The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out


  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
    • World
    • National
    • Politics
    • National Security
    • DC Area
    • Business
    • Entertainment
    • Technology
    • Investigations
    • Faith
    • Energy
    • Environment
    • Headlines
    • Citizen Journalism
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • TWT BLOGS: Latest
  • Staff blogs
  • Create a blog

Obama drops key clause in Jerusalem embassy memo

By Kerry Picket on June 5, 2009 into Water Cooler

  • Subscribe

The Washington Times' James Robbins writes:

Late on Friday The Washington Times' Christian Bourge obtained a copy of Presidential Determination 2009-19, latest in a series of pro forma memos to the Secretary of State entitled "Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act." This determination is a legally required waiver under said act to continue to delay the May 31, 1999 deadline for moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  

Nearly identical memos like this have been issued every six months for the last decade. Standard procedure, no big deal, right? Well in the Bush years the memo contained the sentence,

"My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."

The Obama team has edited that passage out. This explains the Friday evening release. Congress should revisit the Jerusalem Embassy Act and remove the loophole that has allowed this charade to continue for ten years. Meanwhile the president should explain exactly what his policy is on this issue, and why he is not committed to beginning the process of moving the embassy.

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Comment

There are 6 Comments

LewWaters

To venture a guess, I could imagine he feels Tel Aviv will soon be the capital of an Arab Palestine, so why move it? Face it, the Apologist in Chief seems bent on alienating our allies and embracing our enemies. I wonder how many who voted for this puppet are beginning to miss Bush?
Mark as offensive

AnthonyR

No LewWaters your guess is wrong. The reason this move has not happened over the last 10 years is because the status of Jerusalem has yet to be settled. Also no Obama voter misses Bush. And if Obama should fall out of favor with his voters, they are not going to long for the days of W. You right-wing nuts have my sympathy. It must suck felling so totally politically impotent.
Mark as offensive

YMedad

It was Israel Govf't Press Spokesman who said: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.” After the destruction wrought during the 19 years of Arab rule between 1948-1967, including dozens of synagogues, thousands of graves, residential structures, ethnic cleansing of the Jewish Quarter and refusal to abide by UN resolutions and Cease Fire agreements, for example, access to the Western Wall religious site, no non-Jewish rule over any part of Jerusalem should be tolerated. And anybody who supports handing over any part of the city to Arab rule, Obama, Clinton or even Rahm Emanuel, is morally corrupt besides their warped political view on the conflict.
Mark as offensive

kugel

If Israeli politicians think the US shouldn't have an opinion on Israeli foreign policy, then perhaps they would be kind enough to return all the weaponry and aid they have received all these years, no? No guaranteed veto at the UN either.
Mark as offensive

Magnifist

I'm not worried about the fact that the wording has been removed, just disappointed in our administration. There are greater forces at work here that give me peace about how the world will handle Jerusalem. I suspect we are now moving into a time when Jerusalem is going to dominate an ever increasing amount of the world's attention. Our administration is about to tackle what to do with Jerusalem. The United States of America is not going to solve the problem. In fact, our beloved nation is going to suffer greatly for trying to handle the Jerusalem issue in the wrong way. Every indication has it that Jerusalem is about to become a heavy stone for the nations of the world to lift and those who try are going to get seriously hurt doing so.
Mark as offensive

bshpjksn

Obama may not want Israel to have hegemony over Jerusalem, but G-d does. Evan Thomas of Newsweek and Obama himself may think he's G-d, but if he hurts Israel and Jerusalem, he'll find out who the Creator really is. His Name is not Obama!
Mark as offensive

Please login or register to post a comment

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.