The State Department's Jerusalem syndrome

Labels: »
(Times of Israel)In 2008, Obama addressed the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Controversy ensued, and the next day Obama — then a presidential hopeful — “clarified” his remarks, saying Jerusalem’s final status will have to be determined in peace negotiations.
If the progressives are so serious about non intervention as being the reason America should not occupy a Muslim nation and change things then why do they not exert a similar standard in Jewish nations? I myself would prefer non intervention as a policy. We aren't there to dictate semantics. When we send troops we should be there to kill an enemy that is clearly articulated. This culture of slapping the just people in the face with our opinions is destructive. Iraq would of been a cakewalk if we had gone in to kill the enemy and not rebuild Iraq as how we wanted to see it. Our self righteous attempt to force ideas on other countries will lead to our destruction. Never mind the fact that we are in fact breaking our own laws.
Caroline Glick..
30 March '12..
(h/t Calev Ben Yefuneh)I went to the US Consulate this week to take care of certain family business. It was a thoroughly unpleasant experience. I think it is ironic that two days after my extremely unpleasant experience at the consulate, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refused to say what the capital of Israel is. It was ironic because anyone who visits the consulate knows that the US's position on Jerusalem is in perfect alignment with that of Israel's worst enemies.
Last time I went to the consulate was in 2007. At that time the building was located in the middle of an Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem. It was unpleasant. In fact it was fairly frightening. Once inside the building I couldn't shake the feeling that the Americans had gone out of their way to make Israeli-American Jews feel uncomfortable and vaguely threatened.
But then, I was able to console myself with the thought that the US has been upfront about its rejection of Israel's right to assert its sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem. By treating Jews as foreigners in their capital city and behaving as though it belongs to the Arabs by among other things hiring only Arabs as local employees, the US officials on site were simply implementing a known US policy. True, I deeply oppose the policy, but no one was asking me, and no one was hiding anything from me.
The new consulate is much different, and much worse. The State Department opened its new consulate in Jerusalem in October 2010. It is located in the Jewish neighborhood of Arnona. It was built on the plot that Israel allocated for the US Embassy after Congress passed Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995 requiring the US government to move its embassy to Jerusalem.
It was an unvarnished act of aggression against Israel and Congress that the State Department built the new consulate on the plot that is supposed to be an expression of US recognition of Israel's capital in Jerusalem.

If I am not mistaken, the US Consulate General in Jerusalem is the only US consulate in the world that is not subordinate to the embassy in the country where it is located. When it was located in a hostile Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem, the fact that it was not subordinate to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv was upsetting. But it was also easily justified in light of US policy of not recognizing Israeli sovereignty in eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem.
But Arnona is in western Jerusalem. It is a Jewish neighborhood that even the most radical Israeli leftists don't envision transferring to the Palestinians in any peace deal. Putting the consulate in Arnona - and on the site reserved for the embassy no less - is the clearest expression of American rejection of all Israeli sovereign rights to Jerusalem imaginable.
It isn't simply that the Americans have located their independent consulate in the heart of a Jewish neighborhood.
Israelis who live in Jerusalem and need US consular services are required to go to the consulate in Jerusalem. You can't get on a bus and go to Tel Aviv. This again is due to the fact that the US does not recognize ANY Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. From the State Department's perspective, people who live in Jerusalem -- even in Arnona and Rehavia and Ein Kerem etc. -- live in a DIFFERENT COUNTRY from people who live in Tel Aviv and Netanya. We can no more receive services from the embassy in Tel Aviv than we can receive services from the embassy in Amman.
I will be writing more about the US's adversarial treatment of Israel as embodied in its treatment of Jerusalem in next week's Jerusalem Post column. But suffice it to say here that Victoria Nuland's statement to AP reporter Matt Lee, (posted below in case you missed it), is a true depiction of America's policy on Jerusalem - and though it, on Israel. It would be useful for someone to get Mitt Romney on record discussing his position on Jerusalem. Assuming that he says - like every other Republican presidential candidate - that he supports transferring the US embassy to Jerusalem, he should further be asked to explain how, if he is elected president, he will force the State Department to change its policies towards Israel and respect US law by treating Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers