The U.S. should move its embassy to Jerusalem…now
By Daniel Freedman
National Review
May 31, 2006
It’s a shame that a hopeless shrug was all that President Bush gave Prime Minister Olmert during his recent visit to Washington. It could have been so different. Prime Minister Sharon’s successor came to the capital with his “convergence plan”—unilaterally withdrawing from parts of the Jewish State because, he explains, with the terrorist group Hamas in power, Israel has no peace partner. The Bush administration, meantime, recognizes that Israel has no peace partner, but at the same time the president is also committed to the Middle East quartet’s “Road Map” and officially can’t endorse any unilateral move that is likely to “pre-judge” a final settlement—hence the hopeless shrug. Some see the shrug as good news—it means the Bush administration won’t block Olmert’s plan. But the real shame is that President Bush once again passed up on an action that would not only move the peace process forward, but would also reduce the likelihood of a future Hamas reelection. And, to top it all off, all President Bush has to do is comply with American law.
That action is moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—as required by the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. Passed by the Senate 93 to 5, and the House 347 to 37, the act made it “the official policy of the United States” that Jerusalem be recognized as Israel’s capital and accordingly America’s embassy be moved there. The act mandated withholding funds from the State Department if the embassy was not moved. But the act also gave the president a six-month waiver over the withholding of funds if he deemed it necessary for national security. President Clinton repeatedly used the six-month waiver, as has President Bush. So while it remains American law that the embassy should be moved, because of the use of the presidential waiver the State department hasn’t had funds withheld.
The excuses given for the use of the waiver, courtesy of the Arabists at the State department, are that moving the embassy will destabilize peace negotiations and anger the other Arab states. Today those excuses are weaker than ever. It’s hard to imagine how negotiations could be destabilized further. There are none. The Palestinian Arabs are now represented by terrorists committed to Israel’s destruction. What’s the worst that could happen if the embassy is moved? Hamas will reiterate for the hundred and first time that they want to wipe out the Jewish state? And what will those Arab states—the likes of Saudi Arabia and Syria—do? Will they still refuse to recognize Israel? More importantly why should other states, and undemocratic states at that, determine where America places its embassy in one of its closest allies? Israel is the only country in the world where the American president blocks the placing of America’s embassy in the nation’s capital.
Moreover, not moving the embassy is actually a barrier to peace. Not moving the embassy leaves the Palestinians Arabs with the hope that one day, as Hamas promises, Jerusalem will be theirs. But this is a false hope. The status of Jerusalem is non-negotiable to the Jewish people. King David's oath, "If I forget thee, O'Jerusalem, let my right hand turn lame," recited by Jews to this day, was made 700 years before the advent of Christianity and 1,200 years before Islam. But not only was Jerusalem the center of the ancient Jewish state, it’s also the center of the modern state: The parliament, the Supreme Court, and the central bank are all there. Leaving the Palestinian Arabs with any hope that one day they’ll be given Jerusalem is leaving them with a false dream. But by not moving the embassy, the American government is signaling that the dream isn’t so false. If the Jews are denied sovereignty over their capital city, even by their closest ally, it’s sending the message that everything is still to play for.
And so while Hamas’s agenda seems extreme to most, the Palestinian Arab people see America legitimizing part of Hamas’s agenda—one reason for their electoral success.
Leaving the Palestinian Arabs with false hope is why previous peace plans failed. Oslo and other grand plans were based on the premise that the big divisive issues—Jerusalem, refugees, final borders—could be dealt with at the end. The architects thought leaving aside the big issues till the end would create enough good will in between to deal with them at the end. But what happened was that the Palestinian Arabs were left with the false hope that they’d get all their demands—and every day this false hope only gets stronger—and so the peace process collapsed.
President Bush is doing a disservice to both the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arabs by blocking the embassy move. It’s an insult to the Jewish people by refusing to recognize the capital of the Jewish state and implies that her legitimacy is an open question. And it’s harmful to the Palestinian Arabs because it leaves them with a false hope and helps Hamas’s election chances. It’s a disservice to both because it makes peace all that less realistic. Supporters of the Jewish state thought President Bush understood this when he promised on May 22, 2000, that “... 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.” The president has broken that promise every six months since taking office, and, unsurprisingly, peace looks more distant than ever. It’s time for a new policy, or rather implementing an old policy and keeping an old promise.
—Daniel Freedman is online editor of the New York Sun.
National Review
May 31, 2006
It’s a shame that a hopeless shrug was all that President Bush gave Prime Minister Olmert during his recent visit to Washington. It could have been so different. Prime Minister Sharon’s successor came to the capital with his “convergence plan”—unilaterally withdrawing from parts of the Jewish State because, he explains, with the terrorist group Hamas in power, Israel has no peace partner. The Bush administration, meantime, recognizes that Israel has no peace partner, but at the same time the president is also committed to the Middle East quartet’s “Road Map” and officially can’t endorse any unilateral move that is likely to “pre-judge” a final settlement—hence the hopeless shrug. Some see the shrug as good news—it means the Bush administration won’t block Olmert’s plan. But the real shame is that President Bush once again passed up on an action that would not only move the peace process forward, but would also reduce the likelihood of a future Hamas reelection. And, to top it all off, all President Bush has to do is comply with American law.
That action is moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—as required by the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. Passed by the Senate 93 to 5, and the House 347 to 37, the act made it “the official policy of the United States” that Jerusalem be recognized as Israel’s capital and accordingly America’s embassy be moved there. The act mandated withholding funds from the State Department if the embassy was not moved. But the act also gave the president a six-month waiver over the withholding of funds if he deemed it necessary for national security. President Clinton repeatedly used the six-month waiver, as has President Bush. So while it remains American law that the embassy should be moved, because of the use of the presidential waiver the State department hasn’t had funds withheld.
The excuses given for the use of the waiver, courtesy of the Arabists at the State department, are that moving the embassy will destabilize peace negotiations and anger the other Arab states. Today those excuses are weaker than ever. It’s hard to imagine how negotiations could be destabilized further. There are none. The Palestinian Arabs are now represented by terrorists committed to Israel’s destruction. What’s the worst that could happen if the embassy is moved? Hamas will reiterate for the hundred and first time that they want to wipe out the Jewish state? And what will those Arab states—the likes of Saudi Arabia and Syria—do? Will they still refuse to recognize Israel? More importantly why should other states, and undemocratic states at that, determine where America places its embassy in one of its closest allies? Israel is the only country in the world where the American president blocks the placing of America’s embassy in the nation’s capital.
Moreover, not moving the embassy is actually a barrier to peace. Not moving the embassy leaves the Palestinians Arabs with the hope that one day, as Hamas promises, Jerusalem will be theirs. But this is a false hope. The status of Jerusalem is non-negotiable to the Jewish people. King David's oath, "If I forget thee, O'Jerusalem, let my right hand turn lame," recited by Jews to this day, was made 700 years before the advent of Christianity and 1,200 years before Islam. But not only was Jerusalem the center of the ancient Jewish state, it’s also the center of the modern state: The parliament, the Supreme Court, and the central bank are all there. Leaving the Palestinian Arabs with any hope that one day they’ll be given Jerusalem is leaving them with a false dream. But by not moving the embassy, the American government is signaling that the dream isn’t so false. If the Jews are denied sovereignty over their capital city, even by their closest ally, it’s sending the message that everything is still to play for.
And so while Hamas’s agenda seems extreme to most, the Palestinian Arab people see America legitimizing part of Hamas’s agenda—one reason for their electoral success.
Leaving the Palestinian Arabs with false hope is why previous peace plans failed. Oslo and other grand plans were based on the premise that the big divisive issues—Jerusalem, refugees, final borders—could be dealt with at the end. The architects thought leaving aside the big issues till the end would create enough good will in between to deal with them at the end. But what happened was that the Palestinian Arabs were left with the false hope that they’d get all their demands—and every day this false hope only gets stronger—and so the peace process collapsed.
President Bush is doing a disservice to both the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arabs by blocking the embassy move. It’s an insult to the Jewish people by refusing to recognize the capital of the Jewish state and implies that her legitimacy is an open question. And it’s harmful to the Palestinian Arabs because it leaves them with a false hope and helps Hamas’s election chances. It’s a disservice to both because it makes peace all that less realistic. Supporters of the Jewish state thought President Bush understood this when he promised on May 22, 2000, that “... 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.” The president has broken that promise every six months since taking office, and, unsurprisingly, peace looks more distant than ever. It’s time for a new policy, or rather implementing an old policy and keeping an old promise.
—Daniel Freedman is online editor of the New York Sun.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home