It is actually not well known that the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 made it U.S. law to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that the waiver provision of the act only applied to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. A letter to President Bill Clinton -- signed by 84 U.S. senators, including me -- articulated this point.He also makes a point about Mitt Romney's failure so far to unambiguously commit himself to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. While I certainly support Romney against Obama in the election, it's important that he be clear about his policies on Israel, and appointing John Bolton to a prominent position in the government if he's elected would be a good start.
And while it's clear Santorum won't be presidential candidate by now, he has earned my admiration - maybe even more so than Newt Gingrich - for bringing up this important subject, and I certainly hope he'll keep going in American politics for years to come.
UPDATE BY RELIAPUNDIT:
I hardly think Mitt opposes the idea of an undivided Israel - no close "3 decades old" friend of Bibi's would likely be opposed to a united Jerusalem.
So Santorum was wrong to bundle Obama and Romney together and attack them both as if there was no difference.
Mitt has unabashedly supported Israel for decades and has said over and over that the parties must decide the results of negotiations and not outsiders.
Israel's position is clear: no to "right of return", and no divided Jerusalem (tho' suburbs outside of Jerusalem as of 1967 might be given away).
All Santorum was doing by staying in and by attacking Mitt was helping Obama, not Israel.
If Obama is reelected, then Israel is in worse shape than if Romney is elected.
Santourm had no chance at the nomination, let alone any chance at beating Obama.
SO I AM GLAD HE GOT OUT: Anything and everything Santorum might have said at this point would have been helpful to Obama and harmful to Israel and it helps Israel that he withdrew.
No comments:
Post a Comment