.
A Jerusalem Litmus Test Excerpts:
"A quick and early litmus test of Trump’s “pragmatism”: Will he move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? He promised to do it immediately, but that could unleash anti-American Muslim violence worldwide. Congress voted overwhelmingly for it in 1995 but presidents, fearing repercussions, never implemented it. Trump may back down on moving the embassy, which would officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital...."
"...All countries—in deference to the UN plan, in hopes of an eventual peace settlement, and, more to the point, worried about their embassies and businesses in Muslim lands—have their embassies in Tel Aviv with consulates general (big, important consulates) in Jerusalem. A few countries did move their embassies to Jerusalem but have since withdrawn them back to Tel Aviv. It’s not a big day trip for diplomats to conduct business in Jerusalem and return to Tel Aviv. AmConGen Jerusalem, like the one in Hong Kong, now functions as an embassy in all but name and reports directly back to State in Washington, not to the embassy in Tel Aviv. So we’re talking about pure symbolism here.
In 1995, both houses of the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, requiring the State Department to move our embassy there by 1999 and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. President Clinton never signed it, and no president since has moved to implement it, knowing what trouble it could stir up. Constitutionally, all presidents have claimed that the Act infringes on their powers as diplomat-in-chief, and the Supreme Court agreed.
In some sense, this is a clash between elites and interest groups. The elites—State, DoD, and Agency officials—see the danger of making Muslim countries hate us even worse. Establishing a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem would precipitate unrest, even violence, in the Muslim world at a time we are trying to calm it down. The interest groups—the Israel lobby and its Christian allies—very much want the Act implemented, as it would further cement U.S.-Israel ties. Few Americans care or even heard about the issue, so Congress votes to please the committed minority who can do members some good at election time. I doubt if Congress gives the likely overseas repercussions much thought. Congress could withhold funds for the State Department, but in a time of terrorism, when embassies badly need enhanced physical security, Congress can’t do that. The 1995 Act was a pretend law, a meaningless congressional gesture, and a diplomatic annoyance, but now Trump can use it without delay. Will he? ..."
Trump Plan to Move Embassy From Tel Aviv to Jerusalem Poses Challenges Excerpts:
"...There were almost 500 attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities between 1987 and 2013, according to a report issued last week by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which criticized the cost of building modern embassies.
The worst of these attacks came in 1998, when 224 people were killed in near-simultaneous bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. This attack served as a wake-up call for the U.S. government.
"Embassies, simply put, are not regular buildings," according to Tim Bradley, another managing partner at Incident Management Group. "They are the seat of foreign governments in the host country, and as such, actors who oppose the U.S. government would most likely look at the embassy as a symbolic target."
While warranted, embassy security measures come at a cost, although it's hard to estimate a ballpark figure for the Jerusalem move...."
"..."It will be very, very costly to build and very, very costly to defend," according to Jane Loeffler, an architectural historian and author of "The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America's Embassies."
She added that "it's a lot of money to spend on symbolism, and it's a symbolism that works both ways," referring to the conflicting territorial claims in the region.
For comparison, the new U.S. Embassy in London that's scheduled to open in February will house 1,000 employees, is projected to cost more than $1 billion, and has been under construction for more than three years.
Five years ago in Mexico City, the State Department paid $120 million for a piece of land to use as its new embassy compound, according to last week's House report. Despite spending another $56 million on the project, it said, the contractors have yet to break ground.
For Trump, a president-elect who has railed against the costs of Boeing's Air Force One deal and the F-35 fighter jet program, the symbolic embassy move is going to come with a hefty price tag.
It's not just security that might inflate the cost of a Jerusalem embassy, but also aesthetics.
The House report, titled "Over-Budget Overseas: The State Department's Failure to Protect Our Diplomats," alleged that the spiraling cost of embassies worsened after the State Department introduced its "Design Excellence" program in 2011...."
"...According to the House report, however, this "Design Excellence" process "costs too much and takes too long," and projects often face "millions of dollars in design costs and months of delay."..."
"...Despite his bold statements, it's still far from certain whether Trump will go through with his plan.
Since 1995, all U.S. presidents have been required by law to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but all have used a rolling six-month waiver to avoid the legislation. ..."
A Jerusalem Litmus Test Excerpts:
"A quick and early litmus test of Trump’s “pragmatism”: Will he move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? He promised to do it immediately, but that could unleash anti-American Muslim violence worldwide. Congress voted overwhelmingly for it in 1995 but presidents, fearing repercussions, never implemented it. Trump may back down on moving the embassy, which would officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital...."
"...All countries—in deference to the UN plan, in hopes of an eventual peace settlement, and, more to the point, worried about their embassies and businesses in Muslim lands—have their embassies in Tel Aviv with consulates general (big, important consulates) in Jerusalem. A few countries did move their embassies to Jerusalem but have since withdrawn them back to Tel Aviv. It’s not a big day trip for diplomats to conduct business in Jerusalem and return to Tel Aviv. AmConGen Jerusalem, like the one in Hong Kong, now functions as an embassy in all but name and reports directly back to State in Washington, not to the embassy in Tel Aviv. So we’re talking about pure symbolism here.
In 1995, both houses of the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, requiring the State Department to move our embassy there by 1999 and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. President Clinton never signed it, and no president since has moved to implement it, knowing what trouble it could stir up. Constitutionally, all presidents have claimed that the Act infringes on their powers as diplomat-in-chief, and the Supreme Court agreed.
In some sense, this is a clash between elites and interest groups. The elites—State, DoD, and Agency officials—see the danger of making Muslim countries hate us even worse. Establishing a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem would precipitate unrest, even violence, in the Muslim world at a time we are trying to calm it down. The interest groups—the Israel lobby and its Christian allies—very much want the Act implemented, as it would further cement U.S.-Israel ties. Few Americans care or even heard about the issue, so Congress votes to please the committed minority who can do members some good at election time. I doubt if Congress gives the likely overseas repercussions much thought. Congress could withhold funds for the State Department, but in a time of terrorism, when embassies badly need enhanced physical security, Congress can’t do that. The 1995 Act was a pretend law, a meaningless congressional gesture, and a diplomatic annoyance, but now Trump can use it without delay. Will he? ..."
Trump Plan to Move Embassy From Tel Aviv to Jerusalem Poses Challenges Excerpts:
"...There were almost 500 attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities between 1987 and 2013, according to a report issued last week by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which criticized the cost of building modern embassies.
The worst of these attacks came in 1998, when 224 people were killed in near-simultaneous bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. This attack served as a wake-up call for the U.S. government.
"Embassies, simply put, are not regular buildings," according to Tim Bradley, another managing partner at Incident Management Group. "They are the seat of foreign governments in the host country, and as such, actors who oppose the U.S. government would most likely look at the embassy as a symbolic target."
While warranted, embassy security measures come at a cost, although it's hard to estimate a ballpark figure for the Jerusalem move...."
"..."It will be very, very costly to build and very, very costly to defend," according to Jane Loeffler, an architectural historian and author of "The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America's Embassies."
She added that "it's a lot of money to spend on symbolism, and it's a symbolism that works both ways," referring to the conflicting territorial claims in the region.
For comparison, the new U.S. Embassy in London that's scheduled to open in February will house 1,000 employees, is projected to cost more than $1 billion, and has been under construction for more than three years.
Five years ago in Mexico City, the State Department paid $120 million for a piece of land to use as its new embassy compound, according to last week's House report. Despite spending another $56 million on the project, it said, the contractors have yet to break ground.
For Trump, a president-elect who has railed against the costs of Boeing's Air Force One deal and the F-35 fighter jet program, the symbolic embassy move is going to come with a hefty price tag.
It's not just security that might inflate the cost of a Jerusalem embassy, but also aesthetics.
The House report, titled "Over-Budget Overseas: The State Department's Failure to Protect Our Diplomats," alleged that the spiraling cost of embassies worsened after the State Department introduced its "Design Excellence" program in 2011...."
"...According to the House report, however, this "Design Excellence" process "costs too much and takes too long," and projects often face "millions of dollars in design costs and months of delay."..."
"...Despite his bold statements, it's still far from certain whether Trump will go through with his plan.
Since 1995, all U.S. presidents have been required by law to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but all have used a rolling six-month waiver to avoid the legislation. ..."