Posted on 06/23/2004 5:29:24 AM PDT by SJackson
There he goes again. For the seventh time since his inauguration, US President George W. Bush last week violated a promise he made during the 2000 campaign and formally refused to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In a June 15 memorandum sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Bush wrote that despite the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, which was passed by a large majority in both houses of Congress, he was issuing yet another six-month waiver of its transfer in order "to protect the national security interests of the United States."
Needless to say, the president did not bother to explain just what "national security interests" might be at stake, nor how moving the workplace of the clerk who stamps US visas might pose a threat to the future of Western civilization.
But then, to top it off, Bush concluded by asserting that "My administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."
Now that may sound all nice and reassuring, but the fact is that when Bush issued his first six-month waiver of the embassy move, back on June 11, 2001, guess what he had to say at the time? You got it: "My administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."
It is a line that he has used over and over again – in December 2001, June 2002, December 2002, June 2003, December 2003; and then again last week. For someone who prides himself on his honesty and is said to attribute a great deal of importance to this particular character trait, Bush seems to have a pretty lousy record when it comes to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Indeed, it was just four years ago, in May 2000, that then-governor Bush of Texas addressed the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington. In his straightforward style Bush made an unequivocal promise to the audience: "Something will happen when I become the president. As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital – as soon as I take office."
Well, unless he was referring to a future second term, Bush appears to be running a little behind schedule in honoring this particular commitment of his.
Even more disconcerting is the motivation behind this decision, which clearly stems from the administration's fears of how the Palestinians and their supporters in the Arab world would react were the embassy to be relocated to Jerusalem.
AT A time when the US is fighting in a global war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, Bush has chosen to kowtow to Palestinian terrorists and yield to their demands on Jerusalem.
Ironically enough, the president doesn't seem to understand that it is precisely this stance of his, rather than moving the embassy, that truly constitutes a threat to "the national security interests of the United States," because it emboldens the Palestinians to continue using violence as a means of securing their goals.
Israel has been a loyal and faithful friend of the US, and there is no reason why it should continue to be snubbed by having the American embassy sit in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem.
Bush's decision last week was issued without much fanfare, and failed to elicit more than a whimper of protest from Israel's supporters.
It is time for that to change.
This is an election year, and recent polls suggest a very tight race between Bush and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry. American Jews and Christians need to stand up now and challenge the president's continuing refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
How much longer must we be witness to the charade of US presidential candidates making promises about Jerusalem before elections, only to violate them once the ballots are counted? We don't need more pledges on this subject, what we need now is action.
American Jews and pro-Israel Christians should put Bush on notice that concrete steps must be taken in the next several months to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, and that this is an issue that will resonate at the ballot box.
Bush's nonrecognition of Jerusalem is an affront not only to the State of Israel and the Jewish people, but to all who love the Holy City and wish to see it remain strong, united and under eternal Israeli control.
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, will encourage other countries to do the same, and it will send a clear message to the Palestinians that their dream of dividing the city has been dashed, once and for all.
This president Bush may not have told us to "read his lips" when it came to Jerusalem. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold him to his word.
The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning under former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Agreed. And I intend to do all in my power to see to it our President lives up to that promise. Its a matter of doing right by our friend who has stood so loyally with us over the decades.
I am concerned by this. While I could see it taking time and effort to secure our embassy in Jerusalem, and I can appreciate a delay in moving it to properly secure it, this obviously means that when it was first delayed for this reason...nothing happened.
If it is not moved soon, that means that the prep work was not done when the President said it was being done. While I doubt the President is personally responsible for this, he is responsible for making sure the communists at foggy bottom do his bidding. They aren't, and the President needs to smack them around for undermining his policies and his Sec. State. Mr. President...CLEAN HOUSE AT STATE!!!!!!
But, at this time, isn't Jerusalem unstable and in the middle of a war zone? Would we have to be peacemakers before we could establish our embassy in Jerusalem?
I promise to do more research, but need a few pointers to understand this.
It's not a matter of lead time, the process has never been started as the State Dept refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol, despite the legislation.
Israel does not exist! Mike Evans urges Bush to acknowledge Jerusalem as capital city
By Mike Evans
Friday, March 19, 2004
Why does the U.S. government not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital when, in fact, it has been the capital of Israel for 3,300 years – since the days of King David? The 104th Congress passed public law 104-45 – the Jerusalem Embassy Act – in 1995. This document officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Public Law 104-45 also allocates $25 million to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
Why has this been postponed by a presidential waiver every six months since it was passed in Congress? The premise is that implementing the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, and recognizing one of the oldest capitals in the world, would cause a national security threat in the United States.
In 1988, I confronted Yasser Arafat at the 43rd General Assembly in Geneva concerning the fact that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. In an uncontrollable rage, Arafat began to scream, "Shut up! Shut up!" Arafat refused to sign documents at Camp David that would have met the vast majority of his demands (including half of Jerusalem). Why? He would have had to recognize Israel's right to exist.
The real reason is plain and simple: Arab bigots do not want the United States to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In doing so, it would constitute recognizing Israel's right to exist. These same bigots attacked Spain in an attempt to use terrorism as a weapon to force the Spanish government to pull out of the coalition in Iraq, and accept a doctrine of appeasement. It appears to have worked in Spain.
Why do U.S. presidents continue to sign a waiver that postpones the implementation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act? The answer is simple: Blackmail by Arab bigots who refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
On Sept. 5, 1972, the entire world was shocked when one of the most despicable terrorism attacks in history took place at the Munich Olympics. Arab terrorists (later identified as Palestinians) took hostage and then murdered 11 Israeli athletes in an attempt to blackmail the Israeli government into releasing 200 Arab prisoners. The Palestinian terrorists who mounted the attack were, in fact, members of a PLO faction, Black September. Their murderous actions were approved, financed and celebrated by Yasser Arafat.
Amazingly, the official website of the Athens 2004 Olympic games on Feb. 29, 2004, under "Palestine" stated that the capital was Jerusalem. How in the world can a country that doesn't exist have a capital? After receiving a great number of complaints, the website was changed to read, "The State of Israel is part of the continent of Europe."
This is astonishing to anyone who understands geography. The U.S. State Department calls it "the Near East." Could it be that because Arab bigots refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, the Olympic Committee concurs? Why should we be surprised when the U.S. president and others refuse to acknowledge that Israel even has a capital? It is the theater of the absurd and a festival of hypocrisy.
The Egyptian-born Arafat has never stated in any document that he wanted West Jerusalem – it was always East Jerusalem (al-Quds). On the other hand, he has frequently said that the Palestinian flag would fly over all the churches and mosques of Jerusalem – referring to the entire city. In fact, the city of Jerusalem has never been the capital of an Arab state in the 1,400 years since the Quran was written, and is not directly mentioned in the Quran.
I am outraged that the Olympic committee recognized the capital of Cuba (Havana), the capital of North Korea (Pyongyang), and the capital of Iran (Tehran), but refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of our closest ally in the Middle East.
President Bush is a man of moral character and clarity. The second week of June, the Jerusalem Embassy Act will again be presented to Mr. Bush. He has a choice either to sign a national security waiver, or allow it to be enacted into law. It is time for him to stand up to Arab bigots, and refuse to sign another waiver on the Jerusalem Embassy Act. There is nothing in the Jerusalem Embassy Act that violates either U.S. or U.N. policy.
Each time the national security waiver is signed, we are saying to terrorists and bigots, "You win." America needs the blessings of God more than favor with Arab bigots. Mr. Bush needs to send a signal to all the would-be Osamas that the party is over. No longer will America allow terrorists to threaten our nation into choosing political expediency over moral clarity.
If Rudolph Giuliani had the courage to say, "No, thank you," to an Arab sheik that wanted to create linkage between 9-11 and Israel, President Bush needs to have moral clarity to do the same. America is in a state of moral decay. It is time for our president to let the godfather of world terrorism, the architect of the Munich massacre, know that the party is over. It is time to freeze the $1.25 billion dollars Arafat has stolen from the Palestinian people, and use it to build schools, hospitals, housing and a broadcasting network that does not glamorize and immortalize suicide bombers.
You might note the thread linked above. This issue has been going on since 1995, and really center's around State's refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol despite legislation to the contrary.
Bush/Cheney 2004 Bump
My understanding is that under no circumstances will the U.S. State Deparment ever allow an American embassy to be located in a disputed region of a foreign country.
Did you not read the second part of my post?
No American President will move the Embsassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem until the status of that city is worked out with the Palestinians. If we move there, it will be de facto recognition that Israel has legal authority over the city.
Something similar was the case in West Berlin, before the unification of Germany. We didn't recognize East Berlin as being part of East Germany or West Berlin as part of West Germany, but rather, as an occupied city under Four Power control. I wouldn't blame the State Department for the decision of the President and his predecessors. Once they are removed from the campaign rhetoric and assume office, Presidents then understand the political reality on the ground.
Check out: http://www.science.co.il/Embassies.asp
Yup. Exactly. And why the embassy needs to be moved to Jerusalem pronto. The palistinians have abandoned negotiations in favor of blood. They have forsaken any legitimacy to their voice on the matter. There is no 'working it out with the palestinians' because the palistinians are busy trying to blow civilians up.
Yes, I agree with you, State illegal actions are the issue. I was just trying to clarify the issue, which should be the recognition of Jerusalem as the capitol, consistant with American law, rather than solely the embassy move issue. I don't agree with it, but post Iraq invasion, a case could be made not to move on security grounds. We are in fact fighting arab terrorists, and there are many who think it's in our best interests not to get them angry with us.
Well, we have a law declaring Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. Two, in fact, one signed by Clinton, one signed by GWB. And no, neither contain any ability to wave that that decision at all.
I'm curious, what gives the Executive Branch the right to ignore legislation? Would you extend that right to other departments, Justice for example, or only State?
That's GWB's decision to make, but he won't do it because he understands, like the rest of the countries in the world that have diplomatic representation in Israel, that it will not work if we truly want to have a negotiated settlememt with the Palestinians. In any event, it is GWB's decision so your quarrel is with him, not the State Department.
I'm curious, what gives the Executive Branch the right to ignore legislation? Would you extend that right to other departments, Justice for example, or only State?
The President is the head of the Executive Branch so it is up to him to decide on whether to "ignore legislation" and suffer whatever the consequences may be. That said, without looking at the legislation in question, I bet that it provides the President the flexibility to decide when to move the Embassy to Jerusalem even if it does recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Except for approving treaties and controlling the purse strings, the President is the one who conducts US foreign policy.
This is essentially what the President eventually did. On September 30th, he issued a "signing statement" in which he explained that "U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed" and saying that the Jerusalem provisions "would, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the president's constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer further explained the President's position during the Oct. 1st White House press conference, stating that
"...as the President made clear last night in the signing statement that was issued, as he signed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Section 214 of the act deals with Jerusalem, and it does so in a way that we deem, the administration deems unconstitutional. The opinion of the administration, and we will act on this, is that the language passed by the Congress impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. And the President made that perfectly plain. And so our -- the status of Jerusalem under current law will remain unchanged."
Fleischer added that this means "recognizing that the U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed, because we view what Congress passes advisory, not mandatory."
No one is negotiating with the palis BECAUSE THEY ARE SLAUGHTERING PEOPLE. The only way to get them to stop slaughtering people, will be to show them that it is not in their interest to slaughter people. The only way to do that is to move ahead without them. The palistinians have abused every attempt at negotiating with them. They use negotiations to get concessions, then terrorism to renege on their commitments.
I disagree with your assertion that it is GWB's decision to make. The evidence is that he has made it and wants the embassy moved. That is why he signed legislation to that effect. The issue is that State is not doing the necessary groundwork. And THAT was my point. State is (again) undermining the policy of our President and Country.
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.