State Department still won't recognize Jerusalem

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/12/10/report-the-state-department-still-wont-recognize-jerusalem-as-a-place-that-exists

Despite President Donald Trump’s formal declaration that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the U.S. will still not recognize Jerusalem on official documents, maps and passports.

Wait, what’s going on?

According to the Washington Free Beacon, for the time being, the State Department still won’t recognize “Jerusalem, Israel” as a place that actually exists.

Special: Over 100,000 sold and running out. Get yours, 90% off with free shipping!

The State Department last week acknowledged at news conferences that Trump had declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, but when asked if the U.S. government will officially recognize Jerusalem as a place that exists within Israel, officials refused to acknowledge the holy city.









State Department officials told the Free Beacon that the U.S. government, because of Trump’s declaration, “recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and its seat of government.” However, “the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations,” the official said.

The position of Jerusalem in Israel is up for debate because of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and the U.S. government doesn’t want to trample over that, the official said.

“While we are affirming the current and historic reality of Jerusalem’s role as Israel’s capital and seat of government, any ultimate determination of sovereignty over Jerusalem will flow from the results of negotiations between the parties,” he told the Free Beacon.

What is the reaction to the position?

The State Department’s position has already drawn outrage on Capitol Hill, mostly among pro-Israel congressmen.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) told the Free Beacon that the Constitution gives the president the power to make foreign policy, not the State Department. He also slammed the “entrenched bureaucracy.”

“The president is the commander-in-chief and America’s sole organ when it comes to conducting foreign policy. Article II of the Constitution does not vest this authority in bureaucrats in the State Department,” he told the Free Beacon.

“The State Department must permit Americans born in Jerusalem to list ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ on their passports and must follow the logical implications of this historic recognition in other policy areas,” he added. “President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was the right thing to do and enjoys broad support from the American people; an entrenched bureaucracy has no right to stymie this decision.”

Originally posted by @whodey
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/12/10/report-the-state-department-still-wont-recognize-jerusalem-as-a-place-that-exists

Despite President Donald Trump’s formal declaration that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the U.S. will still not recognize Jerusalem on official documents, maps and passports.

Wait, what’s going on?

Ac ...[text shortened]... pport from the American people; an entrenched bureaucracy has no right to stymie this decision.”

the art of the deal son, the art of the deal. Sit back and watch and be prepared to be amazed,

Originally posted by @whodey
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/12/10/report-the-state-department-still-wont-recognize-jerusalem-as-a-place-that-exists

Despite President Donald Trump’s formal declaration that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the U.S. will still not recognize Jerusalem on official documents, maps and passports.

Wait, what’s going on?

Ac ...[text shortened]... pport from the American people; an entrenched bureaucracy has no right to stymie this decision.”

So, say you’re an American born in Jerusalem... what does your passport say now?

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
the art of the deal son, the art of the deal. Sit back and watch and be prepared to be amazed,

No matter how many people die in the resulting conflct over the issue.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
So, say you’re an American born in Jerusalem... what does your passport say now?

"Jerusalem" i.e., not "Jerusalem, Israel" just "Jerusalem"

As for the move itself, I am not in favor of it. Not because I don't think Israel has the right to designate Jerusalem as its capital. Of course it does.

But to me, the only thing I care about in the long term is what brings us closer to a two-state solution, which both sides need and the majorities on both sides probably want.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem strengthens the hand of the right wing extremists who don't want a two-state solution and decreases American leverage to push both sides to the negotiating table.

Extremists on both sides have thwarted the will of the majorities for too long and anyone with the power and ability to push both sides to the table that fails to do so is missing an opportunity to strike a blow for world peace.

As such, any unilateral step is pointless and potentially harmful.

Originally posted by @sh76
As for the move itself, I am not in favor of it. Not because I don't think Israel has the right to designate Jerusalem as its capital. Of course it does.

But to me, the only thing I care about in the long term is what brings us closer to a two-state solution, which both sides need and the majorities on both sides probably want.

Moving the embassy to Jeru ...[text shortened]... ke a blow for world peace.

As such, any unilateral step is pointless and potentially harmful.

Could you explain how moving an embassy strengthens the hand of those who don't want a two-state solution? Is the argument that this will embolden certain Israeli segments (right wing extremists as you call them) or does this seemingly symbolic move actually alter the dynamic?

Originally posted by @quackquack
Could you explain how moving an embassy strengthens the hand of those who don't want a two-state solution? Is the argument that this will embolden certain Israeli segments (right wing extremists as you call them) or does this seemingly symbolic move actually alter the dynamic?

It emboldens, yes. But it also removes another chip from the table.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem could have been a chip that could have been used to entice a right wing government to the table. Now, that chip has been junked with nothing in return.

It doesn't actually change anything (except for causing a few Arab riots here and there) or actually improve Israel's position or security.

As such, I don't see why it was so critical to do. It may feel good (and it does), but the overarching question to me is whether it advances peace under a two-state solution. Everything else pales by comparison.

Edit: It also represents a victory for unilateralism, which could hurt pro-peace Israeli politicians in the next election.

Originally posted by @sh76
As for the move itself, I am not in favor of it. Not because I don't think Israel has the right to designate Jerusalem as its capital. Of course it does.

But to me, the only thing I care about in the long term is what brings us closer to a two-state solution, which both sides need and the majorities on both sides probably want.

Moving the embassy to Jeru ...[text shortened]... ke a blow for world peace.

As such, any unilateral step is pointless and potentially harmful.

BINGO!!! I highly suggest everyone write this down, and don't forget it. sh76 is 100% correct.