What does this mean, exactly? What effect will it have on this election, on foreign relations for the next few months, and so on?
He’ll walk it back as soon as he gets elected, if not before. Obama said the same thing during his “world tour” before the '08 election and then quickly changed his mind.
I was thinking about that, but as it says in the article, one of his major donors is VERY enthusiastic about this policy. Will Mr. Adelson understand (geo)political realities, or is he supporting Romney TO get this enacted for real? What would Jewish voters think about such a walkback?
It won’t lead to anything. We’ve always acknowledged that the Israelis consider Jerusalem to be their capital, but it would be massively expensive, controversial, and silly to move our embassy from Tel Aviv. It gets us nothing, and it doesn’t even get the Israelis anything. Won’t happen.
I don’t think that most Jewish voters will give a crap. We understand that it’s posturing and most of us don’t care what the capital city is so long as Israel gets to exist in relative safety. A huge percentage of us also feel at least some sympathy to the Palestinians and aren’t all that hard line.
They all say it, but none of them actually do it. It’s just one of those promises politicians are expected to make but not keep.
Also, while Jerusalem is our eternal capital yadda yadda, I like it that the embassy’s here in T&A City.
The same impact it always has. None. IT’s just what politicians say.
He’s not likely to pick up a lot of US Jewish voters anyway, who are both decidedly Democratic and a small percentage of the populace. Isn’t this statement more meant for the ears of the millennialist Christians who supposedly view him with some dubiousness?
Aren’t they waiting for the perfect red heifer and the Antichrist . . . frankly I get it all a little mixed up but I’m sure Jerusalem and the Jews are involved.
Is it? The US’s stance since I can remember is that the fate of Jerusalem is something that will have to be worked out in Palestinian/Israeli negotiations and my possibly incorrect recollection is that most US politicians follow that line. Obama briefly said otherwise in '08, but walked it back within a week or so and I suspect we’ll see Romney do the same.
I don’t think there’s really an expectation that US politicians will promise to support Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Rather the opposite.
Obama, Bush, and Clinton all said that the Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem when they were candidates, not when they were presidents.
But I also don’t see the foofera. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Whether it should be or not is maybe debatable, but here’s a picture of the Knesset building, in Jerusalem:
Here’s a picture of Beit Aghion, the Prime Minister’s house, in Jerusalem:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Beit_Aghion.jpg/250px-Beit_Aghion.jpg
And here is the fairly ugly Supreme Court building, in Jerusalem:
Jerusalem is post 67 borders, so it means saying you approve the west bank seizure from Jordan.
He’s in the enviable position of being able to promise anything at all, sure in the knowledge he’ll never have to deliver, because he really has no shot. I think the Israeli’s are aware that such is the case.
Not necessarily. Western Jerusalem was Israeli before '67, and, even if you think Jerusalem should be all under Israeli control, you might support getting rid of the rest of the West Bank.
According to Ben Adler, Romney did not go to Israel to win the Jewish-American vote as such, but to shore up his support among evangelicals, and in Florida.
Romney can’t believe that, or why would he bother?
The polls also say otherwise. The overconfidence of many of Obama’s supporters is mystifying. If Romney does win, they’ll be the most confused people on the planet.
Are they also unaware that Republicans are expected to capture the Senate? I sure hope that won’t be surprising. And if it is, I hope they question their perceptions next time.
While the ‘final status’ (eg west and east) is left to negotiations, the US also passed a resolution in 1995 calling for the return of the embassy to Jerusalem…except it’s always delayed re: ‘security’.
Obama refuses to say that J’lem is the capital, so Romney is using this for political points. If elected, he won’t move the embassy, but may take a slightly softer approach. The net effect is probably the same.
edit; I think that Obama will have slightly less Jewish support than he did in 2008, but still a strong majority. So maybe instead of getting 75 per cent, he’ll get 62.
Cite?
Oh come on, please do not tell me you were unaware of the Senate problem Democrats have after winning all those seats in 2006.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?searchQuery=senate
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/category/2012-senate/