Israel to US: Tel Aviv works
posted at 11:51 am on February 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The location of the US embassy in Israel has generated considerable controversy here in the US. The American government has never fully recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, preferring to let that contentious point get determined in final Israeli/Palestinian peace talks. Both Bill Clinton and George W Bush promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but neither actually took the step.
According to Arutz Sheva, the Israelis themselves pressed the US to remain in Tel Aviv (via Keshertalk):
Former Israeli Consul General to the US Yoram Ettinger revealed at the Jerusalem Conference Wednesday that Israel prevented a move that would have relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem.“The US Senate was ready to do away with the waiver that allows the president to defer the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem,” Ettinger said during a round-table discussion at the Jerusalem Conference. “There were over 80 senators – enough to override any [presidential] veto.”
It was the Israeli government, Ettinger said, who intervened on behalf of leaving the Embassy in Tel Aviv. “The problem is that both houses of congress have been firmer on Jerusalem than any Israeli government since 1993.”
Ettinger did not elaborate which Israeli government it was that told Congress to stand down.
In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act. This got overwhelming approval, but it allowed the President to sign a waiver if, for diplomatic or security reasons, the move needed to be delayed. Clinton and Bush did so 12 times, delaying the move while both administrations attempted to engage the Palestinians and to eliminate their terrorist activities.
Arutz Sheva gave no reason why the Israelis objected to the move. Perhaps they recognized the provocative nature of the transfer. No other nation has its embassy in Jerusalem. Hezbollah leader promised terrorist attacks on any American embassy located in Jerusalem, but we rarely let terrorists dictate our actions anywhere. The bigger problem would be the almost-certain reaction from the Palestinians and the appearance that we had decided on the Jerusalem question without their input, something that even the Israelis know would lead to another intifada.
It looks like we’ll be staying in Tel Aviv for the foreseeable future, and that our present location suits the Israelis just fine.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Good place for one other reason as well: Tel Aviv will be the number one target if Iran decides to shoot off a nuke, and taking out the American embassy there will remove any aversion to flattening those bastards once and for all.
MadisonConservative on February 27, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Dittos!
petefrt on February 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Could you please elaborate why it’s “provocative”? The fact that no other state has done so is not a valid answer. WEST Jerusalem is well within 1948 borders, i don’t think any sane person on Earth expects it to lose it’s Capital status.
Aristotle on February 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Like Hizbullah has any problem blowing up Americans at their earliest convenience; see Beirut 1983.
Hizbullah likewise has no problem with invading foreign countries; see Israel 2006 (aka the Hizbullah/Lebanon War, headed up by Mugh the Thug).
Israel’s existence is all the provocation the terrorists want or need. It doesn’t matter where the US has its embassy; that’s just an accounting error to be fixed after Israel ceases to exist as far as the jihadis are concerned.
lawhawk on February 27, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I don’t like it, but hey, it’s their country. We all know that in 48 the new Israeli government agreed to keep it’s hands off Jerusalem (and many other areas) if the Arab League agreed not to attack. Bar that Israel warned them that force of arms would decide the issue. Israel kept it’s word. I mention it because it is troubling that today, when I read the Jpost and Haaretz, that Jerusalem seems negotiable. The American embassy, located there, might be a target, but it would also be a clear line in the sand. That brings us back to my first sentence….it’s their country. Banging my head on the wall here.
Limerick on February 27, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Please remind me, who was the POTUS in August 1980?
Aristotle on February 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Israel chose the path of surrender. Condi and Bush pushed them that way in the hope of getting peace in return.
But History teaches us that peace comes through strength, not through weakness.
Now with the prospect of having a Democrat in the White House, we probably will be witnessing in our lifetime the realization of the Iranian’s president prediction: Israel being wiped off the map.
I may sound repetitive, but it is true in the case of America, Israel and Europe:
The only enemy of a nation is its own people.
From decisions at the polling places to those made at the highest level of government, decisions can make or destroy a nation.
Indy Conservative on February 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Yup, Israel knowing when to give in to being thrown under the bus repeatedly. We sure are tough
TOPV on February 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM
This seems to me to be the equivalent of surrendering Palestinian prisoners as a sign of good faith. It seems likely to me that the Israelis are forgoing Jerusalem as the seat of politics in a tacit nod to a division of Jerusalem in conjunction with a two-state solution. To not press the embassy issue seems entirely consistent with the Olmert ministry.
Spirit of 1776 on February 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Isreal will never be wiped off the map. Oh, the entire world will, at some point in the probably-not-too-distant future, turn against Israel. And it will be attacked by a gigantic army–probably a combo of people from countries like Russia, Iran, et al. That army will fail miserably, too–something I’m rather interested in seeing.
No, Israel will never be wiped off the map. It’s been there since (basically) the beginning of time. It’ll be there long after, too.
jedijson on February 27, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I’d be interested in seeing that too, but considering the other things that would be going on in that time period (famine, plague, antichrist, etc.) I’d rather that not happen anytime soon…
Conservative Gunman on February 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM
That would be every Terrorist’s & Dictator’s best friend, Jimmy Carter.
dmh0667 on February 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I’m a CQ reader who registered the other day. Do I need to post a comment like Ed said? Oh wait… I just did.
chriscoolc on February 27, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I am amazed at seeing the world’s mightiest nations tippy toeing around whether or not the nation should exist and where its capitol may be put despite historical proof of the nation’s prior existence and proof of where its capitol was.
Has the jihadi world / politcal correctness / oil concerns neutered us so much ?
Dang.
Duncan Khuver on February 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I think that Israel wasnt so much worried about upseting Muslims over Jerusalem but rather was worried about upseting Christians.
Many Christian faiths see that city as holy as well and it would have caused consternation with Catholic and Orthodox faiths over having Jewish control of the city.
William Amos on February 27, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Not sure where you’re coming from on that one. Last I checked their hasn’t been a Othrodox or Catholic church erased by the Jewish government. Nor pilgrims guided away from any Christian place of interest. Disclaimer here though, I fly the Blue and White right beneath the Stars and Stripes.
Limerick on February 27, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I’m amazed that the Israelis put those folks in office. Then again, looking forward to our own election….
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Im saying that the israelis themselves might have been concerned that Christian faiths would take a move like this as provocation. But considering its just the US maybe they were more worried about the Russians not liking it. Just trying to read tea leaves here
William Amos on February 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Having been to Israel and hung out at the Christian points of interest, I can guarantee it wouldn’t be a provocation to the Orthodox or Catholic churches there to move the embassy. Actually, it seems the Christian churches there are perfectly content to have a Jewish government.
mjk on February 27, 2008 at 1:45 PM
No bones here. Just trying to understand your point. I have become pretty attached to the concept of the state of Israel and her people and know that that can prejudice my viewpoints on her existence.
Limerick on February 27, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Perhaps they recognized the provocative nature of the transfer. No other nation has its embassy in Jerusalem
wepeople on February 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM
How is it “provocative”? Provocative towards whom?
Aristotle on February 27, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Too bad they don’t read what the Bible has to say about this.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 27, 2008 at 2:11 PM
It’s provocaive toward everyone who hates Jews.
logis on February 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Jerusalem is the capitol of Jewish Israel. The current Israeli government is the equivalent of us having Obama or Dennis Kucinich as president – they are idiots.
Jerusalem has been the capitol of Israel for at least 3200 years and it should be and will be until the arrival of the Moshiach.
georgealbert on February 27, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I should also mention that among his other failings, George Bush promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem starting in 2001. He lied, and now he is pushing Israel to surrender to the Islamist terrorists like Abbas and Hamas and al Qaeda and Hezbollah.
Pres Bush has been a severe disappointment to say the least.
georgealbert on February 27, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I am personally in favor of relocating the embassy to Jerusalem. If the Israeli people want the U.S. embassy to remain in Tel Aviv, who am I to argue?
Unfortunately, the current Israeli administration is not worthy of the Israeli people. I don’t know who is more dangerous, the islamofacists or the current Israeli administration.
Mooseman on February 27, 2008 at 5:35 PM
The Israelis and the Americans can reasonably consider setting aside the question as to the city in Israel in which the Americans’ embassy is, and ask instead how deep within Israel it should be. It seems both the Americans and the Israelis would benefit from the American embassy’s being 1000 or 1500 miles within Israel.
Kralizec on February 27, 2008 at 8:16 PM
It’s bizarre how much how I agree with Georgealbert and yet I’m an atheist. Given how Israel came into existence, basing the location of its capital on ancient history does make sense. Even if the importance of Jerusalem comes from the Bible, I would argue that this use of the Bible for symbolic reasons is actually a secular argument. And I would oppose just about any other use of the Bible in our politics. I think the difference is that the reasons that the Jews relocated to Israel instead of Kenya or New York.
Now, if someone opposed gay marriage in Israel on the basis of the Torah, I would strongly disagree.
I have the fear that many people would think I’m being too nuanced here, but I’m willing to try to clarify my ridiculously complex claim that it is an acceptable secular argument to make Israel’s capital Jerusalem if anyone wants to ask a question.
thuja on February 27, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Am I missing a joke here?
logis on February 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Comment pages: