terrorism.

[azurnoir]

10. ITA

if Jerusalem ends up the official capital of Israel then fine move the embassy, to do so now would be an incendiary move at best.

[sabbat hunter]

16. Jerusalem

Is the official capital of Israel. It is where the Knesset is, the PM offices, etc.

[azurnoir]

22. Israel of course claims Jerusalem as it's capital

but apparently the rest of the world is not quite ready to go there as of yet, actually I was surprised that no country has moved their embassy to Jerusalem a few countries including the US and UK have moved their Consulate Generals offices to Jerusalem. However the official embassies are in Tel Aviv or it's suburbs of Ramat-Gan or Herzliya Pituah. There are a few "embassies" in Jerusalem but they are representing religious organizations

http://www.science.co.il/embassies.asp

the link is to comprehensive list the international embassies in Israel and there locations, I would post it however it is lengthy and does not cut and paste well

[leveymg]

4. Only if the Embassy has two doors, East and West, funneling into a single line in the visa section.

Post a sign in Hebrew and Arabic: "Please take a number, and have a seat in the waiting room. A consular officer will assist you shortly."

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Why unilaterally throw gas on the fire in this region?

It is a bad idea.

[GoesTo11]

8. Agree. Whether or not you feel the embassy belongs there, why now?

If Obama is going to engage in peace negotiations in the Middle East, it does no good at all to make a big symbolic statement about siding unilaterally with Israel.

[oberliner]

9. If Jerusalem ends up being divided as part of a peace agreement

Wouldn't that give countries the green light to move their embassies?

They (and we) can have the one for Israel in West Jerusalem and the one for the new Palestinian state in East Jerusalem (which would presumably be the capital).

[IndianaGreen]

21. Yes, if Israel withdraws to pre-1967 borders, the world's countries will move their embassies

to the capitals of Israel and Palestine.

[oberliner]

23. Then why not make the move now?

It would signal that the US believes that a peace agreement is on the horizon.

Edit to add: Wasn't that the reason so many progressive Democrats (Wellstone, Feingold, etc) co-sponsored the resolution in the first place?

[IndianaGreen]

27. Democrats were pandering to the Israel Lobby

We can't do nothing until the peace process is restarted by Obama Administration, and that won't happen until there are elections in Israel.

[oberliner]

32. Russ Fiengold and Paul Wellstone pandered to the Israel Lobby?

I'm sorry but that is just BS.

There is no way that Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold would co-sponsor a resolution that they themselves did not believe in.

[Shaktimaan]

38. Do you truly think that it would be seen that way?

I think that everyone would interpret it as Obama placing his support behind Israel... unilaterally. I mean, just as a reason exists for those dems sponsoring the resolution in the first place, a reason exists for it never having been fully acted upon, not even by Bush. That resolution was earmarked in 1995, correct? Smack in the middle of all the optimism about Oslo. By placing a time limit on the move those representatives were publicly putting their faith in the peace plan; I'd say it was an endorsement, nothing more.

Think about it. If the plan had gone through and peace was actually declared, then those people would have been able to claim bragging rights for having had a hand, (however small) in aiding it. There's a BI-IIIIG difference between pushing for that move during a time of optimism over a peace proposal's success and doing it NOW. Doing it now would undoubtedly be seen as the US abandoning even the pretense of objectivity in their backing of Israel.

It would not make sense to do this until after the question of Jerusalem is resolved between the two (or perhaps three now) parties. The last time they seriously jumped the gun. (Though I still think it was just done then for craven political purposes anyway.) No matter, there's no way that Obama will consider moving the embassy now. I'd be willing to bet almost anything on it.

[sabbat hunter]

25. who should control

the old city?

IMHO it should remain politically with Israel, the holy sites run by the various religions as it is now.

[IndianaGreen]

28. If I had my druthers I would nuke all the holy sites to save the world from the scourge of religion

We can't really return to the conditions that existed before 1967 when Jews were denied access to the Western Wall. Just last week Israeli police had to put down a riot between rival monks at one of the Xtian sites, a macro view of all religious disputes that have brought so much misery to our planet.

[azurnoir]

31. With all due respect I must disagree

the religious sites are also valuable archeological sites and there for hold information to the ultimately shared history of all of us hairless talking apes, besides do you mean all religious sites would you want say Angkor Wat nuked?
Then again IMO the willful destruction of any ancient site should be considered a crime against humanity.

[azurnoir]

30. Considering the list of embassies in post #22

I now understand why this group wants the US to move it;s embassy because perhaps it it would "break the ice" for other countries doing so, but as Jerusalem is still for now ostensibly one city the east /west or old city/new city division has no meaning and such a move would be a stamp of approval and possible finality of Israel's claim/

Note that in post #22 I stated the UK had it's Consulate General's office in Jerusalem I was wrong they do not the UK offices are in Ramat-Gan, Greece and Italy however has their Consulate Generals office in Jerusalem

[oberliner]

34. So you support the Bush Administration's position on this issue?

It will be interesting to see if Obama continues this policy or not.

[azurnoir]

35. It was not just Bushes position

it was also Clinton's and will IMO in all likelihood be Obama's so yes I do.

[oberliner]

36. That is true

In any case, let's hope that the Obama administration will help broker a final peace agreement - then maybe we can do away with this forum!

[azurnoir]

37. I hope your right about a final peace agreement but

as far this forum disappearing even that event I doubt it cause as it is written in the immortal words of Gilda Radner "It's always something"

[IndianaGreen]

17. A President Sarah Palin would have done this right away

soon to be followed by the much anticipated (by Xtian fundies) Armageddon. Billions will die all thanks to some stupid blood thirsty religion!

[oberliner]

19. Well, Bush claimed the same thing, but ended up not doing it

Campaign rhetoric does not always match reality, especially from Republicans.


Bush says he would move U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

May 22, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an address Monday to a group dedicated to maintaining close, cordial relations between the United States and Israel, Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush said Monday his administration would pull up U.S. diplomatic stakes in Tel Aviv and establish a new embassy in Jerusalem.

Speaking Monday afternoon, the Texas governor said should he be elected president, he would shift U.S. diplomatic operations in Israel to Jerusalem -- or, "the city Israel has chosen as its capital." His declaration was met by a round of applause.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/22/campaign.wrap/index.html

Soon thereafter, we have this piece from the National Jewish Democratic Council:

Hypocrisy Watch: Bush Proves Rhetoric on Embassy Relocation was Cynical Campaign Ploy

Washington, DC: According to a report today from the Associated Press, “President Bush has backed off a campaign pledge to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and will keep it in Tel Aviv, at least for now. The Bush administration said Monday that while the president remains committed to starting a process to move the embassy to Jerusalem, which Israel considers its capital, the mission will stay put. During his campaign, Bush promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, an act that would lend support to Israeli claims to the city as its undivided capital.”

“This latest action is proof of the President’s utter hypocrisy,” said Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. “The problem is not this waiver; it’s the cynical manipulation of this issue during the campaign, when then-Governor Bush repeatedly promised to immediately move the embassy. It’s now perfectly clear that President Bush never had any intention of moving the embassy immediately, and his campaign rhetoric has now proven to be a calculated and utterly disingenuous ploy. The Jewish community should reject being played for a sucker.”

http://www.njdc.org/media/entry/hypocrisy_watch_bush_proves_rhetoric_on_embassy_relocation_was_cynical_camp

[Vegasaurus]

20. Thousands are already dying thanks to religion (just not the Chtristian one) nt