Republican Presidential nominee Ronald Reagan, Independent Presidential hopeful Rep. John Anderson, (R. III.) and erstwhile Democratic Party candidate Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts have condemned the United Nations Security Council resolution which censured Israel for its Jerusalem law and urged nations with embassies in that city to remove them. Both Reagan and Anderson directly criticized the Carter Administration for abstaining, while Kennedy appeared to imply criticism in his statement.
In a statement issued here by the Reagan-Bush campaign headquarters, the GOP nominee said he was “appalled to see the U.S. abstain rather than veto” the resolution. He noted that the resolution “not only undermines progress toward peace in the Middle East by putting the UN on record against Israel and on one side of the sensitive issue on the status of Jerusalem.
“It further presumes to direct other nations, including our Dutch ally, to move their embassies from Jerusalem by prejudging this most sensitive issue. Wednesday’s resolution completely undercuts the rationale of UN Security Council Resolution 242 ……. I am shocked that the Carter Administration which has mode so much of its attempts to bring about peace in the Middle East abstained from voting, By doing so it also encourages the unrelenting harassment of Israel rather than standing in firm opposition to it.”
CONFUSION OR HYPOCRISY
Reagan added that the Administration’s failure to veto the measure is “ludicrous in the light of the 1980 Democratic platform which explicitly recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and urges that the U.S. embassy be moved there from Tel Aviv. Within one short week of agreeing, in writing, to run on this platform, Jimmy Carter acted precisely opposite to this clear, provision.” Reagan termed this a sign of “confusion of hypocrisy.”
(Carter, in his written message to the delegates at the Democratic National Convention, did not endorse the platform plank calling for moving the embassy to Jerusalem. His reference to Jerusalem in the message was that “It has been out policy that Jerusalem should remain forever un- divided with free access to the holy places for people of all faiths.” He also said that “It has been and must remain our policy that the ultimate status of Jerusalem should be a matter of negotiation between the parties.”)
AN INVASION OF ISRAEL’S SOVEREIGNTY
Anderson said he agreed with Secretary of State Edmond Muskie’s sharp criticism of the resolution that it was “unbalanced.” But if this was so, Anderson asked “why did the Carter Administration not veto it? The demand that countries move their embassies from Jerusalem is an invasion of Israel’s sovereignty, The State Department’s claim that the resolution is not binding overlooks the fact that this resolution call for specific actions against Israel which may presage the imposition of economic and political sanctions.” By abstaining, Anderson added, “the Carter Administration has helped neither the United States, its friends nor the cause of peace.”
Kennedy said he look “the strongest possible exception” to the resolution. “It is unacceptable to refer to Jerusalem as ‘Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied’ by Israel …. This resolution is a one-sided, punitive, irresponsible action which disregards … Resolution 242, ignore part Arab abuses in Jerusalem, and undercuts negotiations for peace in the Middle East. I continue to believe that the United States should forcefully oppose growing international efforts to isolate and condemn Israel.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
