Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE JERUSALEM QUESTION. As Tapped's resident Clintonologist, I'll just add to Ezra's item from yesterday that yes, Clinton's stated position on Jerusalem is to the right of longstanding U.S. policy and no, it's not new. She took the same position in her 2000 Senate contest. This New York Times piece from the summer of 1999 gets into some of the backstory leading up to Clinton's declaration that year that Jerusalem is the "eternal and indivisible capital of Israel'' -- a statement then disavowed by her husband's own State Department.
The single most important thing to remember about Clinton's foreign policy thinking is that she is the Senator from New York. She represents more Jews than any other politician in America except Chuck Schumer, as well as the second-largest Jewish population center in the world, and the meshuga politics (and really, that's one link that's worth clicking through) of New York turn the status of Jerusalem into a routine political hot potato there. Schumer has gone even further than Clinton; he sponsored the "Jerusalem Embassy Act," which would move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's "undivided" capital of Jerusalem. Heck -- it was only the public pleas of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack that got Schumer to back off a 1999 effort to withhold $100 million from the State Department if President Clinton did not declare that "the United States now formally recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and that it is United States policy that Jerusalem should remain undivided." And, nota bene, Schumer had the votes to do so at the time.
The two sitting Democratic New York Senators' position on the indivisibility of Jerusalem was shared by Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Clinton predecessor Alfonse D'Amato, as well. "We are all united and Jerusalem will be and should remain the capital of the state of Israel undivided forever," said Giuliani in a 1996 speech. See also this D'Amato dig at Mark Green in 1986 for an earlier example of the politics of Jerusalem in New York.
Just as Alabama politics encourages and rewards politicians for being pro-life, New York politics encourages and rewards politicians for being pro-Israel. One of these days someone -- paging Mike Tomasky? -- is going to write a very smart article about the regional tics the New Yorkers in contest 2008 bring with them to the national stage, and the extent to which Giuliani and Clinton were shaped by similar forces.
I should also note that there is a uniform opinion among the people I know who follow or are part of Middle East policy making in Washington (both Arab and Jew) that Clinton does not really believe her stated position on Jerusalem, which would seem to preclude a peace process. Rudy Giuliani is a different matter, and the very pro-Israel New York Sun's Eli Lake details here why he thinks Giuliani is not sincerely committed to the idea of a two-state solution, let alone open to a peace process that would include discussion of the status of Jerusalem. As Giuliani wrote in Foreign Affairs, "Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians....It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism." That's a pretty stunning divergence from current U.S. policy, which, at least in theory, supports continuing efforts toward the creation of an eventual Palestinian state.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
COMMENTS (15)
"Clinton does not really believe her stated position on Jerusalem"
Oh. Well, then. Okay. She's got my vote! Good thing you said something.
Posted by: Trevor | September 19, 2007 12:39 PM
The single most important thing to remember about Clinton's foreign policy thinking is that she is the Senator from New York. ... New York politics encourages and rewards politicians for being pro-Israel.
That's a bit of a cop-out. Arguably, that makes it forgivable to pander to hard-line Jews when you're running to represent New York in the Senate. Now, though, she's running to be President. Does she really think there's any risk of her (or any Democrat) not winning NY's electoral votes in '08? Even to Giuliani? Just how big a voting bloc are the subset of NY Jews who would insist on a united Jerusalem?
Posted by: Ryan | September 19, 2007 12:43 PM
"Clinton does not really believe her stated position on Jerusalem"
In other words, Hillary's apologist thinks you shouldn't believe what HRC says in her campaign.
Should we believe Hillary when she says universal healthcare is her top priority? Or should we believe her when she says she won't even attempt to get universal healthcare enacted until her second term?
As John Edwards has been repeating, Americans are looking for a candidate who will tell them the truth.
Posted by: Petey | September 19, 2007 12:48 PM
I had no idea all this HRC campaigning was about getting re-elected to the U.S. Senate. Thanks for clearing that up, Garance.
Posted by: CJR | September 19, 2007 1:05 PM
The Jerusalem Embassy Act is, in fact, the law of the land. Interestingly, Israel is a sovereign nation, and most people feel that entitles them to choose their own capital!
Posted by: Steve | September 19, 2007 1:31 PM
"The single most important thing to remember about Clinton's foreign policy thinking is that she is the Senator from New York. She represents more Jews than any other politician in America except Chuck Schumer..."
That is the kind of baggage Mrs Clinton could hopefully leave in New York, should she become president.
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr | September 19, 2007 1:40 PM
The Jerusalem Embassy Act is, in fact, the law of the land.
Yes, and we all know that presidential candidates cannot possibly campaign in favor of changing existing laws. So really, Clinton has no choice.
Interestingly, Israel is a sovereign nation, and most people feel that entitles them to choose their own capital!
Interestingly, most people feel that the right to choose one's own capital does not include the right to claim, as part of that capital, territory which is not generally recognized as belonging to you.
Posted by: Ryan | September 19, 2007 1:42 PM
Interestingly, most people feel that the right to choose one's own capital does not include the right to claim, as part of that capital, territory which is not generally recognized as belonging to you.
So locate the embassy in West Jerusalem, if you like. Jerusalem was the capital long before the Six Day War.
Posted by: Steve | September 19, 2007 1:58 PM
Well that is the thing, Steve. If the US embassy to Israel is in W. Jerusalem, that would be a-ok to most everybody, especially if the US embassy to Palestine was in E. Jerusalem.
Posted by: Steve W. | September 19, 2007 2:24 PM
If the US embassy to Israel is in W. Jerusalem, that would be a-ok to most everybody...
I'm pretty sure this is not true.
Posted by: Steve | September 19, 2007 2:28 PM
So locate the embassy in West Jerusalem, if you like.
Fine with me. But since you seem to be a fan of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, you should note that that's not what it calls for. It calls for a united city under Israeli rule. That's what "most everybody" objects to. (And I take it by that offhand phrase Steve W. means American anti-semites -- er, opponents of the Israeli maximalist land claims being endorsed, at least in re. Jerusalem, by Hillary Clinton.)
Posted by: Ryan | September 19, 2007 2:43 PM
I'm not sure that the large Jewish population in New York is a satisfactory explanation for this particular "pro-Israel" position. After all, we know that American Jews as a whole are to the left of the AIPAC position, and probably wouldn't buy a pander like this on the Jerusalem question. Stands to reason this would be the case in New York as well.
Posted by: bobbo | September 19, 2007 2:59 PM
I'm all for making a unified Jerusalem the capital of a unified state comprising both Israel and Palestine. Until that day, however, the US needs to stay away from this issue.
Posted by: Indiana Joe | September 19, 2007 5:07 PM
a unified state comprising both Israel and Palestine
Um, do majorities in either Israel or Palestine support this? I don't think the rest of us get to dream up plans like this without asking the people in question what they want. (Same goes, by the way, for those partition schemes for Iraq which seem all in rage lately in the U.S.)
Posted by: Ryan | September 19, 2007 5:44 PM
Point of Information:
This post says that Hillary represents more Jewish constituents than anyone but Schumer. In truth, Hillary represents exactly one more Jew than Schumer--and that extra Jew is Schumer himself.
Posted by: RaymondA | September 19, 2007 10:30 PM