Posted on 06/17/2004 4:45:31 PM PDT by SJackson
US President Bush has, once again, suspended the relocation of the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital, Jerusalem.
Bush did this by asserting that US national security will be harmed if he implements the US law requiring the move. Bush’s refusal to take concrete measures recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has caused some to question the US President’s reputation as a ‘friend of Israel’.
Congress overwhelmingly approved the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act in 1995, mandating that the US Embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 1999 and that the US recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
During the 2000 election campaign Bush pledged that if he was elected, he would "begin the process" of moving the embassy to Jerusalem on his "first day in office." After nearly four years, there is no evidence that he has begun that process.
In a memorandum to the Secretary of State on Tuesday, Bush wrote that he has determined it is necessity to suspend the transfer of the embassy for six months in order "to protect the national security interests" of the US. "My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem," his memorandum said.
Former US President Bill Clinton, who promised in both of his presidential campaigns to move the embassy, shied away from implementation, signing successive six-month security waivers.
After the failed Camp David talks in July 2000 - Clinton suggested in an interview with Israeli television that he was considering moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.
In reaction, Hezbullah terror chief, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah threatened that if the US moved its embassy, the Arabs would "turn your embassy into rubble and return your diplomats in coffins."
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has sharply criticized the continued failure to implement the Embassy Relocation Act, demanding to know how the recognition of Israel’s capital would harm US national security.
"The failure to recognize Jerusalem is a violation of US law and a blatant surrender to Arab terrorist threats,” ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said. “At a time when America is engaged in a life-or-death struggle with terrorists worldwide, it is especially important to implement US law on Jerusalem and thereby send a message to terrorists everywhere that America will not capitulate to their blackmail. It is President Bush's refusal to move the embassy which could undermine national security because it encourages terrorists to believe that threats and violence will force the US to change its policies."
In 1980 Israel passed a basic law claiming Jerusalem as the Jewish State’s "eternal, indivisible capital," but only two countries, Costa Rica and El Salvador, maintain their embassies in Jerusalem.
The move was legislated in 1995, to be completed in 1999. The likelihood of the "region", really Israel, being more stable than 1995 is likely decades off. Arafat isn't angry about an embassy in Jerusalem, rather Tel Aviv. From the standpoint of stability, or fighting terror this is a non-event, makes very little difference either way. To supporters of moving the capital, it is an issue though, one with likely little downside.
Perhaps we are agreed on this too. If Bush wants to wait until a more correct "tactical" time, he would be in the best position to know this. I have always thought that the time to move the embassy would involve the carrot and stick approach to Middle East negotiations. We will move the embassy in order to punish our enemy and reward our friends, but we can only move it once, so we wait till we get maximum momentum from the move. (Of course a campaign promise is important, and this president is fond of the experssion, "I mean what I say", so I would expect the move will be in his next term.)
I said the same thing. So did GWB, which is why he made it a campaign issue.
We are just going to have to disagree with the level of instability that might be caused by this move….I support the move of the embassy. But I don't want it to be done if there is any reason to think things might be worse.
Remember that in a year or two, because for better or worse, Iraq will likely be resolved by then. Peace won’t have broken out by then in Israel.
They just announced on the news that Paul Johnson, the hostage has been killed, maybe beheaded... We should not serve up more Americans to these monsters if we can help it.
It’s a sad commentary on the nature of our enemies. Appeasement won’t slate their appetite for violence, it’s a shame we couldn’t rescue him. (I don’t consider the Embassy issue appeasement in that sense, it is in the context of Israeli-palestinian “peace negotiations”)
I don't think we need to wait until Kumbaya has broken out across the middle east.
But we still have our hands full right this minute.
Of course, from the palestinian perspective, that implies that we won't move it, and that Israel will divide or abandon Jerusalem. It flies in the face of the law, posted above. Factually, the 1995 law takes Jerusalem off the table as a negotiating point. And texasflower is right, this should have been done in the 90's when not even a remote case could be made on "national security" grounds.
Actually, We should let Jerusalem be split, and make it the Capital of both Palestine, and Israel, and force the UN to move there, coupled with the Embassies of all Nations. two per nation, one for each half of the city.
And Each embassy should house a number of troops, armed to the teeth, till such time as the Palestinian side acts civilized.
Put all those antisemitic third world Piss Ants in the middle of Jerusalem, and it will get quiet real quick.
If his feelings are hurt and he want's to slander me on other sites, fine, but others shouldn't be included.
.................
The hopes and dreams of a Golda Meir have been corrupted by a bunch of thugs who masquerade as defenders of the faith when in fact they are nothing more than Meir Kahane JDL and some ADL bullies. They assasinated the Israeli PM because he wasn't killing enough Palestinians and wouldn't force orthodoxy on the state.
They are represented at Free Republic by S Jackson and his KKK (Kahane Kai Kooks) ping list...dennisw; Cachelot; Yehuda; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel...among others ...dreadful little pisants...knuckledragging retards.
They assert that any opposition to Israeli policy is evidence of anti-Semitism and that anyone who opposes their radical Zionist agenda is anti-Semitic. The stupidity of their claim is evidence by the fact that they are a laughing stock in Israel and genuinely derided by the general public. If you are Jewish and disagree with a KKK you are branded a self-hating jew. In my opinon based on the male and female Kahane Kai Kretins I have met they are sexually frustrated toads in that the male suffered catastrophic bris at the hands of their Mohel and the women noticed.
He got into office and realized the situation was more complicated than he understood as a candidate...
You don't know what the Palestinian perspective is regarding our moving the embassy. And if they believe that Israel will divide Jerusalem, then they got that from the Israelis themselves...not from the President not moving the embassy. To suggest otherwise is based on air.
There is nothing in not moving the embassy that would permit the Palestinians to believe that Israel will abandon Jerusalem.
We might be making this into a bigger issue than it is. More likely he got into office, realized it wasn’t worth battling the entrenched bearucracy at the State Dept, who refuse to recognize Jerusalem as a part of Israel at all despite the legislation, and put in on the back burner in June, 2001. Needless to say by December there were other things to worry about.
from the palestinian perspective, that implies that we won't move it, and that Israel will divide or abandon Jerusalem...You don't know what the Palestinian perspective is regarding our moving the embassy.
Of course I don’t though we could both guess. As I noted in an earlier post, negotiations are impossible as long as the right of return and a complete return to the 67 borders are inflexible demands of the palestinians. This is a small issue, but one which supports that position.
And if they believe that Israel will divide Jerusalem, then they got that from the Israelis themselves...not from the President not moving the embassy. To suggest otherwise is based on air.
Of course they did, Israel offered to divide it. Congress has, however, legislated that the US is in agreement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and should remain undivided.
Yeah, and the UN would peobably keep Jews away from the Kotel if you did that. NOt a great idea.
What the heck is that! Wow
No. that is almost precisely the point. Since the area is of great signifigance to All three monotheisitic religions, it becomes a case of someone feeling slighted, so the obvious answer is to make everyone have a stake in it's future. And who better to use to quell the violence than the organization that turns a blind eye to it.
Don't know. An example of why one shouldn't imbide and post perhaps?
true!
Essentially that's similar to the original UN idea. Consistantly rejected by the entire Arab world for nearly six decades. The Vatican even gave up on it when they recognized Israel in the 1990's. IMO, it's time to give up that idea.
Bella_Bru:Yeah, and the UN would peobably keep Jews away from the Kotel if you did that. NOt a great idea.
Based on other UN activities in the region, I doubt Jews would be allowed close enough to look at it.
You forget only two of the three monotheistic religions consider Jerusalem significant to the other two.
The third contends that Jews never lived anywhere near the place and that Jesus was a Muslim.
Sadly, I think you are right.
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.