Posted on 01/25/2017 5:59:58 AM PST by JOHN ADAMS
Claims that Trump administration caved to Arab pressure over the embassy move constitute fake news. By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Published: January 25th, 2017
Several Israeli-based media outlets are repeating a story from an Arab media outlet that the U.S. Embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is “off the table” due to Arab pressure.
But let’s look at the evidence thus far produced and line it up against reality.
The reports claiming the Trump administration has backed down from its stated commitment to move the embassy assert the reason that is happening is because of pressure placed on the new administration by the Palestinian Arab leadership.
A story in the Times of Israel quoted a report in the Arabic media outlet Asharq Al-Awsat. That report mentioned that assurances were given to Palestinian Arab leader Mahmoud Abbas and the PA’s perennial negotiator Saeb Erekat in a meeting held on Tuesday with “David Blum,” of the US Consulate in Jerusalem.
But there is no David Blum in the US Consulate in Jerusalem.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishpress.com ...
A useful post-mortem is here: http://www.israellycool.com/2017/01/25/the-contagious-fakenews-epidemic-infects-times-of-israel/
CNN will be running with the fake story all day...forever. They can stop looking for the lost plane now!
Wouldn’t it be just a tad premature to move an embassy before Trump even has a Secretary of State and functioning cabinet?
Even God only worked for 6 days before resting and Trump’s only been in office for 5.5
Wouldn’t it be just a tad premature to move an embassy before Trump even has a Secretary of State and functioning cabinet?...
Details...Details... does not stop the Contrived News Network
Trump caves. Now that’s funny.
Arab...”pressure”? What “pressure” do they have? Yeah...NOTHING....that’s what I thought.
The NY Slimes will ever regret giving credence to the term ‘Fake News’. So will the Clinton News Network.
Somewhat related... Last night Mark Levin had someone on talking about Trump’s promise to revoke DACA (’Dreamer’ act), and how this promise to do this on day one had not been achieved yet. It came off to me as hyper-critical.
I’m very happy with the progress made in less than 1 week. It suggests to me that ‘Day 1’ promises WILL be kept as soon as possible (and not empty campaign promises).
President Clinton had taken the unusual step of not signing the Embassy Act into law once Congress had presented it to him but rather let 10 days of inaction pass, allowing the bill to return to Congress and automatically become law by Constitutional "default" to show his disapproval. The non-action on Clinton's part reinforced this sticking point between the branches of Federal government without the possible public fallout from taking a "negative stand" on what appeared to be favorable, veto-proof legislation on the surface overall and at the time
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened. The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel's declared capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The United States has withheld recognition of the city as Israel's capital. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5), and the House (374–37).
Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch's constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.
The bigger issue -- and I suspect this is why the U.S. embassy is not going to be moved to Jerusalem anytime soon -- is that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would be in direct contradiction to the standing U.S. policy on this issue is laid out in the Declaration of Principles (1993) and the Interim Agreement (1995) on Palestine. This goes back to the whole question of why Congress would attempt to abrogate the powers of the executive branch in foreign policy matters in the first place, since this U.S. policy was in place BEFORE the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed.
Actually the law is being enforced. The evidence of that is the submission of the semi-annual Presidential wavier.
Since 1998, the relocation of the embassy from Tel Aviv has been suspended by the sitting President semi-annually based on national security concerns as provided for in section 7 of the Act.
Sec. 7. Presidential Waiver.
(a) Waiver Authority.—
(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998, the president may suspend the limitations set forth in section 3(b) for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.
(2) The President may suspend such limitations for an additional six month period at the end of any period during which the suspension is in effect under this subsections if the President determines and reports to Congress in advance of the additional suspension that the additional suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.
(3) A report under paragraph (1) or (2) shall include—
(A) a statement of the interests affected by the limitation that the President seeks to suspend; and
(B) a discussion of the manner in which the limitation affects the interests.
(b) Applicability of Waiver to Availability of Funds.—
If the President exercises the authority set forth in subsection (a) in a fiscal year for the purpose set forth in such section 3(b) except to the extent that the limitation is suspended in such following fiscal year by reason of the exercise of the authority in subsection (a).
I agree that the Act is just political pandering by Congress, which knows the President still has the ultimate say. Thus the Act is a cost-free way of supporting Israel for their constituents.
The bigger issue -- and I suspect this is why the U.S. embassy is not going to be moved to Jerusalem anytime soon -- is that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would be in direct contradiction to the standing U.S. policy on this issue is laid out in the Declaration of Principles (1993) and the Interim Agreement (1995) on Palestine.
Correct. There is a reason why no embassies are located in Jerusalem, whose status is a separate issue from the two state solution and will be negotiated separately.
Initially, I was against Trump making any such unilateral move and believed that he would like other Presidential candidates before him, take a different stance once in the WH. There will be a lot of pressure from our allies to maintain the status quo. And it could be a lightening rod for attacks on our personnel abroad.
However, Trump's stance could actually be seen as leverage, essentially telling the parties involved, especially the Palestinians, sh*t or get off the pot. Trump is sending the message that we are no longer going to negotiate using the same framework. He is putting pressure on the Palestinians to act, otherwise, they will find the status of Jerusalem a fait acompli.
It is brilliant in a way deviating sharply from the conventional approach followed by Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Trump has turned the negotiating paradigm on its head. Trump is unpredictable and no one knows if Trump will follow thru with his threat. Congress has already given him the authority to do it. It is also dangerous. But we can't keep doing the same things again and again expecting different results. Stay tuned....
Yes but I specifically remember one of G.W. Bush’s campaign “promises” was to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Of course he didn’t keep that promise. I hope Trump does.
See my post #11.
Trump's stance actually makes a lot of sense when seen in the context of pushing the two sides to figure out a solution to the particular issue of Jerusalem's status. I've never been opposed to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. In fact, there's no doubt in my mind that it will eventually be moved there.
My gripe with this whole thing is two-fold:
1. This issue is of very little importance to the U.S., and is hardly worth the coverage it gets and the political weight that so-called "conservatives" give to it.
2. There's no reason for the U.S. to make a move like this on its own when it serves no purpose right now other than to embroil the U.S. in Israeli politics and in a contentious issue that does not directly involve us.
True, but the wavier made that a moot point.
Trump's stance actually makes a lot of sense when seen in the context of pushing the two sides to figure out a solution to the particular issue of Jerusalem's status. I've never been opposed to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. In fact, there's no doubt in my mind that it will eventually be moved there.
Trump's stance is a radical departure from previous administrations and from the international consensus on how to proceed on the status of Jerusalem. I have no doubt that PM May will be giving Trump an earful on Friday on why that is a non-starter.
There is an international consensus that eventually Jerusalem will be the recognized capital of Israel and perhaps the new Palestinian state. We have a consulate in East Jerusalem that is not under the Ambassador in Tel Aviv. The Jerusalem diplomatic theology is reminiscent of how we dealt with the status of Berlin after the 1971 Quadripartite agreement, something I was very familiar with during my four years in Berlin.
1. This issue is of very little importance to the U.S., and is hardly worth the coverage it gets and the political weight that so-called "conservatives" give to it.
Actually, it is critical to our ME policy, our allies in the region and internationally, and to our adversaries like Iran. Israel considers it as a very critical issue in our bilateral relationship.
If I had my druthers, I would recommend that Trump not take any unilateral action. He may not with this just being his opening gambit to getting an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis. Timing is key and so far, Trump has made no commitment as to a date. IMO Israel would also like us to hold off, but its public position will not indicate that.
2. There's no reason for the U.S. to make a move like this on its own when it serves no purpose right now other than to embroil the U.S. in Israeli politics and in a contentious issue that does not directly involve us.
Agree to a point. Trump wants to achieve what no other President before him has been able to accomplish. He wants to see what impact his new approach has on the negotiations. It is a bold move fraught with danger, but it may very well be the key to getting a final agreement. In essence, he is playing a game of chicken with the Palestinians. He is telling them that a failure to act will result in a solution without them.
Good point on PM May. I suspect she will at least give Trump an education on the background of the issue from Great Britain's perspective. It will likely include a variation of this message:
"We didn't give up our colonial presence in the Mandate of Palestine just to let the U.S. and Israel dictate the terms in the Middle East."
The Jerusalem diplomatic theology is reminiscent of how we dealt with the status of Berlin after the 1971 Quadripartite agreement, something I was very familiar with during my four years in Berlin.
I'm glad you posted that, and I think it would be helpful for more folks here on FreeRepublic to learn about that historical parallel. That's exactly how I envisioned this whole thing unfolding.
Actually, it is critical to our ME policy, our allies in the region and internationally, and to our adversaries like Iran. Israel considers it as a very critical issue in our bilateral relationship.
I'm not sure I agree with that -- at least the first part. What is our ME policy anyway -- aside from a general desire for stability? Persian Gulf oil.
Geography and demographics would dictate that the U.S. has a much bigger stake in our dealings with Islamic countries over there. Protecting the flow of oil from these Middle Eastern countries has been the single biggest interest the U.S. has had over there, at least by my objective measure.
Wow! The embassy's already moved! I had no idea!
(for those of you in Rio Linda: you announce your INTENTION to do something - THEN, when the time is right, you do it)
I’m figuring it is something they may announce with Bibi’s visit in a couple of weeks, though if I understand correctly it can’t be officially implemented for several months.
Oil does play a major role since exports from the region are vital to the global economy. The Suez canal and the Med are critical transit areas for global commerce, including oil. We also support Israel, the only democracy in the ME.
The threat posed by Iran looms large as well as the return of the Russians to the ME. We sell lots of arms to the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf States along with having military assets prepositioned in various countries. And our Sixth Fleet, headquartered in Naples operates extensively in the ME. The Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.
Geography and demographics would dictate that the U.S. has a much bigger stake in our dealings with Islamic countries over there. Protecting the flow of oil from these Middle Eastern countries has been the single biggest interest the U.S. has had over there, at least by my objective measure.
No doubt oil plays a central role, but there are other issues like radical Islamic terrorism, possible nuclear proliferation, keeping the sea lanes open, and arms sales are also important. And then there is Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.