United States |Report

Key Democratic figures shift positions on Jerusalem when decision is real

Talk (5)

jh

jeffrey hamilton

"The 8 December 2017 podcast b/t Jacob..."
Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales

"Thanks, Yair! I just tweeted this: ..."
Peter Bale

Peter Bale

"Fixed. Thanks."
DH

David Hakala

""Read the WikiTribune Explainer on wh..."

U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and Dianne Feinstein appear to have shifted their positions between symbolic gestures in favor of Jerusalem being recognized as the capital of Israel and the reality of that decision taken this week by President Donald Trump.

Sanders, the 2016 Democratic rival for the presidential candidacy to Hillary Clinton, and Feinstein, the senior senator from California, separately and publicly warned Trump against taking the step no other country has taken and that has been against U.S. policy almost since the creation of Israel in 1947.

However, on June 5, 2017, both were among 90 senators who voted in favor of Senate Resolution 176, which “reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–45)”, which said that Jerusalem should be recognized as Israel’s capital and the US embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.

No U.S. president has accepted that vote — seen as largely symbolic — given the diplomatic and practical risks. The 2017 vote called on the recognition to be incorporated in “United States law, and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions”. Resolution 176 was voted on 90-0.

Trump went ahead and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Sanders tweeted, “There’s a reason why all past US administrations have not made this move, and why leaders around the world have warned Trump against it: It would undermine the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and severely, perhaps irreparably, damage our ability to broker it.”

On December 1, Feinstein sent a letter to the president, saying that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would “spark violence, further alienate the United States, and undermine the prospects of a two-state solution.”, and said today that the decision “rejects decades of bipartisan policy and undermines our standing with Palestinians and regional partners”.

The original 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act was also supported in 1995 by Senator Feinstein, but opposed by then-congressman Sanders.

Read the WikiTribune Explainer on why Jerusalem matters so much.


Sources & References

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/s138

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1995/h734

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1995/s496


Started by

History for stories "Key Democratic figures shift positions on Jerusalem when decision is real"

Select two items to compare revisions

07 December 2017

12:08:26, 07 Dec 2017 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Fixing link)
10:39:06, 07 Dec 2017 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Edited to explain basis of the 2017 vote and how the shift in their positions actually works)
02:19:44, 07 Dec 2017 . .‎ Yair Rand (Updated → starting off, needs some work, plus ideally someone who could request comment from the senators)

Talk for Story "Key Democratic figures shift positions on Jerusalem when decision is real"

Talk about this Story

  1. Other

    The 8 December 2017 podcast b/t Jacob L. Shapiro and Kamran Bokhari “…Trump administration is moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the implications for the Middle East”; provides some important background missing from the superficial headlines.

    Understanding the history and motivations is far more useful to me as the sentient (putative) reader than what Sanders et al. think (if thinking is the correct term).

    Perhaps highlighting the geopolitical aspects of this move could provide insight not provided by partisan opinion.

    https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-geopolitics-of-jerusalem/

  2. Rewrite

    “Read the WikiTribune Explainer on why Jerusalem matters so much.”

    There is no link to this “explainer.” What in Hell?

  3. Rewrite

    Yair, I have edited and published this. I think care is needed from a judgment point of view of how we look at the 90-zero vote when it was “not real” as it were. Thank you for the piece.

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing stories:

Support Us

Why this is important and why you should care about facts, journalism and democracy

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Previous page Next page Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us Message us on Facebook Messenger Save for Later