Tuesday, August 6, 2013

israhelli controlled us congress wants to sell us embassy in tel aviv and move it illegaly to jerusalem...via a dirty likudnik blogger  at israel matzav

  Congress wants to sell US embassy building in Tel Aviv, move embassy to Jerusalem
A bipartisan group of representatives has introduced a bill to sell the US embassy's beachfront property in Tel Aviv, which has a market value of $100 million or more, and move the embassy to Jerusalem (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News).

The bill, which is being sponsored by Representatives Trent Franks (AZ-08), Brad Sherman (CA-30), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Gene Green (TX-29), Juan Vargas (CA-51), is now being circulated among members of Congress. The initiative is unique because it recommends that the United States government either repurpose the current Embassy property in Tel Aviv to a consulate, or sell the property, which has the potential to garner an estimated hundred million dollars at market value. "The United States was the first nation to recognize Israel's sovereignty, a mere 11 minutes after the new state was formed in 1948. Today, 65 years later, Israel remains a uniquely precious ally. Just as the United States has assisted the Jewish people in restoring their ancient state, it is only fitting that we lead the way in recognizing Jerusalem for what it is: the undivided, eternal capital of Israel," said Congressman Tent Franks. “It is long overdue for the US government to relocate our embassy to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation to move the US embassy to Jerusalem in 1995. It is time to follow through on our commitment.”
“For historical, biblical and moral reasons, we are committed to the unity of Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital with no waivers and no caveats," said Congressman Doug Lamborn. "Our unflinching support is especially crucial at this critical hour of turbulence throughout the region."
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are 40 miles apart and there really is no justification for an embassy in one and a consulate in the other (find me another country in the world where the US has diplomatic installations that close together). But hey - $100 million is just another Obama golf vacation and he's not going to tick off his Muslim allies to save a drop in the bucket like that.
[ed notes: zionist ran us congress on Jerusalems international legal status...israhell can illegally annex it ! and we can violate the international status as an international ciy(not israhells)unilaterally...vs world recognized status ...

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted on 20 August 1980, is one of seven UNSC resolutions condemning Israel's attempted annexation of East Jerusalem. In particular, UNSC res 478 notes Israel's non-compliance with UNSC res 476[1] and condemned Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "complete and united" capital, as a violation of international law. The resolution states that the Council will not recognize this law, and calls on member states to accept the decision of the council. This resolution also calls upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The resolution was passed with 14 votes to none against, with the United States abstaining.

status of Jerusalem
The General Assembly revisited the question of Jerusalem at its fifty-fifth session. In a resolution adopted on 1 December 2000, the Assembly determined that the decision of Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and, therefore, null and void. The Assembly also deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980). These statements and resolutions, as well as many others adopted by United Nations bodies, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and religious groups, demonstrate the continuing determination of the international community to remain involved in the future of Jerusalem. They also show the great concern over the delicate status of the peace process and the unanimous desire that no actions be taken thatcould jeopardize that process

No comments: