Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Three questions for the U.S. about Jerusalem

There are three issues relating to the U.S. stance toward Jerusalem to which Robert Pines' article usefully draws attention ("U.S. must recognizeIsrael'scapital," Aug. 15).

The first is whether the U.S. government considers Jerusalem to be part of Israel. The second is whether the U.S. regards Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The third is whether the U.S. government wishes to locate its embassy in Jerusalem.

It would be consistent with congressional and public sentiment, and with the comments of previous U.S. presidents, for President Barack Obama to publicly and explicitly declare that Jerusalem is part of Israel and that he was instructing the State Department and other government agencies to make their policies reflect that reality.

It would also be helpful if President Obama were to declare — as did both he and President Bill Clinton as candidates — that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If the U.S. government is unwilling to make these two unequivocal statements, there is little reason to expect other friendly governments will.

The question of relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is a separate matter. But while it might be desirable as well, the government's reluctance to move its embassy should not excuse it from doing the first two things.

Stephen Levine

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise
    Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise

    Op-ed writer Frederic Hill ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 28) faults House Speaker John Boehner for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress two weeks before Israeli elections. "Democratic nations usually do not interfere in another country's vote," Mr. Hill says.

  • Congress has right to hear Netanyahu
    Congress has right to hear Netanyahu

    In his commentary ("Boehner's unwise move," Jan. 28), Frederic B. Hill claims it was unwise for House Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress because it shows deference toward him before an Israeli election.

  • Let Netanyahu speak
    Let Netanyahu speak

    I find it necessary to respond to Frederic B. Hill's odious and erroneous op-ed, "Boehner's unwise move" (Jan. 28).

  • Netanyahu needs to address Congress
    Netanyahu needs to address Congress

    Contrary to Frederic B. Hill's assertions ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27) both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner have had little option, considering how the nuclear negotiations with Iran have proceeded.

  • Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders
    Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders

    Has Speaker John Boehner has a brilliant idea in inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress on the subject of Iran ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27). What else can he do when, apparently, no Republicans in the House have what it takes to address the issue?...

  • What if Obama spoke to Knesset?
    What if Obama spoke to Knesset?

    I wonder how Benjamin Netanyahu would feel if President Barack Obama wrangled an invitation from an opposition Israeli politician to push the Obama-Iran plan in the Knesset without informing the Israeli prime minister ("Israel spy HQ bucking premier, opposing Iran sanctions," Jan. 23). But...

Comments
Loading