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.
Yes, and Czechoslovakia is a far away country. Very prudent thinking, indeed.
That was a brilliant post. Is that the best you have?
I don’t have any expectations of the Embassy moving to Jerusalem, but yes, I think the reason it hasn’t been moved revolves around pandering to the Arab world, not US Security. The idea that it hasn’t been moved based on the Iraq War is just plain silly. The decision has been made every six months since 1998. If Clinton wasn’t going to do it, he shouldn’t have signed the bill. If GWB wasn’t going to do it, he shouldn’t have made it a campaign issue. It’s foolish to make campaign promises you’re not going to keep. Hopefully he won’t make the same mistake this time around.
As to Hizzbollah, they’ve been killing and kidnapping American’s for decades, and successfully drove us from Lebanon, not that we belonged there in the first place. If we’re going to factor in their demands, we’ve got a very long road ahead of us in Iraq. How many captives will it take for Hizzbollah to force us from Iraq?
Actually, I think GWB may have missed an opportunity the last few months.
Negotiations at this point are impossible. For them to be successful, Israel has to recognize, as a condition of sitting down, that they’re going to surrender land and displace Jews, since they won’t be allowed to live in a “palestinian state”. Kind of a no brainer, the offers have been made and spurned for decades.
Similarly, the palestinians have to recognize that, as a condition of sitting down, that 4 million Arabs aren’t going to return to Israel, and that they’re not going to get all of the West Bank and Gaza. And West Jerusalem is a piece they’re not going to get back. Recognition of these facts won’t come from Arafat, and they’re essential if any sort of “moderate” palestinian governance is going to emerge. I’m not optimistic about that either, at least for decades, but the administration seem to think it will happen by next year.
I think GWB took a step forward publicly acknowledging these facts, right of return was the key, but even the Embassy decision could have played a roll. By backing down, he gave the Arab radicals a victory, and drove whatever opposition to terror there might have been deeper underground.
But inquest is wrong...
It isn't the same...
First of all, we are talking about moving an embassy...not carving out part of a sovereign nation and handing it over to appease the war aims of a despot.
How can I say that? UN Resolution 242...
The purpose of this Resolution was to guarantee that Israel would get defendable borders and peace and the right to exist.
The Roadmap does call for a Palestinian state but that is hardly being fostered or extorted from Israel. That ship sailed at the Oslo Accords. (Not that the Accords called for a state, but it set into motion the irretrievable... and Barak in 2000 did nothing to disabuse that notion)
Texasflower, you are hardly Chamberlain...and inquest knows it...
Thank G-d we each support the president in what he has to do. If you are interested in understanding why this "one dimensional" thinker believes we must negotiate only from a position of defeat for the terrorist enemy, read The Haj, by Leon Uris. It dramatically explores the underlying feelings of the participants, in a fictional way, and one that is very pro-West in its viewpoint, but it is one I agree with.
Caught your post yesterday.
If you think there are supporters of banned terrorist groups operating here, you have an obligation to contact the FBI. If you don’t have the number, I have a Chicago phone book, I’ll look it up for you.
If you think the pro-Israel zealots, Jews and Christians alike, though you seem to have more of an issue with Jews, have destroyed FR, a common comment at selected hate sites, then ping the admin moderater or JR, make your case, and I’m sure management will throw them off.
If you can’t manage that, stuff it my Klueless Klymer Klown (you like those KKK acronyms, don’t you).
WHY? WHY? WHY? I don't get it. Who's feelings is he trying to spare? He said during his campaign that he would move the embassy. Why did he do that?
I don't think moving the embassy is a wise decision in any event, and certainly not right now.
Nobody seriously believes this indicates the President's support for the nation of Israel has lessened.
I have spent some time studying the Civil War. I was amazed at how many civilians thought they could fight the war so much better than those who were actually doing the fight. The same thing is happening on the War on Terror. Everybody knows better than those who actually bear the responsibility for the execution of the war.
It’s foolish to make campaign promises you’re not going to keep
I want to say this in a very joking matter... Where have you been all your life? For crying out loud!
Again... I am a strong supporter of Israel...but the issue of where one puts an embassy is a tempest in a teacup. Something to beat the President up over because he isn't towing a "Israel first" policy. Funny, Israel doesn't think that... Not from what I've been reading.
I didn't bring Hizbollah into the mix... I wasn't even thinking Hizbollah... I was thinking about some crazy Palestinian blowing up our embassy staff.
By backing down, he gave the Arab radicals a victory, and drove whatever opposition to terror there might have been deeper underground.
This is laughable... this line of reasoning is not based on anything but "feelings" and your sense that somehow the President hasn't been "forceful" enough. The Arab radicals aren't meeting in their conclave and saying, "oh my word...no embassy in Jerusalem! We've got the US on the run now. Oh, it doesn't matter that the US in Iraq and Afghanistan is killing us in droves. It doesn't matter that the US is shutting down our finances and keeping us in a state of disarray. No sir.. no embassy... now we've got them right where we want them."
Opposition to terror driven further underground? Who? The Palestinians? The US? The Israelis?
Hey... you owe me some quotes...
I know, I know....right now I'm fighting my own civil war against the media.....(grin)
Well... Godspeed!
Clearly the terrorist’s feelings. You'll note the concern of some posters that the move might get Hizbollah mad at us.
The campaign promise was made to satisfy those crazy right wing supporters of Israel that get whined about, and I presume the assumption is they’ll vote for him anyway. He’s right, I will, but it’s a promise he shouldn’t have made.
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 was passed (House, 374-37, Senate, 93-5) with the understanding that the move would be completed by 1999, the end of the Oslo process.
Since nothing had been done, I believe it was amended in 1998, adding more forceful language. The idea that the move has been impossible for the last 9 years due to “national security interests” is rather laughable. If anything, it sends a message to our enemies that American laws are to be trifled with.
…………….
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995."
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1)Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.
(2)Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.
(3)The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.
(4)The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.
(5)From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.
(6)In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.
(7)Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel,and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.
(8)This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.
(9)In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress "strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected".
(10)In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
(11)The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of "final status" issues, including Jerusalem.
(12)The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area was signed May 4,1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.
(13)In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging "planning to begin now" for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.
(14)In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem "should take place no later than....1999".
(15)The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country exceptin the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.
(16)The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.
(17)In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry.
SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.
(a)Statement of the Policy of the United States.—
(1)Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;
(2)Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and
(3)the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
(b)Opening Determination.—Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened.
SEC. 4. FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997 FUNDING.
(a)Fiscal Year 1996.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" for the Department of State in fiscal year 1996, not less than $25,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.
(b)Fiscal Year 1997.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" for the Department of State in fiscal year 1997, not less than $75,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.
SEC. 5. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate detailing the Department of State's plan to implement this Act. Such report shall include—
(1)estimated dates of completion for each phase of the establishment of the United States Embassy, including site identification, land acquisition, architectural, engineering and construction surveys, site preparation, and construction; and
(2)an estimate of the funding necessary to implement this Act, including all costs associated with establishing the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.
SEC. 6. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS.
At the time of the submission of the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on the progress made toward opening the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.
SEC. 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
(a)Waiver Authority.—(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998, the President may suspend the limitation 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 limitation for an additional six month period at the end of any period during which the suspension is in effect under this subsection 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, the limitation set forth in section 3(b) shall apply to funds appropriated in the following fiscal year for the purpose set forth in 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).
SEC. 8. DEFINITION.
As used in this Act, the term "United States Embassy" means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence of the United States chief of mission.
Thank you carton. I had no idea of what he meant.
The last thing we need to do is cause more instability in the middle east right now. That would sure do it I think.
It's very wise to wait IMO.
Your posts are interesting to read, BTW!
The perpetual reason: No $$$!
Of course they're not, that's my point. It really doesn't matter either way. They'd say the same thing about the Embassy in Tel Aviv, and they'd blow it up tomorrow if they could, regardless of anything we say.
As a political issue, sure, politician's lie, but that doesn't exempt them from criticism.
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.