KERRY Events

Your comment on the way back home about not moving the Embassy because of increased terrorism got me thinking, so I did some research after shabbat.

I found a good source of data on the recent wave of terrorism on the website http://www.fact-index.com/t/te/terrorism_against_israel_in_2000.html which lists chronologically the attacks which killed Israelis. I compiled some 2004 statistics from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Terrorism%20against%20Israel%20in%202004

Israeli monthly death toll:

	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
2000									2	10	21	8	
2001	6	13	8	7	19	30	10	30	13	14	14	37
2002	13	19	119	20	28	53	29	15	10	22	51	5
2003	26	0	20	6	14	25	2	27	18	27	5	4
2004	16	10	2	3	5	4	3	1

I make a few conclusions:

The current wave of terrorist attacks started before the 2000 presidential election. At this time candidate Bush's platform still claimed "As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital." Personally, I believe that stepping back from promises to allies and constituents in the face of terrorism only encourages the terrorist. However, if in his mind, this was the prudent thing to do, intellectual honesty requires that the candidate restate his position.
The level of terrorism jumped up in mid-2001 only after the first of several semi-annual waivers issued by Bush to the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. See http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2001/june/0613b.html "Acting on his authority under the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, President Bush on June 11 [2001] suspended for [another] six months the process of moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem."
In late 2003, the death toll started to drop which I attribute to the efficacy of the partially completed defense barrier. Bush has been inconsistent in his rhetoric on this barrier, harshly criticizing it in just this last month. Financially, he has consistently penalized Israel, effectively doubling the cost of the barrier; for every cent of the construction cost is deducted from US loan guarantees promised by earlier administrations. Note that when I say every cent, this includes the parts west of the so-called green line which are not contested even by the UN.
In comparison, Kerry has consistently spoken in favor of Israel's right to defend itself. He pushed for the passage of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, breaking party ranks to chastise Clinton for not implementing it. With his 20 years of support for Israel in the Senate (100% AIPAC rating), I believe he would support the creation of the security barrier and move the US Embassy.

Personally, I do not see how moving the Embassy near the Knesset is controversial. If Western Jerusalem is seriously in dispute then the Jewish people are in big trouble.

Reply

Thanks for the results of your research. I did not say, however, that the reason we have not or should not move the embassy was because of increased terrorism. You are correct that terrorism continues regardless. My point was that any administration wants to see the move of the embassy as part of a larger series of agreements regarding Israel and the Palestinians. At this point, there are no agreements of any sort on the horizon. Moreover, since the US is routinely criticized for what some see as unilateralism, I suspect that a unilateral move as this might not engender the good will we are trying to restore. I would love to see the embassy moved. But whether it moves now or later, the move is symbolic. We know that Jerusalem is Israel Capital and so does the US. With so many real issues before us, the symbolic issues seem less pressing to me at this time.

L'shana Tova

My Response

(1)

> My point was that any administration wants to see the move
> of the embassy as part of a larger series of agreements regarding Israel
> and the Palestinians.  At this point, there are no agreements of any
> sort on the horizon.  Moreover, since the US is routinely criticized for
> what some see as unilateralism, I suspect that a unilateral move as this
> might not engender the good will we are trying to restore.

Let's assume that the reason you give is the reason Bush is not moving the Embassy.

Now, the failed Camp David summit took place from July 11-14, 2000. If at that point it was not clear that "there are no agreements of any sort on the horizon" then surely that became clear when we saw Arafat shipping stones and bussing kids up to the Temple Mount, and then in September when the wave of terror began.

This is all before the election.

If this was when Bush decided not to move the Embassy, then intellectual honesty demands that he should have explained the changed circumstances and made clear his revised position. In fact he did not do so, and it is easy to imagine that a fraction of a percent of the Jews in Florida voted for him on the basis of a promise to move the Embassy which he had no intention to keep. If so, then he won the election by a fraudulent promise.

Did Bush not decide until after the election that moving the embassy would be a bad idea? Perhaps, but he promised to begin moving it by January 19, the day he took office. The level of terrorism and the level of ill-will was pretty much constant (perhaps even declined slightly) between the election and the inauguration. As a result, I think that this alternative is very improbable.

(2)

> I would love
> to see the embassy moved.  But whether it moves now or later, the move
> is symbolic.  We know that Jerusalem is Israel Capital and so does the
> US.  With so many real issues before us, the symbolic issues seem less
> pressing to me at this time.

I respectfully disagree with you. Symbols hold great power. People die for symbols. People are inspired by symbols. People are frightened by symbols. In our liturgy, fasting, waving lulavs, eating maror, hearing the shofar, etc. do not literally accomplish anything. However, symbols remind us, inspire us, and warn us.

Why do we want the embassy moved?

It is not merely to save commuting time for diplomats.

It is because the presence of the Embassy in Tel Aviv gives the Arabs hope that Jerusalem in its entirety could someday become theirs. I would argue that the Arabs hold out on a final peace agreement in part because they always hope for more.

Hence, the Arab failure to embrace a final peace agreement makes me MORE eager to move the Embassy, not LESS eager.

I asked Haim if his brother was committed to moving the Embassy and he assured me that this was a priority to his brother. I believe John F. Kerry. I believe his brother. I no longer can believe George Walker Bush.

Return to Family Tree
Return to My Kerry Page on LoebTree.com
Go to My Kerry Page on the Kerry website

Daniel E. LOEB, eMail: daniel.loeb at verizon.net