He did not keep his promise.
Apparently some Presidents tell the truth, and others do not.
Posted on 06/27/2006 11:55:11 AM PDT by SJackson
The President should not move the Embassy to Jerusalem. Nor should he promise to do so, when he is a mere candidate and trolling for votes.
I have no preconceived ideas about what its status should be. It is up to the Palestinians, Israelis, and maybe the Jordanians to work out a mutually satisfactory solution. It has always been the real sticking point of the negotiations and the most emotional issue.
Apparently some Presidents tell the truth, and others do not.
I'm not aware that West appears anywhere in the bill.
Nor in any of GWB's or the Republican Parties promises.
That settles it, 1948 never happened, the Embassy site isn't part of Israel, the city will be given to the UN.
This President isn't a candidate trolling for votes anymore.
No he didn't.
What there is to argue about it beyond me.
So essentially whatever has happened since 1948 merits no consideration.
I seem to remember a similar thread a while back, in which a number of Freepers insisted that the U.S. had some kind of moral obligation in the eyes of the Almighty to recognize all of the post-1967 occupied territories as part of Israel. I imagine they must have felt pretty foolish when Israel itself began ceding areas of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians.
Please show me any politically significant non-Arab dissention in Israel, or the US for that matter, over whether land withing the 1949 truce line is disputed.
Jerusalem was supposed to be a ‘corpus separatum’, or international city administered by the UN. But this was never set up: immediately after the UNGA resolution partitioning Palestine, Israel occupied West Jerusalem and Jordan occupied East Jerusalem (including the Old City). We recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. In 1967, Israel occupied E Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal military occupation by Israel. Our Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. In E Jerusalem we have a Consulate-General, with a Consul-General who is not accredited to any state: this is an expression of our view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem.
The UK position was formally expressed in April 1950, when HMG extended simultaneous de jure recognition to both Jordan and Israel. However, the statement withheld recognition of the sovereignty of either Jordan or Israel over the sectors of the city which each then held, within the area of the corpus separatum as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949. In the British view, no such recognition was possible before a final determination of the status of this area, although HMG did recognise that both Jordan and Israel exercised ‘de facto authority’ over those parts of the city and area which each held.
In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the whole city, taking possession of the Jordanian (East) sector to add to West Jerusalem, which it already held. The Israeli government immediately extended its civil law to the whole city, simultaneously greatly enlarging the municipal boundaries into the West Bank. This purported annexation of East Jerusalem was reaffirmed in 1980 when Israel enacted its ‘Jerusalem Law’, formally declaring East and West Jerusalem together, ‘whole and united’, to be ‘the capital of Israel’.
The UK rejects these Israeli measures to change the status of Jerusalem. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 of 1980 in response to the Israeli annexation, declaring it to be a violation of international law; the British Government has reiterated and amplified this position many times since.
HMG’s formal position is based on the 1950 statement: it recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West Jerusalem and, from 1950 to 1967, recognised that Jordan exercised de facto authority in East Jerusalem. Since the war of 1967, HMG has regarded Israel as being in military occupation of East Jerusalem, and in this connection subject to the rules of law applicable to such an occupation, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. HMG also holds that the provisions of Security Council Resolution 242 on the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war applies to East Jerusalem. The Venice Declaration and subsequent statements (both by the UK alone and with EU partners) have made clear that no unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are valid.
The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should not again be divided. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties.
that memorandum reads just like the language in the Immigration Bill about building a fence!
You've got some ultra-Orthadoz sects in Judaism (I think the Satmars are one of them) who don't even recognize Israel as it exists today.
Yes, perhaps as many as a thousand worldwide.
That's politically significant to you.
My sympathies to our former American freepers, now citizens of Aztlan.
Israel's "occupation" of Jerusalem is at least as morally justified as the white European occupation of the United States, Canada, etc. Maybe even more so.
I'm suspect you're right!
The situation is far from being analogous. The UN Security Council Resolution 242 (the US signed it) calling for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war applies to East Jerusalem. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties.
West Jerusalem should be a settled issue, being in 1949 Israel.
Kabar, we've discussed this before.
You know perfectly well the Embassy site is in WEST JERUSALEM and has been part of Israel since the declaration of the state in 1948.
All the issues you cite RECOGNIZE WEST JERUSALEM AND THE EMBASSY SITE as part of ISRAEL.
Period. Not subject to negotiations. Any more than Tel Aviv.
At least show your UN colors and acknowledge that you base your opinion on the 1947 UN Resolution declaring Jerusalem an international city. Accepted by Israel at the time, rejected by the Arabs. And a dead issue now.
That's up to both parties to negoitate. What's mine is mine and what's your's is negotiable. It is a very complicated, emotional issue that will require compromise on both sides if it ever is to be resolved. Neither party is going away.
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.