PREFACE Israel is the only country in the world in which our embassy is located outside the capital city-and purposely at that. How this peculiar arrangement came about, and why it continues, is one of the stranger tales of United States policy in the Middle East. In recent years, sentiment has been building among many members of the United States Senate and of the House of Representatives to end this affront to the Jewish State and to bring U.S. policy into line with the reality that Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The study begins with an eye-opening review of how the present problem came about. It concludes with the reasons the time for a solution is now. The author, Sara M. Averick, is a specialist on the region, trained at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. Her study draws upon a full range of academic and governmental sources, and is the most comprehensive treatment of this issue available to date. Thomas A. Dine EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For more than three decades, U.S. policy has avoided the reality that Jerusalem is, has been, and always will be the capital of Israel. Instead, the United States refuses to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, even the western part of the city which has been an undisputed and organic part of the modern state of Israel since its establishment in 1948. This is not an even-handed policy; it is an anti-Israel policy. Jerusalem is the embodiment of Jewish history, the heart and soul of the Jewish people. For three thousand years, Jerusalem has been the focus of their national and religious yearning. For more than 30 years, the offices of Israel's president and prime minister, the Knesset (Parliament), and most government ministries have been located in Jerusalem. Since 1967, the once-divided city has been united under Israeli control with freedom of access guaranteed to all holy sites. No Israeli government which so much as implied relinquishing Jerusalem as Israel's capital could survive in power for a day. Present U.S. policy attempts to refute these realities by maintaining the American Embassy in Tel Aviv, 40 miles from Israel's capital. The ambassador is allowed no "official" role or status in Jerusalem, despite the fact that he must deal with the Government of Israel located there. Instead, the American Consulate in Jerusalem operates independently of the embassy and reports directly to Washington. In no other country in the world is the American Embassy located outside the administrative capital. Even the American Embassy to communist East Germany is located in East Berlin although the U.S. does not recognize Berlin as the capital of the German Democratic Republic. In effect, the United States has one consistent rule for the rest of the world, including a member of the Warsaw Pact, and another unjustified rule for Israel, a friend and ally. Other anomalies and contradictions in U.S. policy toward Jerusalem include: *Labelling east Jerusalem "occupied territory" after it came under Israeli control, thereby implicitly and post facto recognizing Jordanian sovereignty over that sector (which the U.S. had refused to do while Jordan was actually in control there from 1948-1967). *Espousing the principle of an "undivided" Jerusalem while refusing to acknowledge the reality that the city is already united (American officials are even forbidden to associate with Israeli officials in east Jerusalem). *Insisting that the city be both united and yet subject to negotiations, implying that even west Jerusalem could be handed over to the Arabs. Public opinion polls indicate that a sizeable majority of Americans supports Israeli control over a unified Jerusalem and prefers such control to the alternatives of internationalization of the city or Arab control of east Jerusalem. Support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel runs three-to-one in favor among Americans with an opinion on the subject. Key American leaders, in departures from official policy, have reflected this public sentiment. President Reagan has voiced his personal preference for keeping Jerusalem "undivided under Israeli rule." Former Vice President Walter Mondale has called for recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem. Even moderate Arabs like President Sadat of Egypt, who recognize Israel's right to exist, also recognize Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem. The American Embassy could be relocated there without prejudging the wider issues surrounding east Jerusalem. A change in American polity is long over de, It is time to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Introduction David Ben Gurion, first prime minister of the Jewish State, declared in the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on December 5, 1949 that: Jewish Jerusalem is an organic and inseparable part of the State of Israel, as it is an inseparable part of the history of Israel, of the faith of Israel, and of the very soul of our people. Jerusalem is the heart of hearts of the State of Israel . . . Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.' To world Jewry and to Israel's supporters in the United States and elsewhere this pronouncement merely reaffirmed the obvious: Jerusalem, the only religious and national center that Jews have ever had, is and always will be the capital of Israel. Current United States policy, however, does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. What then is the capital of that country? When directly asked this question, State Department officials respond by elaborating on U.S. policy toward the status of Jerusalem. But this response only begs the question. In fact, not only does Washington fail to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but it declines to endorse Israel's claim to sovereignty over any part of the city. 2 The State Department saw fit to reiterate this policy twice this past year: In June 1983, when Mark Richards, deputy assistant to the attorney general, refused to meet with Israeli Attorney General Itzchak Zamir in his east Jerusalem office, the State Department announced that "Jerusalem should remain undivided and its status should be resolved in negotiations . . . . Barely nine weeks later, when Kuwait rejected the appointment of Brandon Grove as U.S. ambassador on the grounds that he had served as American consul in Jerusalem, State Department Spokesman Alan Romberg declared that the United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and considers east Jerusalem to be "occupied territory in accordance with U.N. Resolution 242 and international law.' 3 As a result of this policy, a peculiar arrangement exists whereby the United States Embassy in Israel is located in Tel Aviv. To conduct diplomatic business, the ambassador and his staff must travel 45 minutes to Jerusalem, where the Knesset and most government offices, including the Foreign Ministry, as well as the offices and residences of the president and prime minister are located. The U.S. does maintain a consulate in Jerusalem but with one office in east Jerusalem and another in the western part of the city. The consular staff, unlike in any other American consulate around the world, does not report to the American ambassador. Instead the consulate reports directly to the State Department in Washington about Jerusalem and the "West Bank. 4 A change in this anomalous and anachronistic policy is long overdue. It is time for the United States to recognize the capital of the Jewish State as such and move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The purpose of this study is to examine the development of United States policy toward the status of Jerusalem and to analyze the weaknesses and contradictions inherent in its formulation and implementation. CHAPTER I: The History of United States Policy Toward the Status of Jerusalem The development of America's Jerusalem policy can be divided into three stages. The first stage dates from 1947, when the United States became deeply involved in United Nations deliberations over the future of what remained of the Palestine Mandate. It ended on June 7, 1967, when the Israel Defense Forces reunited Jerusalem. This period was characterized by an unbending commitment to an internationalized Jerusalem and a refusal to recognize the partition of the city between Israel and Jordan. The second stage lasted from the reunification of the city in June 1967 through the remaining eighteen months of the Johnson Administration. Washington continued to oppose any unilateral changes in the status of Jerusalem (partition or unification under one sovereign) and stressed that Jerusalem's status be resolved through negotiations by all concerned parties. During this period, the United States also enunciated its conditions for any future solution: Jerusalem should never again be divided and free access to the holy places for people of all religions would have to be guaranteed. Ambassador Charles Yost initiated the third and current stage in a July 1969 speech to the U.N. General Assembly. This policy differs markedly from the previous stages. In addition to reaffirming America's commitment to a unified Jerusalem whose status is subject to negotiations, it proclaims that the United States regards east Jerusalem to be occupied territory. It thereby implicitly concedes United States recognition of the armistice demarcation line of 1949 as a legal boundary dividing the holy city. Paradoxically, Jordanian sovereignty over east Jerusalem, which the United States refused to recognize while the Hashemite Kingdom occupied the area, was implicitly accepted retroactively after Jordan no longer controlled it. Through all three stages there has been a noticeable gap between American policy toward the status of Jerusalem and on-the-ground reality in the city. This will become evident in a more detailed recapitulation of the history and implementation of U.S. policy which follows. |