I/P knowledgeable DUers - What's up with Romney's support for Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

[pinto]

I get much of the background, yet why would he make it such a point in his statements today? Appreciate input from those here more versed in the politics of the issue and the region. Thanks ~ pinto

[elleng]

1. Because he can't control his idiocy.

[The Magistrate]

2. A Right Wing Touch-stone, Sir

Israel has claimed Jerusalem as its capital, nobody else recognizes it, as there is some question regarding title of a portion of the city. saying you recognize Jerusalem as the capital is saying you agree with and support unconditionally, without any question or reservation, the Israeli government and anything it may choose to do or has done.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. +1

yes.

[pinto]

9. Thanks. Didn't realize that Israel's capital was an issue. Figured Tel Aviv was adequate, accepted.

Getting more of the picture - title to some Jerusalem and West Bank lands.

In context, Romney is a scur, in my opinion, to not hold a more neutral stand as a potential US president.

[hack89]

13. The Israeli center of government is Jerusalem

Israel has never considered Tel Aviv it's true capital.

[holdencaufield]

15. Romney is only stating...

... the officially declared position of the US Government since 1995 (under the Clinton administration). The fact that the US recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel is US law.

[shaayecanaan]

43. Capital, not capitol

the capitol is the building. In any event, the White House has consistently moved to postpone the relocation of its embassy to Jerusalem since the law was enacted.

[shira]

3. What did you think about Obama's support for an undivided Jerusalem 4 years ago?

[Scootaloo]

6. Same thing

Delivering a "fuck you" to the Palestinians for the audience at home.

The "Israel speech" is the easiest fucking thing for an American politician. Promise more money, promise more weapons, and then slap your cock across an Arab's face.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. So, just so we're real clear. You're making that statement about Barack Obama?

Including the last sentence in your post.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to maybe rephrase it?

[Scootaloo]

22. Nope, that's pretty much how every politician in the US works

Doesn't really matter about party, in this case. Ever heard Anthony Wiener or Carl Levin talk about the subject?

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I ask because you responded to a direct question about Obama's statement in a video.

And this was your response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113415301#post6



So how would you paraphrase the statements Anthony Weiner and/or Carl Levin have made?

[holdencaufield]

25. I assume you're speaking metaphorically? NT

[Scootaloo]

26. Yes, metaphorical.

Though in Weiner's case... who knows...

[shaayecanaan]

44. +1

post of the day

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Here's a question for you. Are you critical at all of the statement Obama made about Jerusalem?

I'm curious to know...

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Ah, I certainly wouldn't categorize it the way the other poster did, let's start with that.

Secondly, I have always supported and still support the general outlines of the 2 state solution that was nearly achieved in 2000. I'm sure we could dispute who and what was responsible for that failure, but that's not really relevant to the discussion. Personally, I've thought the best outcome for Jerusalem would be for it to be internationalized under some sort of UN protectorate. So in that, yes, I would mark myself as "critical" of the statement Obama made, or seems to make, in that 2008 clip. It's an obviously truncated sound bite, to be sure, not containing any context from the larger speech. I don't know the context in which the statement was made, but taken at face value, yes, I disagree with it.

As I disagree with many positions taken by then Candidate and now President Obama.

It's also worth noting that the Obama administration itself seems to disagree with that sentiment, at least as of a couple days ago:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-72612

*The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

I interpret that to mean, it's in flux and in the air awaiting some sort of final deal, or at least progress towards one. In that context, I don't know whether Jerusalem or Half of Jerusalem "should be" the Capital of Israel. But that wasn't what I weighed in the thread on, rather I weighed in because of a really obscene characterization of the words of President Obama, and then a further extension of that characterization to include two other named Democratic Politicians (who, perhaps coincidentally, do happen to be Jewish) as well as a characterization of the words of Democratic Pols in general.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Thanks for the answer. I agree with what you said there...

I think yr interpretation of what that statement made by the Obama administration means is pretty good. I think the Obama administration is being careful to be seen as not making any decisions or supporting anything that would be seen as circumventing the 'peace process'. That's the reason they used for opposing Palestine's bid for statehood in the UN, so they've got to be seen as being fair, I guess...

[Warren DeMontague]

32. It's also sort of telling that they didn't have an answer immediately ready.

There's not an easy answer. Obama's 2008 sound bite notwithstanding, it's a complex issue nested inside a bunch of really thorny things that need to be hashed out. I think the Administration understands this.

[Scootaloo]

5. It has nothing to do with issues of Israel / Palestine

I doubt Romney could find either Israel or Palestine, if you gave him a map of Israel and Palestine.

It's about delivering a "fuck you" to the Palestinians, for the audience at home.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. You got it in one! n/t

[oberliner]

34. Totally wrong

What benefit does it bring to Romney to give an "FU" to anyone?

The audience at home has no interest in anything of the kind.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Actually, they're right...

I can think of the obvious benefit of Romney doing that. He's pandering to a domestic audience that likes to see their leaders being tough with those naughty Arabs who don't love Israel with the same burning passion as a lot of Americans do. That's why both sides of US politics compete with each other to see who can lavish the most slavering praise and support on Israel, and also to show how tough they are about the Arabs.

[azurnoir]

65. I'll take that a step further

IMO everything Romney did while he was abroad was to appeal to his base back home including his dissing London and comments about Russia while in Poland not just what he said about Jerusalem and 'culture' while in Israel

[shaayecanaan]

38. Cost vs benefit

People who are pleased by Romney saying "fuck you" to the Palestinians:-

right wing Jews
right wing Christians
garden-variety Islamophobes
cultural conservatives
swinging voters, for whom anything Arab or Muslim is probably more toxic than not

People who are upset:-

disaffected people on the left who won't vote for him anyway.

[Fozzledick]

7. Pandering to the Jewish vote, the neo-cons, & the fundamentalist Armageddon fans.

A cheap way to differentiate himself from Obama with no perceived domestic political consequence and no regard for the possible diplomatic fallout.

[oberliner]

35. Now you are talking

That's it in a nutshell.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. I thought I remembered Bill Clinton mumbling about Jerusalem...

as the capital of Israel while campaigning, but while looking for it I foundthis:http://www.nysun.com/foreign/clinton-in-a-sharp-turnaround-warns-against-even/87496/

They call it Foggy Bottom for a reason

(I still don't know if it was Clinton or someone else who called for moving the Israeli Capital, but I seem to remember it as a trick question)

[PoliticAverse]

10. He probably especially made such a point because Carney avoided the issue when asked recently...

See:
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/240905-romney-says-jerusalem-is-israels-capital-vows-to-move-us-embassy
http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-stumped-on-israels-capital/

[holdencaufield]

11. Jerusalem...

... has been the officially declared capitol of Israel since 1950 (de facto since 1948) . That isn't in dispute. The fact that it was a divided city doesn't enter into it. Berlin was still the capital of both East and West Germany for decades despite being a divided city -- no one chose to deny that.

The US Congress voted over a decade ago to officially recognize that fact. I don't think acknowledging that is in any way pandering to anyone.

[shira]

12. How did other nations view W.Jerusalem under Israeli control b/w 1950-1988?

Never gave this one any thought before...

[holdencaufield]

14. To my knowledge...

... the only people who had a problem with Israel's official capital being in Israeli-controlled Jerusalem prior to 1967 were people who objected to the existence of Israel at all. The only officially stated reason in all that time for any country not placing their embassies in Jerusalem during that period (and after) was and is security concerns -- Jerusalem being very close to a hostile border.

Post annexation is a different story -- legal minds differ on the status of annexed East Jerusalem and people will take sides according to their predilections towards Israel. The official position of MOST countries is to avoid taking a position until the actual parties to the issue settle their debate -- peacefully we all hope. In '95, the US Congress voted to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel and that law is still in force today.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how other nations view the issue. Israeli's declared Jerusalem as their capitol on their own sovereign territory for historic reasons and Jerusalem has been the sovereign territory of Israel since its founding.

[shaayecanaan]

18. Jerusalem was designated a corpus separatum by the UN in 1948

to be administered by a permanent international regime. The Europeans still regard Jerusalem as having this legal status.

[holdencaufield]

20. Moot Point

UN protection of that international sector ended five minutes after the Jordanian tanks showed up in 1948. UN administrators fled and never came back (apparently, everyone was OK with Jordanian-control of Eastern Jerusalem).

The armistice declaration of 1948 officially placed an armistice line through the city controlled by Israel and Jordan with no UN jurisdiction over any part of Jerusalem. Jordan gave up any claim to the territories in the '80s.

The corpus separatum decree isn't relevant.

[shaayecanaan]

37. Just about every assertion in this post is completely false...

Jewish fighters, not Jordanian, moved to occupy the city as soon as the British left, in what was called Operation Viper. They were then pushed out by the Arab Legion led by Pasha Glubb, which did not have tanks, although they did possess armoured cars.

I do love how hasbarados pick and choose what international law is "relevant". The UN partition somehow isnt, even though both the Jewish leadership and the US agreed to it. On the other hand, the League of Nations' resolutions are somehow treated as sacred, even though most of the world cared not a jot for it, including the United States.

[eyl]

55. Jewish fighters entered Jerusalem

Because the Jewish sections were under attack (and siege) by Palestinian fighters. The Jewish population was eventually driven out or captured

AFAIK, the partition resolution, being issued by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council, is in fact not binding under international law unless all parties agree.

Can you cite European leaders saying they currently consider Jerusalem to be corpus seperatum?

[shaayecanaan]

66. Jewish and Palestinian irregulars had been involved in skirmishes for some time previously...

however, the underground planned to occupy the Old City on the very day the British left, and had so planned for months, irrespective of anything the Arabs did.

The Jewish population in the Old City left as soon as the Arab Legion accepted the Jewish surrender. They would have left earlier during the fighting, but for a strict ban that Ben-Gurion himself had placed on Jewish civilians (including women and children) leaving the Old City, despite repeated requests for evacuation. Whether this was motivated by facts-on-the-ground considerations or whether Ben-Gurion intended that they be used as human shields is hard to say. Certainly the underground fighters made no attempt to distinguish themselves from civilians, and in the event only two dozen prisoners of war were taken to Jordan following the end of the battle for Jerusalem.

[tjwmason]

33. The U.K. does not recognise sovereignty over Jerusalem

Since the '67 conflict the British government has regarded East Jerusalem as being under military occupation; before '67 it recognised that Israel and Jordan had de facto authority (though not sovereignty). There is a Consulate General in Jerusalem which is not accredited to any state.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/content/en/country-profile/middle-east-north-africa/fco_cp_opts?profile=all

Sorry that I can't help you with any other countries' positions.

[shira]

39. So Britain didn't recognize W.Jerusalem as Israel's capital b/w 1948-67? nt

[bemildred]

40. Here's what they say about Jerusalem:

Jerusalem – the key to Middle East Peace

Jerusalem holds particular significance for many groups around the globe, especially the three Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

We support a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians which fulfills the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem, the safeguarding of its status for people of all faiths around the world, enabling it to serve as the shared capital of two states.

Although we accept de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem, we consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. Attempts by Israel to alter the character or demography of East Jerusalem are therefore unacceptable and extremely provocative.

Settlements, as well as the evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem are illegal and deeply unhelpful to efforts to bring a lasting peace to the Middle East conflict.

It is crucial that the parties involved come to an agreement whereby Jerusalem can be a shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian States.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/mena/middle-east-peace-process1/

Also this:

The war of 1948 resulted in Jerusalem being divided, with the old walled city lying entirely on the Jordanian side of the line. A no-man's land between East and West Jerusalem came into being in November 1948: Moshe Dayan, commander of the Israeli forces in Jerusalem, met with his Jordanian counterpart Abdullah el Tell in a deserted house in Jerusalem’s Musrara neighborhood and marked out their respective positions: Israel’s position in red and Jordan's in green. This rough map, which was not meant as an official one, became the final line in the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which divided the city and left Mount Scopus as an Israeli exclave inside East Jerusalem.[127] Barbed wire and concrete barriers ran down the center of the city, passing close by Jaffa Gate on the western side of the old walled city, and a crossing point was established at Mandelbaum Gate slightly to the north of the old walled city. Military skirmishes frequently threatened the ceasefire. After the establishment of the State of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital. Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1950, subjecting it to Jordanian law.[121][128] Only the United Kingdom and Pakistan formally recognized such annexation, which, in regard to Jerusalem, was on a de facto basis.[129] Also, it is dubious if Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation.[130][131]

After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, denied Jews access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites.[132] Of the 58 synagogues in the Old City, half were either razed or converted to stables and hen-houses over the course of the next 19 years, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue. The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with gravestones used to build roads and latrines.[133] Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were demolished and replaced by modern structures.[134] During this period, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.[135] The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf, and was resettled with refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.[136]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Division_and_reunification_1948.E2.80.931967

[Ken Burch]

19. Wrong on the German situation

Throughout the Cold War era(1949-1989) East Berlin was the capitol of the DDR, but Bonn, not West Berlin, was the capitol of the Federal Republic. And it was placed in Bonn by the Christian Democrats under Conrad Adenauer...one of the hardest core Cold Warriors of them all.

[azurnoir]

41. yes a Republican majority Congress did do that in 1995 during the term of a Democratic POTUS

and while the Oslo negotiations which had in part been brought about by that same Democratic POTUS were in full swing, political games anyone?

Fortunately or un depending on your views US foreign policy is determined by the Executive branch of the government not the Legislative and since that signing 3 POTUS's 2 Democratic and one Republican have deferred moving the US embassy to Jerusalem

[bemildred]

16. It is many things.

A slap at Obama, giving Sheldon what he wants, picking up some much-needed money, making foreign policy trouble for Obama, old school jingo US politics, an attempt to look tough and assertive, and that's just the positive view.

[shaayecanaan]

21. Almost every single American president has made this same promise

and then backed away from it. Truman once said it was "because things look different from the view of the White House".

If Romney did move the embassy to Jerusalem, it would essentially be endorsing the unilateral claim to Jerusalem by Israel. I think you would have a slew of countries retaliate by recognising East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. The Palestinians would treat such a step as a repudiation of the principle of bilateralism - that everything in the IP dispute is subject to negotiation between the Israelis and Palestinians - and this would prompt them to take further steps at the UN.

[Bradlad]

42. I had to chuckle at this one.

The Palestinians would treat such a step as a repudiation of the principle of bilateralism - that everything in the IP dispute is subject to negotiation between the Israelis and Palestinians - and this would prompt them to take further steps at the UN.

Oh yeah. Those Palestinians get really upset if there's any attempted repudiation of the "principle of bilateralism" over there.

[shaayecanaan]

49. Indeed they do (nt)

[JI7]

27. jews and muslims see it as theirs, but Romney's purpose was to appeal to the christian fundies in

the US .

[BanTheGOP]

45. I myself do not even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation

So the point is moot with regard to its "capital."

My view is that Israel should be called Palestine, with democratic rights given to all citizens of the region, controlled by a progressive-democratic socialist government with a ban on far-right, American GOP-influenced militaristic influences in the region. Israel is a horrific spawn of an iffy reason to exist in the first place, and its only ally is the American republican party backed by the teabaggers.

[pnwmom]

46. Israel has long had support from liberals in the Democratic party. I have never heard

such vile sentiments from a Democrat.

[holdencaufield]

47. I have ... frequently NT

[azurnoir]

48. I alerted it it came back 3-3

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

nasty antisemitic post

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:36 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: What this post recommends would probably lead to a genocide of Jews in Israel. I can't tell if he knows that and is trolling, or is just very misguided. I'll err on the side of free speech and let it stand, but I definitely do not agree with the idea expressed in the post.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: insensitive and over-the-top.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is a reasonable point of view. Israel was created after WW2. The Palestinians did nothing to deserve having a portion of their country taken from them.

Thank you.

[oberliner]

50. Why did you alert?

In your reason you mention "nasty" antisemitism? Jews aren't even mentioned.

[holdencaufield]

52. I wouldn't have said anti-semitism...

... was directly involved.

However, denying Israel's right to exist is a clear violation of the rules of the group -- or at least it was under DU2. I'm not sure what rules still apply now. I think now that anything goes and it's up to the mood and whims of the jury to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.

I flagged it after the fact as a rules violation but it had already been flagged and "double-jeopardy rule" overrode my objection.

[bemildred]

56. Seems pretty clear the boundaries are different.

I see things all the time now that would have once been removed. And almost anything can get hidden with the right jury in the wrong mood.

[azurnoir]

58. I think its a TOS violation now n/t

[bemildred]

61. I agree. nt

[azurnoir]

57. look at the votes the first one says it quite well

but if you think the comment was okay that's fine, I did not

[slampoet]

63. Your attempt to quell failed 5-1

[azurnoir]

64. quell what exactly?

eta I am not relly expecting an answer seems more hit and run

[BanTheGOP]

60. Oh for Pete's Sake...give it a rest!!

I have always been on record in saying that I believe that Israel should be decertified as a state entity in the UN because of its oppressive and racist presence in the middle east. I have NOT said a damn THING about religion, but made the logical connection about the continued presence of the current, militaristic, republicanized government running the "country." My solution is just, my solution is proper, and frankly, my solution is the ONLY solution that would create an instant and lasting peace in the region.

I've been on record now for years with this position. Please note the ENTIRETY of my position rests with the government's miltary and racist actions, using national austerity backed by the American GOP as its only major ally, and that is the reason I have the position I hold.

[azurnoir]

62. actually Israel has many Democratic supporters Kirsten Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer

Barney Frank, Amy Klobachar, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Howard Berman, Shelley Berkley, all Democrats and very ProIsrael want more? It's the one place where the schism between the parties goes away

[holdencaufield]

69. The argument could be made that...

... you are only concerned with "decertifying" Israel for their sins and not the dozens of other countries with demonstrably more egregious human rights records, or who are a destabilizing force in their regions, because of the ethnicity of the majority population in Israel.

I can't say if that's true, but the argument could be made.

On the other hand, claiming that the dissolution of Israel through peaceful or violent means "is the ONLY solution that would create an instant and lasting peace in the region." Is laughable to the point of irony -- did you forget to add the sarcasm GIF?

In you're serious then could you please explain to the assemblage how the mere presence of Israel brought about the the North Yemen Civil War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, the Kurdish uprising, the 2nd Gulf War or Arab Spring?

Or, are you just channeling Mel Gibson on this issue?

[oberliner]

51. You really have no idea what you are talking about

Israel gets a great deal of support from Democrats in Congress.

They also are a lot closer to a progressive-democratic socialist government than the US.

Look at their health care system, to take one example.

[King_David]

68. QED

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=15067

[customerserviceguy]

53. This trip is not about Jewish votes

Oh, he'd love to vault from 10% of the Jewish vote to maybe 12 or 15 percent, especially in Florida where it might make a difference, but this leg of the trip is all about getting the evangelicals to trust him. Fundies who wouldn't let a Jew join their country club are nonetheless rabid about supporting Israel's right to do whatever it wants to with the Muslim Arabs around it, and this sort of statement is red meat to them.

Romney's been clever enough to say, in effect, to the snake-handlers, "Well, we all know that I'm not the same religion as you, but I can support the things you feel are important, even though there is that difference." It's all about closing the deal with the last major piece of the GOP base that still needs to get on board.

[madrchsod]

54. the jews and the mormons share more in common than the...

mormons and the christians. during the 1800s the baptists,who were the largest christian group of that time, and the mormons were bitter enemies. there was a actual shooting war between them.

mormon temples are designed after ancient jewish temples .

[oberliner]

59. Not true at all

Regardless of the 1800's that is not the case today by any stretch.

[shaayecanaan]

67. Heretics generally get along better with other religions rather than their own...

that is true of the Messianic Jews, the Druze, and the Mormons.

[azurnoir]

70. Mitt Romney launches new Jewish American coalition

It became clear on Wednesday that, despite an abundance of meetings with representatives of the Jewish community this week, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was not done yet with the 2% of the U.S. population, when he announced a new campaign group: The "Jewish Americans for Romney coalition."

Romney said in a statement released on Tuesday, "The Jewish community has made contributions to American society that stand in amazing disproportion to its numbers, and I am genuinely honored to have so many of its leading thinkers, diplomats, and political leaders support my campaign."

The coalition is co-chaired by the Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, former Hawaii Jewish Governor Linda Lingle, former Senators Norm Coleman and Rudy Boschwitz, and Adam Hasner, a Florida congressional candidate.

The group's advisory board of 39 included top advisers to his campaign who have served in previous Republican administrations, among them Tevi Troy, Dov Zakheim and Den Senor.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/mitt-romney-launches-new-jewish-american-coalition-1.455295

maybe this clarifies why?