Less than 100 days before the US presidential elections, the Obama administration is openly denying Israel?s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Can this be a vote-getter?
Last week, the Emergency Committee for Israel released an ad titled, ?O, Jerusalem.? The commercial showed administration officials squirming when asked to name the capital of Israel, and highlighted the recent refusals of White House and State Department spokespeople to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel?s capital city. The underlying message of the ad was that the administration?s policy is out of step with the views of the majority of Americans.
Barack Obama?s position is certainly a political outlier. The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed nearly unanimously by both houses of Congress, explicitly stated that it is the policy of the United States that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel. The law granted the president a right to postpone the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on national security grounds. But the law?s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel?s capital was unconditional.
During his visit to Israel earlier this week, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney highlighted the fact that he holds the consensus view of the American public on Jerusalem.
In his speech in Jerusalem on Sunday afternoon, Romney said simply, ?It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.?
The Palestinians were predictably enraged.
Also predictably, the Palestinians chastised Romney for another statement he made that was equally rooted in America?s bipartisan consensus.
Romney noted that other things being equal, cultures that uphold and protect political and economic freedoms are more prosperous than cultures that don?t.
In a breakfast meeting with American supporters in Jerusalem on Monday, Romney noted that Israel?s per capita income is significantly higher than the per capital income of Palestinians in areas governed by the Palestinian Authority, just as per capita income in the US is higher than per capita income in Mexico, and per capita income in Chile is higher than per capita income in Ecuador.
It is hard to think of a milder criticism of Palestinian society than Romney?s comparison of the Palestinian economy to the economies of Mexico and Ecuador. Romney could easily have gone much further without ever leaving the confines of received wisdom. For instance, he could have mentioned ? as Obama did in his speech in Cairo in June 2009 ? that Muslim societies under-invest in education relative to non-Muslim societies.
Or he could have highlighted ? as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton often did during her tenure in the US Senate ? that official Palestinian institutions indoctrinate Palestinian children in a culture of death, teach them to hate Jews and aspire to become suicide bombers in a jihad aimed at Israel?s physical eradication.
It was predictable that the Palestinians would condemn Romney for his run of the mill support for Israel and his milquetoast criticism of the Palestinians, because they reject every criticism of their behavior and take umbrage at every step anyone takes that suggests acceptance of the Jewish state or recognition of Jewish history.
This behavior is common to all groups in Palestinian society, from Hamas to Fatah to the so-called liberal reformers. In line with this, while Hamas condemned visits to Auschwitz as helping ?Israel to spread the lie of the Holocaust? and garner international sympathy? at the expense of the Palestinians,? the supposedly moderate, liberal Palestinian for Dignity organization condemned the EU for upgrading its trade ties with Israel.
The EU is the largest financial backer of the PA. Its policies towards Israel are in complete alignment with what the purportedly moderate Palestinians claim they want in a peace deal with Israel, including the partition of Jerusalem, and the expulsion of 600,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria and the neighborhoods built outside of the 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem. And yet, as Shoshana Bryen from the Jewish Policy Center reported, for simply upgrading EU trade ties with Israel, Palestinian for Dignity announced its members ?will organize to protest the latest manifestation of EU complicity and to challenge its presence and operations in Palestine.?
Given the routine nature of Palestinian hysteria at Romney, and the bipartisan consensus upon which Romney?s remarks were based, there was no reason either his remarks or the Palestinians? response to his remarks would spark any controversy in the US. Indeed, given the fact that both US law and the majority of Americans respect Israel?s determination that Jerusalem is its capital city, it could have been taken for granted that Obama would keep his head down and hope to avoid further discussion of the issue.
Certainly, given that he had made statements similar to ? indeed stronger than ? Romney?s statements about cultural causes for economic prosperity, it could have been assumed that Obama and his surrogates would have disregarded PA spokesman Saeb Erekat?s ridiculous characterization of Romney?s statement as ?racist.?
Given that it is election season, and then-candidate Obama?s stated support for Jerusalem as Israel?s capital in 2008, the Obama administration could reasonably have made its own endorsement of Jerusalem as Israel?s capital city.
But amazingly, the Obama administration has taken the opposite tack. Obama and his media surrogates seized on the Palestinians? criticism of Romney as proof that by embracing the American consensus on Israel, Romney had committed an unforgivable diplomatic faux pas.
First there was the White House?s statement Monday on Jerusalem. Rather than keeping quiet, Obama doubled down. In a press briefing, White House deputy spokesman Josh Earnest not only refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. He drew attention to the difference between Romney?s position and the administration?s and denied that Israel has a capital.
In Earnest?s words, ?Our view is that [Romney's position that Jerusalem is Israel's capital] is a different position than this administration holds. It?s the view of this administration that the capital should be determined in final-status negotiations between parties.?
At the same time, Obama?s media surrogates have focused their wrath on Romney?s statement about the cultural sources of economic prosperity.
jon jones rashad evans ufc jones vs evans watergate mlb pregnant man outside lands 2012 lineup beloved
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.