Israel Matzav

Romney: Obama threw Israel under the bus

An interview with Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was published in Yisrael HaYom on Friday. Here are some highlights.

My view is that he threw Israel under the bus by laying out his view of the policies he thought Israel should adopt in the piece process. I believe that the role of an ally is to stand behind your friends and let them speak for themselves, rather than be spoken for by the United States of America. I believe our relationship with Israel, a nation which shares our values and is our best friend in the Middle East, should be of support and confidence rather than criticism and blame. The president got off on the wrong foot by speaking before the United Nations and criticizing Israel for building settlements and saying nothing about the Palestinians launching thousands of rockets from Gaza into Israel, as well as calling on Israel to accept the 1967 borders, which are unquestionably indefensible. This was an act not befitting a friend and ally.

...

The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

...

The right course is for the president to declare that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to America, and to punctuate that commitment. I have called for us to deploy two aircraft carrier task forces, one to the gulf, one to the Mediterranean to communicate our resolve in that regard.

The Leftists over at Think Progress were unhappy about Romney's views (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

The policy that the American Embassy reside in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem pre-dates the current administration. In fact, as Lara Friedman notes at Americans for Peace Now, the U.S. “does not recognize the sovereignty of any party in any part of Jerusalem (East or West)” and it’s “a policy that dates back to pre-1948, and has been followed by every U.S. Administration since, regardless of the President or party in the White House.”

In 1995, Congress passed a law allowing funding for the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but the law includes an executive waiver allowing the president to invoke national security interests to block such a move. Every U.S. president since the law passed, Clinton, Obama and Bush, has invoked that waiver.

And you thought Bush came before Obama, didn't you?

In other words, the 'progressives' want to continue the policy that only one country in the world - Israel - should not be allowed to designate its own capital.

They also mischaracterize the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. The Act, which was passed 93-5 in the Senate and 374-27 in the House, finds that "[E]ach sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital," and that Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since 1950. It then goes on to say this.

(15)The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country exceptin the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

(16)The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.

(17)In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry.

And then the Act continues from Section 3(b):

(b)Opening Determination.—Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened.

SEC. 4. FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997 FUNDING.

(a)Fiscal Year 1996.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" for the Department of State in fiscal year 1996, not less than $25,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

(b)Fiscal Year 1997.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" for the Department of State in fiscal year 1997, not less than $75,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

So what happened? What happened was Section 7, one of those national security waivers that allow Presidents to sign bills they have no intention of implementing. Those waivers have been issued every six months since the Clinton administration. But until Obama took office, they always included a statement that the administration remains committed to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. In Obama's statements there is no such commitment.

Romney's right. The Obama administration has thrown Israel under the bus.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Jerusalem Embassy Act, Mitt Romney

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:51 PM