Search

Results

U.S. officials hunker down, downsize Iraq embassy

12 Feb 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

The reading from the Book of Leviticus this Sunday says that the person who is declared unclean “shall dwell apart, making his abode outside the camp.” A mere two years after opening a $750-million-dollar embassy in Iraq--the largest in the world--U.S. State Department officials and contractors increasingly find themselves isolated, confined to the embassy because of security concerns and frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism. As a result, fewer than two months after American troops left Iraq, the State Department is preparing to slash by as much as half the enormous diplomatic presence it had planned for Iraq, a sharp sign of declining American influence in the country. Envisioned and built by the George W. Bush Administration, the expansive diplomatic operation was billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between the two countries. Officials spent more than a year planning the expansion, and many of the thousands of additional personnel have only recently arrived. The sudden realization that the diplomatic buildup and its $6 billion annual price tag were ill-advised and need to be scaled back represents a remarkable turnaround. After the last U.S. troops departed in December, life became more difficult for the thousands of diplomats and contractors left behind. Convoys of food that had been escorted by the U.S. military from Kuwait were delayed at border crossings when Iraqis demanded documentation that the Americans were unaccustomed to providing. At every turn, the Americans say, the Iraqi government has interfered with the activities of the diplomatic mission, one the U.S. acknowledges the Iraqis never asked for or agreed upon. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s office--and sometimes even the prime minister himself--now must approve visas for all Americans, resulting in lengthy delays. American diplomats have had trouble setting up meetings with Iraqi officials. For their part, Iraqis say they are simply enforcing their laws and protecting their sovereignty in the absence of a working agreement with the U.S. on the embassy. “We always knew that what [U.S. officials] were planning to do [with the embassy] didn’t make sense,” said Kenneth M. Pollack of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. “It’s increasingly becoming clear that they are horribly overstaffed given what they are able to accomplish.” Source: An article by Tim Arango for the New York Times

iraq nuri al-maliki state department kenneth m pollack embassy
Congress contemplates moving U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

08 Jan 2017 - Preaching the News for the Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord, Cycle A

This Sunday’s first reading is a paean to the ancient city of Jerusalem, which is called on to “rise up in splendor” as “nations” and “kings” “gather and come to you” drawn by the city’s “shining radiance.” But in recent decades, Jerusalem has been a zone of strife and conflict, particularly between Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom make claims upon the city. This week the U.S. Congress took a step that, if fulfilled, would place the United States firmly on Israel’s side of the conflict over Jerusalem. Senate Republicans introduced a bill Tuesday to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and move the United States embassy there. The controversial plan, for which President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly voiced support on the campaign trail, is almost certain to further inflame tensions between Palestinians and Israelis. The bill was introduced on the first day of the new Congress by Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, along with Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas—two senators who lost out to Trump in the primary race for the Republican nomination last year. "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish state of Israel, and that's where America's embassy belongs," Rubio said in a joint statement announcing the bill. "It's time for Congress and the president-elect to eliminate the loophole that has allowed presidents in both parties to ignore U.S. law and delay our embassy's rightful relocation to Jerusalem for over two decades." The bill, called the "Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act," requires the United States to act on a 1995 proposal calling on the country to relocate its diplomatic mission from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since the 1995 bill's passage, every president—both Republican and Democrat—has waived the requirement of the move, citing national security considerations. Jerusalem has always been among the most difficult questions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even after the United Nations recognized the State of Israel in 1948, it left the final status of Jerusalem—home to some of the most sacred sites in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—open to future negotiations. Israelis see Jerusalem as their united capital. Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Trump has said he'd like to try making peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but he's also vowed to relocate the embassy and recognize Jerusalem as Israel's official capital—moves Palestinian leaders have denounced as the death of the "two-state" solution. Heller’s bill restricts funding for the State Department for fiscal year 2017 under the heading “Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance”—saying that not more than 50 percent of funding would be appropriated to the Department of State until the secretary of state reports that the embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened. “It is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel,” Cruz said. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for ambassador to Israel, his bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman, recently said in a statement to the press that he is looking forward to doing the job “from the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem.” The U.S. embassy currently is located in Tel Aviv, where it has been since 1948. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would violate longstanding U.S. policy, which is not to recognize any sovereign in the Holy City. Every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama has refused to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Since passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, presidents have refused to move the embassy by signing presidential waivers on national security grounds. Lessons drawn from the readings “Justice shall flower” in the day of the Lord’s rule, the psalmist promises this Sunday. The international community does not consider Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem since 1967 to be justified or legal. It is hard to see a path to peace if the United States moves ahead with the proposed legislation, given that there are scores of United Nations resolutions refusing to recognize Israel's claim that the holy city is its capital and sole, undivided possession. Resolution 478 was passed following the adoption in July 1980 of an Israeli law that declared Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. It also came on the heels of complaints from Europe and the Vatican about Israel's settlement policy in Jerusalem. The resolution declared that Israel's law making Jerusalem its capital was “null and void.” Final thought in light of the news The U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2334 on December 23 last year, which reiterates the Security Council's view that it will “not recognize any changes to the June 4, 1967, lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.” Should President-elect Trump move the embassy to Jerusalem, not only will he prejudice any future peace negotiations, but he could land the United States in legal hot water. Given the overwhelming international consensus that Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is null and void, the U.N. General Assembly could request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice questioning the legality of locating an embassy in Jerusalem. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem without also recognizing Palestinian rights could potentially offend Christians and Muslims for whom Jerusalem also holds special reverence. Let’s find a better path forward for the city whose very name can be understood to mean “city of peace.”

israel palestine Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act Israeli-Palestinian conflict u.s. embassy jerusalem
Congress contemplates moving U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

08 Jan 2017 - Preaching the News for the Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord, Cycle A

This Sunday’s first reading is a paean to the ancient city of Jerusalem, which is called on to “rise up in splendor” as “nations” and “kings” “gather and come to you” drawn by the city’s “shining radiance.” But in recent decades, Jerusalem has been a zone of strife and conflict, particularly between Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom make claims upon the city. This week the U.S. Congress took a step that, if fulfilled, would place the United States firmly on Israel’s side of the conflict over Jerusalem. Senate Republicans introduced a bill Tuesday to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and move the United States embassy there. The controversial plan, for which President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly voiced support on the campaign trail, is almost certain to further inflame tensions between Palestinians and Israelis. The bill was introduced on the first day of the new Congress by Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, along with Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas—two senators who lost out to Trump in the primary race for the Republican nomination last year. "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish state of Israel, and that's where America's embassy belongs," Rubio said in a joint statement announcing the bill. "It's time for Congress and the president-elect to eliminate the loophole that has allowed presidents in both parties to ignore U.S. law and delay our embassy's rightful relocation to Jerusalem for over two decades." The bill, called the "Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act," requires the United States to act on a 1995 proposal calling on the country to relocate its diplomatic mission from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since the 1995 bill's passage, every president—both Republican and Democrat—has waived the requirement of the move, citing national security considerations. Jerusalem has always been among the most difficult questions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even after the United Nations recognized the State of Israel in 1948, it left the final status of Jerusalem—home to some of the most sacred sites in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—open to future negotiations. Israelis see Jerusalem as their united capital. Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Trump has said he'd like to try making peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but he's also vowed to relocate the embassy and recognize Jerusalem as Israel's official capital—moves Palestinian leaders have denounced as the death of the "two-state" solution. Heller’s bill restricts funding for the State Department for fiscal year 2017 under the heading “Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance”—saying that not more than 50 percent of funding would be appropriated to the Department of State until the secretary of state reports that the embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened. “It is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel,” Cruz said. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for ambassador to Israel, his bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman, recently said in a statement to the press that he is looking forward to doing the job “from the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem.” The U.S. embassy currently is located in Tel Aviv, where it has been since 1948. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would violate longstanding U.S. policy, which is not to recognize any sovereign in the Holy City. Every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama has refused to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Since passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, presidents have refused to move the embassy by signing presidential waivers on national security grounds. Lessons drawn from the readings “Justice shall flower” in the day of the Lord’s rule, the psalmist promises this Sunday. The international community does not consider Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem since 1967 to be justified or legal. It is hard to see a path to peace if the United States moves ahead with the proposed legislation, given that there are scores of United Nations resolutions refusing to recognize Israel's claim that the holy city is its capital and sole, undivided possession. Resolution 478 was passed following the adoption in July 1980 of an Israeli law that declared Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. It also came on the heels of complaints from Europe and the Vatican about Israel's settlement policy in Jerusalem. The resolution declared that Israel's law making Jerusalem its capital was “null and void.” Final thought in light of the news The U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2334 on December 23 last year, which reiterates the Security Council's view that it will “not recognize any changes to the June 4, 1967, lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.” Should President-elect Trump move the embassy to Jerusalem, not only will he prejudice any future peace negotiations, but he could land the United States in legal hot water. Given the overwhelming international consensus that Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is null and void, the U.N. General Assembly could request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice questioning the legality of locating an embassy in Jerusalem. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem without also recognizing Palestinian rights could potentially offend Christians and Muslims for whom Jerusalem also holds special reverence. Let’s find a better path forward for the city whose very name can be understood to mean “city of peace.”

israel palestine Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act Israeli-Palestinian conflict u.s. embassy jerusalem
Quote of the week

08 Jan 2017 - Preaching the News for the Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord, Cycle A

If Mr. Trump as one of his first acts in office moves the embassy to Jerusalem without also simultaneously making efforts to jump-start peace talks, it would likely incite an explosion of anger among Palestinians and serve as a rallying cry for Islamic extremists from Tehran to Raqqa, Syria. --Martin Indyk, the executive vice president of the Brookings institution and former U.S. ambassador to Israel Could an embassy in Jerusalem bring us closer to peace?

u.s. embassy jerusalem Israeli-Palestinian conflict islamic extremism