Skip to comments.Brace yourself: The U.S. embassy in Israel still isn't moving
Posted on 06/27/2006 11:55:11 AM PDT by SJackson
Tel Aviv is where the U.S. Embassy is located; there is an American consulate in Jerusalem. One of the more bizarre spectacles in the past decade has been presidential candidates of both parties promising to move the Embassy to Jerusalem, which the Israelis claim is their proper capital and then promptly forgetting all about that promise once in office. Both Clinton and Bush have repeatedly postponed the move in order "to protect the national security interests of the United States."
Now moving the Embassy to Jerusalem would be a security headache of the first magnitude; I'm sure protecting the site and the Ambassador would be even more of a grueling task than protecting the consulate. And of course, the Palestinians and Arab states would be so furious and outraged by the move they would well, they're usually furious and outraged, so it would be hard to tell what exactly would change.
But it would be nice if some presidential candidate would one day just come out and say, "You know, I can make a cheap and easy play for some votes from the Jewish community by promising to move the Embassy, but we all know it's never going to happen, so I'm not going to insult your intelligence."
A Bush administration notice in today's Federal Register:
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
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.
Okay... this "commitment"; what exactly does it involve besides saying, "we will do it someday"?
And how likely is it that as 2008 approaches, we will see presidential candidates of both parties pandering for votes and cheap applause lines by promising, yet again, to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem?
Pat Moynihan once said that he was not going to promise to move the embassy any more since his party was just lying when they promised that.
The US Embassy is not moving until the status of Jerusalem is resolved. Only two countries have their embassies in Jerusalem, i.e., Costa Rica and El Salvador. That's the political reality and Congress and GWB know it.
It's only been 58 years since Israel declared Jerusalem as it's capital. A move would risk ratifying the creation of the State of Israel.
As I learned on another thread, when it comes to Israel Presidents lie, it's the American way.
Yes, you've noted that. Nothing permanent about the 1949 truce lines after all, or the existance of the State of Israel for that matter.
The status of Jerusalem is resolved. It is Israel's capital. It is not the capital of some terrorist "Palestine" and never will be. End of story. The weasels in the State Dept. want to believe otherwise, however.
Israel's Best Friend Ever can't move the Embassy to West Jerusalem as promised, the Arabs will be mad at us.
All of Karen Hughes' hard work to have them fall in love with us would be in vain.
How does the US Government justify discriminating between West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Nonsense. The United States obviously recognizes the State of Israel, which we have subsidized to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and have already saved once, by Nixon's airlift of military supplies during the Yom Kippur War.
We would gain absolutely nothing by moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, which is why no President of either party has moved it.
I predict that presidential candidates will be making the same stupid promises about "moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem" during the 2040 presidential campaign.
Because, like the rest of Israel, the Arabs claim they own the land. Israel is an illegitimate State after all.
Something for the gringos in the Southwest to think about. Aztlan here we come.
It is rather puzzling as to why Bush continues to make this promise that he clearly has no intention of keeping.
Then why do we have an Embassy in Tel Aviv. It's status is in dispute every bit as much as the Embassy site.
Hey Astronaut, why are you insulting weasels like that?
That question is far more interesting than the actual move. Sign the waiver, fine Clinton did it too. But not after running on a platform to move the Embassy immediately on taking office. Twice.
So why do they lie about it?
It is the President of the United States who makes that decision. The State Department implements the decision. If you look at where countries have their Embassies and Consulates in Israel, you will notice that almost all of the them have their embassies elsewhere. There is a reason for that. The US is not the odd man out.
Congress and presidential candidates try to pander to AIPAC rather than state the truth. Both parties are guilty. The status of Jerusalem has not been resolved.
You don't have any political factions in Israel calling for a negotiated partition of Tel Aviv, do you?
No. You don't have any political factions in Israel (or outside of the Arab world, and they aren't talking negotiations) calling for a negotiated partition of West Jerusalem, do you?
You don't have any political factions in Israel (or anywhere, the Arabs want Israel) calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem under the UN, do you?
I take it you think Jerusalem should be internationalized under UN auspices?
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.