Trump must recognize Israel sovereignty over Jerusalem before moving embassy.

43 Comments / 43 Comments

1. Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

   As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

2. After the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29, 1947, Britain announced the termination of its Mandate over Palestine, to take effect on May 15, 1948. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed.

   “uti possidetis juris” is not the only legal principle to apply. When a trust ends, the property of the trust (Mandate) vests in the beneficiary, Israel/Jewish people. So the day after Israel came into being, the trust property, all of Palestine with the exception of Jordan, would vest in Israel.

3. @ Michael S:
   Image result for British Mandate of Palestine expired in what year
   http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
   When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish …

4. For Bin Salman, Abu Did will do.

5. @ Bear Klein:
   Hi, Bear

   You said the Mandate of Palestine expired in 1948. Did it really? I was under the impression that the British simply abandoned their responsibility as the Mandating authority. In fact, British officers let the Jordanian “Arab League” army against Israel; and the British held considerable power in Egypt, the other main attacker of Israel. So it seems that not only did the Brits abandon the Jews, they actually fought against them. By supporting an international arms embargo against Israel as soon as it was born, moreover, it seems awfully much as though the UK was intent on destroying the Jewish state as soon as it deserted it.

   That seems like a pretty sloppy “end” to the mandate. It looks as though the British purposely left Israel in legal limbo, a lawyers’ paradise! It reminds me of Mr. Tulkinghorn in Bleak House:

   “Tulkinghorn, an extremely capable solicitor (a leading attorney) of the Chancery Court, is the main enemy, or antagonist, in this novel. He is an enigma which Dickens chooses not to solve. As Sir Leicester’s legal advisor, Tulkinghorn has a right, even a responsibility, to take notice of any action whatever that seems as if it might be detrimental to his client. Therefore, it is by no means unnatural or outrageous that he should wonder what his client’s wife is up to when she begins to act strangely and make inquiries about the handwriting on a legal document. But Dickens himself neither makes this point not leaves it as an obvious inference. Tulkinghorn pursues the lady’s secret so obsessively and ruthlessly that he gives the impression of desiring not so much protection of his client as power over the lady and the pleasure of inflicting pain…”

   — https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/bleak-house/character-analysis/mr-tulkinghorn

   How should the Almighty deal with the British Mandate Authorities, the “Tulkinghorns” of our drama? In “Bleak House”, the dastard was shot and killed by a distraught client. In Britain’s case, they were stripped of the greatest empire in history, and have been progressively humiliated to this day. Their French co-conspirators, along with all the former Nazi powers and collaborators, are also imploding in ethnic self-genocide at the hands of Muslims and Africans. And yet, if I read Zechariah 14 correctly, God is not finished punishing them, nor the Americans and all the other countries of the world, who collectively refused shelter to the Jew seeking refuge from Hitler’s nightmare. According to Zechariah,

   Zech. 14:
   [1] Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
   [2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle…
   [12] And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth…

   Does anyone here read the Bible? Yes, yes — the cantor sings Torah every Shabbos. But has anyone actually read it, much less believed it? It’s talking about us, right now, even as we speak — about things people ought to be deadly serious about. It says that what we call “World War III” will come as the result of ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD coming against Israel. That is happening before our eyes; and the nuclear proliferation, impossible for the prophet tohave forseen except for divine revelation, is also happening before our eys: In China, in India, in Pakistan, in Korea, in Iran… each of those countries will soon be able to launch and detonate the ONE warhead necessary to put a nation back into the stone age, with tens of millions of dead, wherein,

   “Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth”

   It’s as though the leaders of the world are all robots, reading their program from Zech. 14 and following it to the last bit and byte.

   That said, it seems to me that “International Law”, which was entrusted to the British and the British alone, has abandoned the Land of Israel; and as a consequence, Israel is free to implement its own law with no strings attached to the international community of “United Goiim” What say you?

6. @ Michael S:
   About Areas A & B of the PA they do not amount to a soverign state, basically a semi-autonomous area which the PA has certain rights to per the Oslo Accords. If the Oslo Accords are dispensed with, then Israel would have a right to claim these areas and apply Israeli law to them I assert.

7. @ Bear Klein:
   Thank you, Bear, for your description of “Uti possidetis”. The way you’ve described it,

   1. the Mandate of Palestine should be considered to be a unitary state, despite the fact that there has been an internal contest over who rules it. Some corollaries would seem to be,

   a. The occupations of Gaza and Yesh by Egypt and Jordan, respectively, between 1948 and 1967, should be considered a foreign invasion and occupation, and

   b. The only “Palestine” entity with a legal basis, is Areas A & B of the Oslo Accords, subject to a final solution of those accords, and

   c. The State of Israel is the ONLY modern entity that has had sovereignty over Jerusalem since the Mandate expired in 1948 (The previous Jordanian occupation of the eastern part having been temporary).

   Please correct me, if I’ve deduced things wrongly here.

   OK. We thus have Israel holding the right, through uti possidetis, to dispense with lands in Jerusalem according to its OWN LAWS. There seems, therefore, to be no legal barrier to President Trump ordering the relocation of the embassy there; and since Israel has the sole authority to declare where its capital is to be, within the confines of its own territory (The Mandate, plus lands demarcated by ceasefires with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon), there are no legal obstacles on the Israeli end.

   The whole international rage, therefore, which seems to be far more furious on the part of European leaders than of Middle Eastern Arabs, is much ado about nothing.

8. @ Bear Klein:
   HI, Bear

   I don’t doubt, that the government of Israel buys, sells and leases land as it wiii, just like a normal sovereign state. As far as ISRAEL is concerned, there is no “corpus separatum”; and in fact, I have yet to see any Arab entity, including Jordan and the PA, that regard or have ever regarded Jerusalem as a “corpus separatum”. Despite what various governments and international entities RECOGNIZE, there has NEVER, so far as I can see, been a separate “corpus separatum” of Jerusalem since the time of King David.

   Please tell me, if the above is correct.

   I will now bore the skeptics here, with the Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem IS recognized as a “corpus separatum” in Zechariah:

   Zech. 12:
   [2] Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege BOTH AGAINST JUDAH AND AGAINST JERUSALEM.
   [3] And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
   [4] In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.
   [5] And the governors of JUDAH shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of JERUSALEM shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.
   [6] In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
   [7] The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of JERUSALEM do not magnify themselves against JUDAH.
   [8] In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
   [9] And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

   At least three times in that passage, Judah and Jerusalem are dealt with as separate entities, independent of each other. The passage clearly deals with the Last Days, the times AFTER the Jewish people have returned from the great exile — which, for all practical purposes, means the immediate future. I think it’s curious, therefore, that the international community, including the United Goiim in NYC, regard Jerusalem and the Jewish State as separate entities.

   I said, “I think it’s curious”. The Nations of the world seem to be reading their script from Zechariah, while at the same time denying the validity of the Bible.

9. @ Michael S:
   Israel has the best legal claims to Jerusalem, Judea/Samaria. See below plus link for legal rationale on the matter.

   Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute. Uti possidetis juris is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization. The doctrine provides that emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries.

   Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip (though not the Golan Heights)

   At its expiration in 1948, the borders of the Mandate of Palestine, both internal and external, were relatively well demarcated and uncontroversial. Thus uti possidetis juris could be a powerful tool for resolving extant disputes about the borders of Israel. To be sure, Israel appears to be interested in drawing consensual new boundaries that differ from the borders established by uti possidetis juris. Uti possidetis juris does not preclude later modifications of borders. Application of uti possidetis juris, as is customary in other boundary disputes, would nevertheless provide a clear baseline for future negotiated solutions.

   Perhaps one of the most important, and salutary, effects of applying this otherwise universal rule is that it turns questions about the “nature” of the state — “Jewish,” “Palestinian” or otherwise — into more standard international discussions of the borders of whatever kind of state it happens to be. Thus the borders of Lebanon are the borders of the French Mandate over Lebanon, whether that state is largely Christian, as originally intended, or Shiite or Sunni. The borders of Jordan are the mandatory borders whether the state is Hashemite, Palestinian or otherwise.

   International law has well-developed rules to determine the borders of new states. This article shows that they apply in full to former mandatory territories, and Israel in particular.

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/10/new-research-paper-on-israels-borders-and-international-law/?utm_term=.23e36eadb9a5

10. What is clear and obvious to me is that Trump President of the USA believes and so does the Secretary of State Tillerson and UN Ambassador Haley that the USA has the soverign right to put the USA Embassy in Jerusalem. They have made that very clear and obvious and this dovetails with the 1995 Embassy Act by Congress. The Senate reaffirmed this recently.

    Bedein’s article and the posting here have simply convoluted the fact that if Trump gets the budget and works out the logistics he can move the embassy to Jerusalem with the will.

11. @ Michael S:
    Israel or properties owners in Israel can lease or sell property to the USA government if they so wish.

    USA already owns the Diplomat Hotel (leases it back to Israeli Government for use as an Oleh Housing Center). It also has an option to buy the land next to it expand the property if it so wishes.

12. @ Bear Klein:

    I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head here. The question now arises as to what extent the US Government as a whole, not just the State Dept. regards Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum, it being an internal US matter to be ironed out amongst themselves.. With the above declaration one would believe that the Corpus Separatum observance has been swept away by the Presidential decision declaring Israel is Sovereign in Jerusalem (meaning all of Jerusalem) ,knowing that Israel regards Jerusalem as a complete unit, and not in two parts..

13. All these legal (non-)niceties! It’s all jibberish, in my book. The bottom line is this (Ted, correct me, if I’m wrong):

    1. President Trump has the authority to do all the above, except provide funding (which is reserved to Congress). He CAN declare Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, he CAN order the moving of the embassy there, and he CAN declare Jerusalem — divided or no, or whatever he pleases — to be Israeli sovereign territory. He CAN do all these things; whether or not he chooses to, is another matter.

    2. The US has the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY to locate its embassy on any property provided by Israel for that purpose. (US Embassies are US sovereign territory.) — provided that ISRAEL has the sovereign authority to cede that property to us.

    That seems to be the rub, not any of this Congress gobbledegook. Does Israel have that authority? Who grants that authority? The League of Nations mandate? The British? The UNSC? The UNGA? That’s the $64,000 question. Ted? Sebastien? Bear? What’s the answer, in 26 words or less?

14. @ Bear Klein:
    He did not say that Israel is sovereign in the city. To the contrary he said “We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders.”.

    The issue that he was weighing in on was whether Israel can decide where to locate its capital. It was not whether Israel is the sovereign over Jerusalem. That’s for negotiations to decide. All headlines regarding his recognition referred toJerusalem was Israel’s capital. Not one heading that I read claimed that Trump recognized that Jerusalem was Israel sovereign territory.

15. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    One must read the Embassy act very carefully. You know that Congress controls the purse. the Embassy act says that starting in 6 months the funds allocated for embassies around the world will be cut in half. Therefore the waiver postpones this restriction of capital. But it is generaly accepted that Congress can’t decide the question of sovereignty.

16. @ Ted Belman:
    Correction: Why have Presidents had to sign the waiver stipulated in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 2017 (which became law without Clinton’s signature) removed, if the Congress has no power to over-rule the President on foreign policy as the Supreme Court has recently determined.

17. @ Ted Belman:
    Trump by recognizing the reality of Jerusalem as Israels’ capital defactco accepted the fact that Israel is the sovereign in Jerusalem. He left open that Israel could negotiate away the borders of the city. This does negate Israel’s soveringty but gave diplomatic (lip service) to the Palestinians to try and negotiate with Israel.

    Trump said Israel is the soverign in Jerusalem explicitly and just the boundaries are open for negotiation. See quote below. NO LEGAL DOUBT ONLY REQURIES IMPLEMENTATION.

    Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital.

    In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.

18. @ Ted Belman:
    Once again, my question: If the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 2017 — which mandates that:

    “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any official document of
    the United States Government which lists countries and their capital
    cities shall identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

    and

    “United States officials should refrain from any actions
    that contradict United States law on this subject.”

    [I cited the link in above comments]

    carries no weight, then why have Presidents had to sign the waiver stipulated therein?

    Maybe, the Supreme Court has to rethink its decision?

19. @ Sebastien Zorn:This the way I put it to a large number of experts on all things Israel:

    I think that Trump did not recognize our sovereignty in Jerusalem. American policy is based on two things.
    1) All lands east of thIe ceasefire lines are “disputed territory”.
    2) Even though Res 181 didn’t become binding, the US considers Jerusalem a “Corpus Saparatum”. This is so, even though 181 said that after 10 years as a Corpus Separatum, the fate of the city would be determined by a referendum. Ben Gurion was relying on the latter provision when he accepted 181. Without it he wouldn’t have accepted it.

    What Trump did was
    1) to recognize reality. Jerusaqlem has the Supreme Court there and Knesset and most of government offices.
    2) to accept that each nation has the right to designate their capital city
    3) to accept Israel designating its own capital city even if what they designate is in a Corpus Separatum.

    He did not say Israel is sovereign over Jerusalem. This omission is very important. But he did say that he accepts Jerusalem as their capital city. There is a huge difference. That’s why the State Department will still not allow Israel to be the country of birth for an American child who is born in Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with whether it is Israel’s capital city. It only reflects whether Israel’s sovereignty is recognized by the US.

    He also put in a disclaimer such as “we are not taking a position on any final status issues including the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem ( i.e. Israel could be left with no sovereignty there.) or the resolution of contested borders”.

    But he did something else that is very important. In effect he chose reality over the false narrative of the Palestinians. That constitutes a big threqat to them.

20. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    Does he need to use the words, “de Jure” recognition, as in Truman’s recognition of the State of Israel in 1948?

    https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1949-01-31&documentid=1-15&pagenumber=1

    If this is just de facto recognition, then why does Congress mandate that all of the elements of de jure recognition, including birth certificates and passports be implemented?

    If they are not consciously opposing the State Dept. that takes the opposite view, then why direct them not to sabotage?

    Full text of Truman’s press release, one paragraphy, photocopy reproduction:

    https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1949-01-31&documentid=1-15&pagenumber=1

21. @ Ted Belman:
    And what about Congress? All the Constitution says about foreign policy is that the President will make treaties with the approval of two thirds of the Senate.

    Trump said he was implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 2017.

    It removes his waiver, adds a two year deadline, directs that governmnet documents like passports and birth certificates shall list Jerusalem as “Jerusalem, Israel,” and orders the State Dept. not to interfere. It even goes so far as to explicitly underline that the official residence and diplomatic mission will constitution the Embassy, so they could just put up a sign anywhere the Ambassador lives and is doing business from.

    If Congress doesn’t have this power, then why has each President had to sign the waivers authorized by the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995? Can’t have it both ways.

    If the Supreme Court is right in that the President has sole authority over foreign policy — on what basis, I can’t imagine, it’s not in the Constitution — well, the Supreme Court has just said Trump is right because he is the President and he has the authority. And Trump, regardless of what he mentioned or didn’t mention in his speech, said that he was implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 2017.

    So, why on earth shouldn’t that be enough? Why does it have to use the S word. Who even does? Or ever has? Sounds like a delaying tactic by the internal opposition to me.

    With friends like this…

22. @ Ted Belman:
    What’s the difference? Isn’t sovereignty implicit? How can a nation not have sovereignty over its capitol? Can you think of a single example of that in history? Does that even make sense?

23. @ Bear Klein:
    Quite so. I said something to the effect that the Court said recognition is an execitive decision. Trump is the chief executive.. But Trump did not say that Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem, only that Israel considers it their capital city and that United states respects that and recognizes it as such. Once again, no mention of sovereignty.

    Is it enough for Trump to say that the US will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Or is something more formal required especially when his own Stae Department second guesses him?

24. @ Edgar G.:
    Yer right. I guess the article must be telling the truth then. 93 percent is less than 66.666…% and 100 percent is even less than that! Except in Vodka and then it’s only half. Unless it’s Russian Vodka.

    Leaks, you know.

    My bad.

25. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    AHEM…! 2/3rds of 100 is exactly 66.666…..%. 80 of 100 is 4/5th

    I leernd thit in fist grayd.

26. The author is clearly lying. I don’t know why.

    …Instead of a law which would recognize the sovereignty over Jerusalem by Israel, but instead just moves the embassy without sovereignty,” Bedein said.

    Is there such a thing as recognizing an undivided city as a country’s capitol without recognizing that country’s sovereignty over its capitol?

    fake news

27. Oh, right. The Supreme Court ruled that the President could over-rule Congress on some foreign policy decisions. No such conflict here. This is not a grey area. All three branches are in accord. The State Dept. will need to bend or break.

    “Heads will roll” – Brother Theodore (humor)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbkgLdXPL64

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Theodore

28. [Note by the Office of the Federal Register: The foregoing Act, having been presented to the President of the United States on Thursday, October 26, 1995, and
    not having been returned by him to the House of Congress in which it originated
    within the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, has become law
    without his signature on November 8, 1995.]

    https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf

    Does this mean Clinton tried to veto it but was over-ridden by Congress in 1995?

    Schmuck.

29. Oh, it gets better. Congress actually forced Trump’s hand. Congress removed the waiver and explictly ordered all government agencies to comply. It even gave a two year deadline. From this year!

    (5) United States officials should refrain from any actions
    that contradict United States law on this subject.
    (c) Removal of Waiver Authority.–The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995
    (Public Law 104-45) is amended–
    (1) by striking section 7; and
    (2) by redesignating section 8 as section 7.(d) Identification of Jerusalem on Government Documents.–
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any official document of
    the United States Government which lists countries and their capital
    cities shall identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
    (e) Timetable.–
    (1) Statement of policy.–It is the policy of the United
    States that the United States Embassy in Israel should be
    established in Jerusalem as soon as possible, but not later
    than January 1, 2019.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/265/text?format=txt

    And here’s section 7 and 8 of the 1995 bill. 7 was removed and 8 became 7:

    SEC. 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
    (a) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998,
    the President may suspend the limitation set forth in section 3(b)
    for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress
    in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national
    security interests of the United States.
    (2) The President may suspend such limitation for an additional
    six month period at the end of any period during which the suspension
    is in effect under this subsection if the President determines
    and reports to Congress in advance of the additional suspension
    that the additional suspension is necessary to protect the national
    security interests of the United States.

    ibid.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

    Here’s section 8 that replaces it

    “SEC. 8. DEFINITION.
    As used in this Act, the term ‘‘United States Embassy’’ means
    the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence
    of the United States chief of mission.”

    https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf

30. Senator Schumer Slams Trump Over ‘Indecisiveness’ on U.S. Embassy Move to Jerusalem. Oct 10, 2017
    read more: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.816713

    Well, shut ma mouth! We’s just damned if we does and damned if we don’ts; aint’s we?

31. In fact, The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 2017 affirms the foregoing but adds the following!

    (d) Identification of Jerusalem on Government Documents.–
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any official document of
    the United States Government which lists countries and their capital
    cities shall identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/265/text?format=txt

    The Senate passed it 90 to 0!

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/senate-unanimously-passes-bill-marking-50-years-since-jerusalem-reunification/

    “Two plus two always equals four.”

    – Professor Augustus S. F. X. Van Dusen, Ph.D., LL.D., F.R.S., M.D., M.D.S.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_S._F._X._Van_Dusen

    Where in the Constitution does it say that the State Department has more authority than both Houses of Congress, The President and the Supreme Court put together????

    It’s really not my area. Could somebody help me here? Is it in the Federalist Papers, maybe? Or is somewhere in Alinsky’s seminal legal work, “Rules for Radicals?”

    Oh Corker was just a bill.

32. [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…] U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 2.
    https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

    This is what the 1995 Law says:

    SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.
    (a) STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.—
    (1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which
    the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;
    (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the
    State of Israel; and
    (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established
    in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

    The Senate voted 93 to 5 for the bill in 1995.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-25/news/mn-60946_1_east-jerusalem

    2/3 of 100 is 80 percent

    93 of 100 is 93 percent.

    93 percent is more than 80 percent.

    Funny, Trump omitted the key passage in the law that says the city as the capitol of Israel shall be UNDIVIDED!

    All he did was not re-issue the waiver. All the reasons he gave are contained in the text of the law. Congress made the law. The Senate voted 93 to 5. And the President signed it.

    The Constitution says that treaties are made by the President with consent of 2/3 of the Senate. Totally. Legal. Unlike Obama’s Corker Amendment enabling the Iran deal.

    Done.

33. @ Ted Belman:
    Quote from US Supreme Court showing you and Beiden do not understand that it is the POTUS speaks for the nation and he can determine what is recognized or not as a capital.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and that the power to determine what a passport says is part of this power.

    “Recognition is a matter on which the nation must speak with one voice. That voice is the president’s,” Kennedy wrote.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-supreme-court-jerusalem-born-americans-cant-list-israel-as-birthplace/

34. Takeaways on Trump’s Jerusalem Proclamation
    Trump delivers on Jerusalem
    It’s a Fundamental Game-Changer

    It’s a game-changer, says Eugene Kontorovich, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University and director of the international law department at Jerusalem’s Kohelet Policy Forum: “President Trump explicitly included the Kotel and Temple Mount in the description of the Jerusalem he was recognizing, thus confirming Jewish sovereignty over the holy sites.”

    Removing Settlements as a Friction Point

    In general, President Trump and his Orthodox Jewish peace team have been careful not to place the settlement issue front and center as the Obama and Bush administrations did, to the detriment of the peace process. So says Deputy Prime Minister Michael Oren, who served as Israel’s ambassador to the US in Obama’s first term.

    It Makes America Look Tough Again

    Trump’s move underscores the revival of US unilateral — rather than multinational — action, says Yoram Ettinger, a former minister for Congressional affairs at Israel’s embassy in Washington. It places Trump, Israel’s supporters in Congress, and most Americans on one side of the fence, and the vacillating worldviews of the State Department, the UN, and the European Union on the other.

    “It reflects the realization that succumbing to Arab pressure and threats fuels violence, while defiance of pressure and threats deters rogue elements,” Ettinger notes. He adds that non-implementation of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act failed to advance the peace process, and only succeeded in radicalizing Arab expectations and undermining the US posture of deterrence, which is critical for the US national security and global sanity.

    Time Is on Israel’s Side

    The mantra, oft-repeated by the international community and parroted obediently by the Israeli left, is that the clock is ticking on Israel. They use doomsday demographics, threats of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS), and stern warnings of international isolationism as proof that Israel must accede to every demand made of it, and right now. Trump’s announcement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, combined with America’s vigorous defense of Israel in the UN, its strong opposition to BDS (not to mention the 3.3 million foreign tourists who have visited Israel this year) reduces the pessimists to a term former Vice President Spiro Agnew once used to describe the media critics of the Nixon administration: “nattering nabobs of negativism.” (Excerpted from Mishpacha, Issue 689)

    http://www.mishpacha.com/Browse/Article/9308/Israels-Capital-Gain-7-Takeaways-on-Trumps-Jerusalem-Proclamation#.WjJGoteemKM.twitter

35. Amb. Friedman ‘proud to light menorah in Israel’s capital, Jerusalem’
    David Friedman delivers speech in Hebrew at the Kotel after lighting the menorah for second night of Hanukkah; says it’s ‘a huge honor’ to light candles in ‘the holy city and the capital of the State of Israel.’

    The US Ambassador David Friedman lit the Hanukkah menorah at the Western Wall Wednesday evening to mark the second night of the eight-day Jewish festival of lights.

    The lighting ceremony was attended by thousands as Friedman was flanked by the Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, Jerusalem city’s Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Minister of Tourism Yariv Levin.

    “It is a huge honor for me and I am extremely excited to be standing here at this holy site and to light the second Hanukkah candle in Jerusalem, the holy city and the capital of the State of Israel,” Friedman said in Hebrew, a week after President Donald Trump recognized the city as Israel’s capital.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5056853,00.html

36. John Bolton said the following:

    President Trump’s announcement Wednesday that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was both correct and prudent from America’s perspective. Much more remains to be done to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but this was a vital first step.

    What is now critical is implementing Trump’s decision. Will the State Department actually carry out the new U.S. policy — which State’s bureaucracy strongly opposed — or will the entrenched opponents of moving the embassy subvert it quietly by inaction and obfuscation?

    In 1948, the United States, under Harry Truman, was the first country to recognize the modern state of Israel upon its declaration of independence. Nonetheless, Truman, at the State Department’s urging, declined to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a mistake continued by his successors. Trump has now corrected this error: Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since 1948, and the sooner the American flag flies over the American embassy there, the better.

    http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/13039875-74/john-bolton-trumps-jerusalem-declaration-long-overdue

37. Bedein is correct…. This is why the State Dept will not allow Pence’s proposed visit to the wall to be an official state visit or to allow any Israeli official to accompany him as was the case in the Trump visit. Still Jews born in Jerusalem have passports sating only Jerusalem and not Israel as place of birth.

    Belman understands the relevant Diplomatic doublespeak nuances… No Israelis apparently and few Americans…do. Unless law is changed for Israel, it’s an empty gesture but possibly a costly one depending on what we will be asked to pay for it. Haaaaa Russia Recognized Jerusalem (West Jerusalem) before Trump 🙂

38. I agree with David Badein. Read what he says very carefully. What we are saying is that the American position is that Jerusalem is a Corpus Separatum, which means that Israel isn’t sovereign .. Thus Trump said if you choose to have your capital in this Corpus Separatum, then we recognize it as your capital and not as your sovereign territory.

39. @ leonkushner:
    You comment is right on the mark.

    leonkushner Said:

    Trump just reversed US policy. The States now recognizes that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. Period. Moving the embassy is secondary and G-d willing it too will happen, hopefully sooner than later. Why are so many Jews hedging on this? They are trying to find fault with this courageous and righteous policy that is based on reality. Maybe this, maybe that.
    THere is no maybe here. This is simple. Well done Trump!
    Stop over analyzing!

40. Beiden is simply wrong! Trump has ordered the Embassy moved. Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This was backed up by Nicky Haley in the UN.

41. David says that we can’t move the US embassy until after Jerusalem is recognized as Israel’s capital according to law. That law is set by the president and he just did it. @ EDDIE DEE:

42. @ leonkushner:
    Leon:i’m just looking to learn.help me. what reference shows David is wrong.tzvi

43. David is dead wrong. Waiting for what? Trump just reversed US policy. The States now recognizes that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. Period. Moving the embassy is secondary and G-d willing it too will happen, hopefully sooner than later. Why are so many Jews hedging on this? They are trying to find fault with this courageous and righteous policy that is based on reality. Maybe this, maybe that.
    THere is no maybe here. This is simple. Well done Trump!
    Stop over analyzing!