September 7, 2012

"The State Department today again refused to name the capital of Israel, even after being questioned by the press..."

"... and even after the Democratic party (President Obama's party) voted yesterday to add language to its platform stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."

63 comments:

virgil xenophon said...

Shameful--and shameless..

Freder Frederson said...

So now, party platforms are legally binding on the U.S. government? Where in the constitution is that?

virgil xenophon said...

There is A REASON that China and Russia are often labeled as merely adversaries, but Foggy Bottom is regarded as THE ENEMY..

Paul said...

Oh comeone... we KNOW he was lieing. Progressives are just like that. He only had the platform changed to look good and his policy is still the love thy Muslim.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I dont think any US administration has ever recognized Jerusalem as the Capitol.

I have no sympathy for Obama or the Dems on this. They stepped on their dick by allowing the radicals to have too much power then over reacted.

Synova said...

Party platforms aren't law and they don't bind the candidates of either party to anything.

No matter how much the Democrats lie about that and insist that because something is in the Republican platform that they can claim "Romney would do this!"

Freder Frederson said...

Shameful--and shameless..

It is and has been the policy of the U.S. (and most other major nations) since 1980 when Israel declared Jerusalem the capital that the matter needs to be resolved through negotiation.

That means it has been the policy of the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama administration.

This is a non-issue.

Matthew Sablan said...

"So now, party platforms are legally binding on the U.S. government? Where in the constitution is that?"

-- Well, the State Department answers to the President, and we got all sorts of fawning and glowing commentary about how the President bravely stepped in to correct the technical oversight he had earlier approved. So, someone should tell the State Department what the President's position is.

Unless we're having factional turf wars in the executive branch like on Yes, Prime Minister.

Synova said...

"So now, party platforms are legally binding on the U.S. government? Where in the constitution is that?"

It's the hypocrisy, Freder.

But I'm sure we can count on you next time the Democrats misrepresent Romney or Ryan's opinions or priorities and excuse the lie by citing the Republican platform.

Bryan C said...

"So now, party platforms are legally binding on the U.S. government?"

As you know, the DNC claimed that the President himself took "decisive action" to clarify Jerusalem's status in the platform because that is our official foreign policy stance. Which is determined by the President.

So now you can argue that President Obama, bless his heart, somehow doesn't have anything to do with foreign policy. Or that he's just been too darn busy these last four years to call the State Department (decisively!) and notify them of their actual policy. Or that the whole "let's vote these vital items back into the platform" debacle was a complete lie as well as an incompetent sham.

I realize you don't have much to work with here, Freder. Take your time.

Matthew Sablan said...

Remember: The State Department would not have gotten this uncomfortable question if the DNC had been run competently.

Bryan C said...

"That means it has been the policy of the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama administration."

So...Obama didn't know that?

BigFire said...

We don't call it Foggy Bottom for nothing.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Remember: The State Department would not have gotten this uncomfortable question if the DNC had been run competently.

9/7/12 7:56 AM

Excellent point. The Convention was a disaster for the Dems.

exhelodrvr1 said...

We were for Jerusalem before we were against it before we were for it but now we're against it.

Can someone please put that into Visio?

Freder Frederson said...


It's the hypocrisy, Freder.

After reading the language, you are right:

"The United States has a moral and legal obligation to maintain its Embassy and Ambassador in Jerusalem. Immediately upon taking office, the next Republican president will begin the process of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem."

Oh sorry, that is the language from the 2000 Republican platform.

Patrick said...

They're still working on a two-thirds voice vote.

Matthew Sablan said...

Freder: Do you have any defense besides "But Boooooooosh!" ?

Freder Frederson said...

Do you have any defense besides "But Boooooooosh!" ?

The point is that similar language has been in both Republican and Democratic platforms for years but the reality on the ground has not been affected by it.

And it's not just "But Boooosh!" it's but Carter, Reagan, Clinton and both Boooooshes

Matthew Sablan said...

This is another reason I tend to prefer speaking with Republicans to Democrats. Republicans have no problem admitting when their politicians screw up. Hell, I still pull the "Mitt is my first name" quote from time to time because it is funny. Republicans have no problem knocking their politicians and abandoning the ones who screw up too bad.

Democrats had a hagiography for a guy who left Mary Jo kopechne to die on a night celebrating women. When Clinton lies "It's just about sex!" When Ryan lies/makes a mistake about his running time, it is the end of the world.

Freder: Politicians are just people. It's OK to admit Obama screwed up.

Freder Frederson said...

It's OK to admit Obama screwed up.

I absolutely believe that Obama screwed to caving from pressure from Drudge and the right-wing blogosphere to put the language back in the platform.

Look what it got him, criticism before and then when the language was inserted under dubious circumstances, he was just criticized for that.

Matthew Sablan said...

Obama did not "cave" to Drudge and the right wing. He caved to moderates within his own party (you know, the roughly half in the audience that were voting to add it back in.) But, go ahead and keep thinking the right has that much sway over Obama.

Patrick said...

Freder - I ask this in all seriousness, but do you really want a guy who caves into Matt Drudge as President?

Hagar said...

The location of Israel's capital is, is for Israel to decide and no one else.

Freder Frederson said...

I ask this in all seriousness, but do you really want a guy who caves into Matt Drudge as President?

Ideally no. But considering the alternative, I'll stick with Obama.

Matthew Sablan said...

Remember when Obama said family income and unemployment should be how we measure his success? Those were good days, when the average family made about 4% more than it does now.

But, hey. Maybe in four more years, if we're making even less, things will be better. Obama '12, because I don't want to make as much as I did in '08!

Freder Frederson said...

The location of Israel's capital is, is for Israel to decide and no one else.

Considering your extensive bona fides in international relations and law, with that definitive statement, further discussion is unnecessary.

Based on your expertise, all the countries that do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital should move their embassies forthwith.

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't see what's so silly about saying that a legitimate nation state can decide what its center of government is.

Do we get to renegotiate Spain's capitol every few years?

Hagar said...

Did not rhe West-German government maintain that Bonn was just a temporary accommodation until Germany was re-united and it could move back to Germany's rightful capital, Berlin?

Hagar said...

The location of our embassies abroad will of necessity have to be negotiated with the governments of the respective countries to mutual satisfaction.
It has no bearing on where those governments claim their capitals to be located.

Hagar said...

In fact, Freder, it is very insulting to the State of Israel to insinuate that the location of their capital is subject to US approval!

Freder Frederson said...

Freder, it is very insulting to the State of Israel to insinuate that the location of their capital is subject to US approval!

It is not subject to US approval. It is subject to international approval. If the US declared that we are annexing Canada and moving the capital to Toronto (which is a much nicer city than Washington DC), I doubt many countries would recognize the new capital.

traditionalguy said...

The reason is that Jerusalem is designated to become the capitol of the UN International Tourism Bureau in Obama's Plan.

Matthew Sablan said...

Freder: When you argue by analogy, it helps if the situations are analogous.

Patrick said...

I ask this in all seriousness, but do you really want a guy who caves into Matt Drudge as President?

Ideally no. But considering the alternative, I'll stick with Obama.


But what if Drudge tells him to go to war with China or something. We're like totally screwed then. OK that part's not serious.

I guess you go to the election with the politicians you've got.

Marshal said...

Freder Frederson said...
So now, party platforms are legally binding on the U.S. government? Where in the constitution is that?


I thought the constitution was a living document?

I guess Freder's the hyopocrite.

Hagar said...

Yes, Freder, it is more like if Israel got a real good deal on a place in Alexandria, VA, and asked the State Dept. for permission to vacate the present bldg. in DC and move to Alexandria.
The State Dept. might be a bit puzzled about the optics of the deal, but would no doubt say sure, if that's what you want, hop to it!

ricpic said...

Huma I Put A Spell On You Abedin has Hillary in a trance, not that Hillary isn't more than willing to be under Huma's Saudi trance. Of course the Jews have to be taught a lesson. All the Harvard/Princeton/Yale International Studies grads who infest State are in complete agreement with Hillary on that, uh...policy. They can't really explain it but it puts their noses out of joint that those pushy pushy Jews refuse to submit to the wisdom of the International Community and fucking disappear.

ricpic said...

Schmuck freder has no use for sovereignty.

Hagar said...

The actual situation is probably more like if Israel did not move anything, but just took to referring to its New York facilities as "the Embassy" and ignored their DC facilities in official announcements.

It's word games that governments play for "diplomatic" reasons, but do not change the facts on the ground.

The Drill SGT said...

I predicted a Jay Carney disaster like this on a previous thread. I still expect one, because Jay will be asked, "well what does Obama think..."

I'm surprised they haven't gone to this formulation.

"Today, Israel's capital is in Jersalem, but the ultimate status of Jerusalem is subject to peace talks, yada, yada"

Since Israel has had possession of the part of Jerusalem where its government sits since 1949, the State position means the 1948 borders (with Israel in three parts) is the basis for peace talks?

beyond the capital side show, nobody took the Dems to task for the other three things they dropped and didnt add back in, aparrently because POTUS doesn't want them in:

- HAMAS are terrorist a$$holes and we don't deal....
- The right of return, means that Pali's get to come back to the new Pali state
- the 1949 borders are not the basis for a permanent peace

jr565 said...

Freder, this is from the DEMOCRATS party platform in 1972!:

Recognize and support the established status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, with free access to all its holy places provided to all faiths. As a symbol of this stand, the U.S. Embassy should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

jr565 said...

So what is recognized as the Capitol of Israel by the Obama administration?

Darrell said...

Next year in Kailua!

Read more http://hillbuzz.org/who-is-funding-the-purchase-of-the-35-million-beachfront-hawaiian-estate-for-barack-and-michelle-obama-to-move-into-come-january-2013-2013

The Crack Emcee said...

"The State Department today again refused to name the capital of Israel, even after being questioned by the press..."

Oh, leave 'em alone, they got "feminist" right,...

bgates said...

So now, party platforms are legally binding on the U.S. government?

I don't think anyone is claiming the Obama Administration is breaking the law here, as it did in (to take just two instances) its illegal war against Libya or the Fast & Furious scandal.

Cedarford said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...
I dont think any US administration has ever recognized Jerusalem as the Capitol.

I have no sympathy for Obama or the Dems on this. They stepped on their dick by allowing the radicals to have too much power then over reacted.
========================
Agree on both counts. Pols have the freedom to be pandering bootlickers for Jewish money any day.
The State Department, however, is bound by present diplomacy and negotiations NOT to go outside current position held since 1980 that such things as final agreed Borders, status of Jerusalem await all parties to formally sign on to it.

That said, the Dems tried having it both ways - keep Jewish money flowing in and keep the progressive Jewish media influencers and execs as loyal Obama lapdogs - while simultaneously trying to be popular with Muslims and Muslim nations.
It is possible...but the Dems really booted how to finesse this at their Convention.

Cedarford said...

Hagar said...
Did not rhe West-German government maintain that Bonn was just a temporary accommodation until Germany was re-united and it could move back to Germany's rightful capital, Berlin?
Hagar said...
The location of Israel's capital is, is for Israel to decide and no one else.


================
Hagar, like most Americans spoonfed Zionist propaganda for 60 years, fails to understand that as a condition for Israel being recognized and admitted to the UN, they agreed to work out the Final Status of Jerusalem as an international city sacred to 3 religions - in formal negotiations.

Might I assume that if you believe in the right of Israelis to declare their capital anywhere they please on territory they control - that the Palestinians are also just as free to site their capital on their part of Jerusalem?






Freder Frederson said...

Freder, this is from the DEMOCRATS party platform in 1972!:

Yes, I too remember the good old days of the McGovern administration.

edutcher said...

They booed God, too.

ricpic said...

Huma I Put A Spell On You Abedin has Hillary in a trance, not that Hillary isn't more than willing to be under Huma's Saudi trance.

Trance, schmance. She's munching her muff.

Hagar said...

@C4,

You are correect, Sir, and even on territory they do not control - either party.

I think that Ariel Sharon and his supporters have succeeded in scuttling any "two-state" solution, and that - barring accidents, which may well occur -the former Palestinian Mandate will stagger on as they are for at leat a couple of generations more until demographics take over, and they unite in one secular State of Israel.

The Drill SGT said...

C4 said...Might I assume that if you believe in the right of Israelis to declare their capital anywhere they please on territory they control - that the Palestinians are also just as free to site their capital on their part of Jerusalem?

modified by the statement "anywhere they please on territory they control"

sure

have peace talks, get the Israelis to cede part of Jerusalem to the Pali state and put their capital there.

Fuck up again, start another war and lose it, and expect Israeli tanks on the steps of the Pali capital

The inverse of my previous position:

"Today, Israel's capital is in Jersalem, but the ultimate status of Jerusalem is subject to peace talks, yada, yada"

C4, as we both know, boots on the ground determine possession, and possession is 9 tenths, etc, etc.

now the real sticking point wasn't in the Dem phrase. The sticky word = "undivided"

PatCA said...

Does Iran like us now?

The Drill SGT said...

PatCA said...
Does Iran like us now?


they like the fact that we now apparently will talk to their puppet HAMAS

chickelit said...

Cedarford said: ...that the Palestinians are also just as free to site their capital on their part of Jerusalem?

What's wrong with that? If both capitols were just blocks away in one big CAPITAL city, everything would be more convenient--even war (think Richmond/Washington DC).

furious_a said...

Jerusalem, Schmerusalem -- that DNC platform voice vote tally would have made the most rotten Cook County ward-heeler proud.

The audio is priceless.

Sheridan said...

With the conventions over and the real conflict starting as both sides prepare for the first presidential debate, the party platforms of both the DNC and RNC only serve as the linings of bird cages, litter boxes, and puppy beds. Even the people who served on the respective party committees that formulated the platforms probably don't even remember what they wrote and approved.

I don't think there's anything new about this in presidential campaigns.

bbkingfish said...

The State Department has recognized Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel for over 60 years.

Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. The Act was opposed successively by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

Sigivald said...

... why does anyone have to "vote" about what the capital of a foreign nation actually is?

Nobody in the US has a say in that.

The government of Israel does, and it turns out it's Jerusalem, period. (No matter what the asshats at the UN posture on about - or indeed no matter what the State Department says.)

One might think that's "bad" (if one was reprehensible or a fool or both), but one can't deny it's so without being delusional.

Aridog said...

The United States Department of State lists Jerusalem as the capital if Israel on its offical profile of Profile of Israel, see the "profile" under the map shown. The "footnote" refers to where various nations have their embassies, not where the capital is or is not.

Politicians when dithering on this topic are ignorant of official written designation or lying pricks or both...likely the latter.

The citation is valid as of today, when you pull it up.

jeff said...

"Hagar, like most Americans spoonfed Zionist propaganda for 60 years, fails to understand that as a condition for Israel being recognized and admitted to the UN, they agreed to work out the Final Status of Jerusalem as an international city sacred to 3 religions - in formal negotiations."

You have a link for that? I found a (non binding) resolution from the late 40's that Israel agreed to WHILE at war with her neighbors. And of course there were the wars after that. Or is there something else?

Revenant said...

The State Department has recognized Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel for over 60 years.

"Recognize" in a Mr. Magoo sense of the word -- Israel's government is based out of Jerusalem. :)

DEEBEE said...

I was imagining Bibi singing a paraphrase of Elton John's "Sorry seems to be the hardest.." with Jerusalems subsituted in.