ELDER OF ZIYON: YNET: Has the State Department ever looked at a map of Jerusalem?

From YNet:

US State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki responded Wednesday to Israel's announcement of building 1,500 units in east Jerusalem saying "We do not consider continued settlement activity or east Jerusalem construction to be steps that create a positive environment for the negotiations."

At no time in the course of pursuing negotiations toward a two-state solution have we condoned settlement activity or east Jerusalem construction," she added.

Two things need to be made clear.

One is that the timing of the announcement of 1500 more housing units in Ramat Shlomo was stupid. It made it look as if Israel building in its own capital is a quid pro quo for releasing murderers. The appearance of linkage is completely unacceptable.

Secondly, Ramat Shlomo is not even close to the municipal border of Jerusalem. It is an integral part of the city, even if it is slightly over the Green Line. In no possible universe is that neighborhood or area up for negotiation.

The idea that Jerusalem must become frozen in time retroactive to 1967 is, to put it bluntly, stupid. 

There are no Arab neighborhoods between Ramat Shlomo and the center of Jerusalem. There is empty land around Ramat Shlomo to expand (it is a small, dense neighborhood.)

 Building there does not affect any conceivable "peace" plan.  (And it is not in "east Jerusalem," but north.) 

The question is, has the State Department ever condemned Jerusalem investing in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem? Or are the condemnations only for Jews?

I think we know the answer.

Netanyahu says, You also refused to bomb Auschwitz; The World Jewish Congress in New York asks the War Department to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz, August 9, 1944. The War Department turns down the request (August 14, 1944)

Netanyahu got out copies of two letters he said he keeps in his desk, between the World Jewish Congress and the War Department in 1944, when the WJC called on the United States to bomb the extermination camp at Auschwitz, and the War Department refused. The letters are below. The refusal included the argument that attacking the camp might unleash even more "vindictive" behavior. "Think about that," Netanyahu said. "Even more vindictive than the Holocaust!" The John McCloy letter he read from is widely cited among American Jews as a coded statement of anti-Semitism at the highest level of American society at that time.  The suggestion was clear: America didn't act the last time either. 



WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS

August 9, 1944

Hon. John J. McCloy
Under Secretary of War
War Department
Washington, D.C. 

My dear Mr. Secretary:

I beg to submit to your consideration the following excerpt from a message which we received under date of July 29 from Mr. Ernest Frischer of the Czechoslovak State Council through the War Refugee Board:

"I believe that destruction of gas chambers and crematoria in Oswiecim by bombing would have a certain effect now. Germans are now exhuming and burning corpses in an effort to conceal their crimes. This could be prevented by destruction of crematoria and then Germans might possibly stop further mass exterminations especially since so little time is left to them. Bombing of railway communications in this same area would also be of importance and of military interest."

Sincerely yours,

A. Leon Kubowitzki
Head, Rescue Department



14 August 1944

Dear Mr. Kubowitski:

I refer to your letter of August 9 in which you request consideration of a proposal made by Mr. Ernest Frischer that certain installations and railroad centers be bombed.

The War Department had been approached by the War Refugee Board, which raised the question of the practicability of this suggestion. After a study it became apparent that such an operation could be executed only by the diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations elsewhere and would in any case be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources. There has been considerable opinion to the effect that such an effort, even if practicable, might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.

The War Department fully appreciates the humanitarian motives which promoted the suggested operation, but for the reasons stated above it has not been felt that it can or should be undertaken, at least at this time.

Sincerely,

John J. McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War

upreme Court transcript in Zivotofsky v. Clinton

You can find the transcript of the oral argument before the Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v. Clinton (the case about putting Israel in the passports of US citizens born in Jerusalem) here.

I haven't read it all yet, but from what I've read so far, it does not look promising.

You can listen to the oral argument below:

Clinton, in a Sharp Turnaround, Warns Against Even Symbolically Recognizing Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

Secretary of State Clinton, in a sharp departure from her stance when she was a senator, is warning that any American action, even symbolically, toward recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel must be avoided for the reason that it would jeopardize the peace process.

Her warnings were issued in a brief she has just filed with the Supreme Court — in which she is arguing that a law she voted for when she was Senator is unconstitutional because it could require the U.S. government to give to an American citizen born at Jerusalem papers showing the birthplace as Israel.
The law requiring the government to issue such documents on request passed the Senate unanimously at a time when Mrs. Clinton was a member. But Presidents Bush and Obama have taken the position that the law infringes on the president’s prerogatives in respect of foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton is being sued by an American youngster, Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born at Jerusalem in 2002 to American parents who want his birthplace to be listed on his passport as Israel.
In addition to citing the peace process as the excuse for not issuing the birth document the Congress wants issued, Mrs. Clinton’s brief adds a new twist to the story of the White House photos first disclosed last month by the New York Sun. The story involved the discovery that even while the White House was fretting over the requirement to list Jerusalem, Israel, as Master Zivotofsky’s birthplace, the White House’s own website was featuring a series of pictures from Vice President Biden’s 2010 trip to the Jewish state and identifying the pictures as showing him at “Jerusalem, Israel.” The Sun queried whether the Zivotofsky case really rose to constitutional proportions, since the White House on its own website treated Jerusalem as being in Israel.
Five days later, the White House removed “Israel” from each of the Biden pictures, without announcing the deletion. The State Department also quietly deleted “Israel” from references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on numerous official documents on its own website, dating from the Bush administration.
Mrs. Clinton’s brief alleges that any American action that “symbolically or concretely” signals it recognizes Jerusalem being in Israel would “critically compromise the ability of the United States to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process.” The brief contends that American policy is to remain neutral over all sovereignty issues, leaving them to negotiations, and that the U.S. thus “does not recognize Palestinian claims to current sovereignty” in the West Bank or Gaza either.
It is that latter statement that requires further revision to the Biden photos on the White House website. Two of the photos from Biden’s trip show him meeting with Palestinian officials in the “Palestinian Territories.”
The proper reference is to “territories” – the word used in U.N. Resolution 242, the foundational document of the “peace process,” which did not affix the adjective “Jordanian” or “Arab” or “Palestinian” to the territories, nor require that “all of the” territories be relinquished by Israel, but rather left an unspecified portion to be traded for a defensible peace. America has never assigned that land to the “Palestinians” and maintains that only negotiations can create Palestinian sovereignty there.
So far, Israel has made three offers of a Palestinian state, and the Palestinians rejected all three. They currently refuse to negotiate a fourth, unless Israel concedes the 1949 armistice lines as the basis of a Palestinian state before negotiations begin — while rejecting on their own part any recognition of a Jewish state, defensible borders, or an “end of claims” agreement.
If an adjective is necessary, the term Israel uses is “disputed territories.” Palestine was designated by the League of Nations in 1922 as the national home of the Jewish people. In response to Arab opposition, Britain’s Peel Commission in 1937 proposed two states, which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected. In 1947, the Arabs rejected the UN two-state proposal, and Jordan illegally occupied a portion of Palestine in the ensuing war that the Arabs commenced.
That occupation ended in 1967, when Jordan joined a new war against Israel and lost the land it unlawfully held. The UN thereafter adopted Resolution 242 as the basis for peace, under which any Israeli withdrawal, and the extent thereof, is subject to the establishment of “secure and recognized boundaries.” Hence it is a contradiction of the neutrality principle asserted in the Clinton brief for the adjective “Palestinian” to be affixed to the territories prior to a negotiated agreement.
If the Obama administration believes in the neutrality principle it is asserting in the Supreme Court — and that the mere mention of “Jerusalem, Israel” on its website, or putting “Israel” on an individual’s passport, would violate that principle – the question will arise as to whether it will also scrub also the references to the “Palestinian” territories.
If it does not treat both situations the same, the Supreme Court may legitimately question whether the Clinton brief is asserting the true reason for the administration’s adamant opposition to the designation of “Israel” in the passport of Master Zivotofsky.

White House erases "Jerusalem, Israel" from its website

From Daniel Halper at The Weekly Standard:

Quick question: According to the State Department, what nation is the city of Jerusalem in? If you answered Israel, you'd be wrong. The State Department just issued the following press release:

QUESTION: What is the State Department’s position regarding American persons born in Jerusalem who wish to have passports issued that indicate their place of birth as Israel?

ANSWER: Current U.S. Government policy is that U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem may not have “Israel” listed in their passports as their place of birth. See the U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1300 Appendix D for further details.

Hmm. You kind of have to wonder why no one thought to inform the White House! When Vice President Biden visited Jerusalem, Israel last year, the White House helpfully provided the following caption: "Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, Israel, March 9, 2010."

And then the author posted this a little later:

Within two hours of posting, the White House has apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem as being in Israel.

The caption now reads: "Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, March 9, 2010."

Sure enough, according to Google's cache, at least 7 references to "Jerusalem, Israel" have been changed now to show "Jerusalem" alone.

is now:

The only remaining reference to "Jerusalem, Israel" that I can find on the White House site is in this announcement:

This is beyond outrageous.

Go to the White House website contact page and let them know.

State Department: US 'deeply concerned' about - what else?

On Thursday, I reported that the City of Jerusalem gave final approval for the construction of 930 housing units to be added to the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa. It took a few days, but the US State Department reacted to that report on Tuesday, expressing 'deep concern' (that would put us on the same level with Asssad murdering civilians... except that I can't even find 'deep concern' from the State Department about that recently) that Israel is going to build apartments for Jewswithin its capital city (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

In a statement, the department said the U.S. has raised the issue with Israel and noted such “unilateral actions work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and contradict the logic of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties.”

The administration will “press ahead with the parties to resolve the core issues in the context of a peace agreement,” the statement said.

The housing project will expand the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa, which directly borders the Palestinian town of Bethlehem, by 930 units. Construction on the project, which was approved last week, is at least two years away, The Associated Press reported.

For the record, Har Homa is in southern Jerusalem. It is not a 'settlement' and until Obama came along, no US administration called Jerusalem suburbs 'settlements.' There's not a Jerusalem Arab anywhere near it (the closest ones are probably in Beit Tzefafa).

The picture above, which ran with the Politico report from which I quoted, is not identified. The implication is that it is part of the area into which Har Homa is to be expanded. It looks like there are a lot of people living there, doesn't it?

Then Politico comes up with this one:

In its rebuke, the State Department said Israel and Palestine must continue to work for a peace agreement through the negotiating process.

No, the State Department briefing did not refer to 'Palestine.' Hey Politico - there ain't no such thing as 'Palestine.'

Haaretz adds (Hat Tip: Noah Pollak via Twitter).

The State Department's statement was made four days after AFP reported that EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton condemned Israel's approval of the new housing units and five days after top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat’s released a statement slamming the Israeli approval.

Ashton said the new move damaged Israel's prospects for peace. "The European Union has repeatedly urged the government of Israel to immediately end all settlement activities in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem. All settlement activities are illegal under international law,” AFP quoted Ashton as saying in a statement.

"Continued settlement undermines trust between the parties and efforts to resume negotiations. This is especially true with regard to Jerusalem," the EU chief said, adding "I believe there can be no sustainable peace in the Middle East without a two-state solution with the state of Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security."

"Settlement activity damages this prospect," she cautioned.

Hey - what took the State Department so long?

And isn't it amazing that with all the other things going on in the world, this continues to take the top priority for the State Department and for the EU 'foreign policy chief'?

Actually, continuing 'settlement activities' is the only way the 'Palestinians' are ever likely to come back to the table. You see, so long as Israel is freezing 'settlement activities,' the 'Palestinians' have nothing to lose by staying away. If their staying away means that Israel does whatever it pleases, then they have something to lose by staying away.

What could go wrong?

State Department Legitimizes Terror

To whom did the Obama administration grant permission to fly the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] flag in Washington D.C.?

The answer: Palestinian Arabs - A society whose overwhelming majority nurtures a blind hatred of Israel, and has created a cultural milieu of vengeance, violence and death. This organization, which has been directly responsible for the murders of American civilian and security personnel, now has its recognition and flag waving in our capitol.

Here is just a subset of articles from the PLO Charter that the American administration has no shame to honor:

*Article 7: [Individual] must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.

*Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

* Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.

* Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

*Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

And if their charter was not convincing enough, the United States Congress, on numerous occasions, has reaffirmed the PLO's status as a terrorist organization. Although past presidents have attempted to circumvent this law, its conclusions are concise and unequivocal:

"Therefore, the Congress determines that the PLO and its affiliates are a terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of the United States, its allies, and to international law and should not benefit from operating in the United States."

The violent and disturbing history of the PLO is one that has dreadfully affected the lives of countless Israelis, Americans, and many others. The PLO is so transparent in its criminal and malicious ways, whether it be via their charter, public statements, or incitement, that one must question what the State Department was thinking when it upgraded the status of their mission from representative office to general delegation.