US candidates see Jerusalem as the "undivded" capital of Israel

[Kasz216]

superchunk said:

Kasz216 said:

superchunk said:

I still think the purpose of the law is embodied in that example. I think that any unbiased judge or group of peers would soundly agree that Israel is required by law to move back to the 1967 borders pre-6 day war.

I think this is self-evident in the fact that no Nation includes those territories as part of Israel, including E. Jerusalem. Even the US official policy is that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital and that E. Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Territories.

This is illegal as well as not allowing the right of return to all Arabs and their direct descendants to their homes in Israel. Granted this should be given up by Arabs in the prospect of gaining full 1967 boundaries and monetary compensation for other lost homes. But, that is just my opinion.

Actually official US policy is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital... as is the view of a lot of countries.

Every 6 months the US president has to sign an order delaying the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Basically just to not stir up the area.

See the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

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

Obama has promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem as had been planned way back in 1995.

Any politician has to align themselves in US politics with Israel, even if they disagree, since it would receive a huge backlash from the 2nd largest lobbying group, AIPAC. So, what they say when they are on the political tickets are meaningless.

If AIPAC didn't exist, this issue would have been closed years ago.

Furthermore...

"However, U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have argued that Congressional resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem are merely "advisory", stating that it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority". [3] The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President and resolutions of Congress which make foreign policy are arguably invalid for that reason. The U.S. Congress, however, has the "power of the purse", and could prohibit the expenditure of funds on any embassy located outside Jerusalem. The U.S. Congress has not taken this step."

That act is not official. It is advisory. The official position is where the Embassy is, and that is Tel Aviv.

Occording to this Israeli site http://www.science.co.il/embassies.asp there are NO embassies in Jerusalem. i.e. no Nation accepts Jerusalem as its capital. They are all in Tel Aviv.

They argue it's advisory. That's their excuse for the waiver. The congress has come close to overriding the waivers yet was stopped when of all people Israel told them to keep their embassys in Tel Aviv... Israel for once was being sensitive about the issue.

If you notice all official us paperwork lists the capital of Israel as Jerusalem.