Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

AMERICAN EMBASSY IN ISRAEL

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1984

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room SD419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles H. Percy (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Percy, Mathias, Pressler, Pell, Biden, Sarbanes, and Zorinsky.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is meeting this morning to consider legislation and to hear testimony from witnesses on legislation that is proposed, specifically S. 2031.

To the best of the Chair's knowledge and the committee staff's knowledge, this is the first time the Foreign Relations Committee has held a hearing on this particular subject.

S. 2031, introduced by Senator Moynihan, would require the United States to move its Embassy from its current location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

I did commit myself to hold hearings on the subject with Senator Moynihan. This is an issue where there are strongly held views on both sides. There is sufficient interest not only to fill our morning today but, regretfully, we had to turn down a number of people and organizations that have asked to testify. We have done the best we could with the time that is available. We hope to be able to have another day of hearings to accommodate those organizations and individuals who could not testify today.

Because Jerusalem is holy to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, it is unique among the cities of the world.

When the United Nations voted in 1947 to partition Palestine and create separate Jewish and Arab States, it called at the same time for the internationalization of Jerusalem. Following the 1948 hostilities, Israel and Jordan signed a general armistice agreement in 1949, which left the city divided between the two countries. The question of the permanent status of the city was left in abeyance pending a final peace settlement. The United States, along with most other countries, established and continues to maintain its Embassy in Tel Aviv, a position which has been supported by every President and every Congress since that time.

Since June 1967, Israel has taken several actions which have changed the status of Jerusalem. Large numbers of Israeli citizens have moved to new residential neighborhoods in areas formerly controlled by Jordan, including the renewed Jewish section of the Old City. In

some instances, they have returned to areas in which they previously lived. Israeli authorities expanded the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, encompassing an area from Ramallah, in the north, to Bethlehem, in the south. In 1980, the Government of Israel officially annexed the entire, expanded city of Jerusalem. At that time, several nations which have had their embassies in Jerusalem moved them out.

S. 2031 raises the issue of whether the time now is propitious for the United States to change its long-standing policy and move its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This raises serious political questions and keen passions among many diverse American constituencies. The hearing today is designed to give an airing of those views. Many organizations have asked to testify both for and against this bill, and I regret that we have not been able to accommodate some of those who have asked to appear today. But, as I have indicated, if we can possibly schedule it, we will try to schedule 1 additional day of hearings. Also, I ask, without objection, that the written testimony of those who have submitted it but are unable to appear in person be included in the record.

I think most of the members of this committee have been to Jerusalem. I have been there several times. I have been taken from one end to the other by Mayor Teddy Kolleck, who obviously is one of the most able administrators in Israel. He feels strongly about the city of Jerusalem. It functions well.

But the question as to whether or not the Embassy should be moved at this particular time is the purpose of this hearing.

[Text of S. 2031 follows:]

[blocks in formation]

To require that the United States Embassy in Israel be located in the city of

Jerusalem.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 31, 1983

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To require that the United States Embassy in Israel be located in the city of Jerusalem.

1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 Notwithstanding any other Act, the United States Embassy 4 in Israel and the residence of the American Ambassador to 5 Israel shall hereafter be located in the city of Jerusalem.

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome the views first of two of our distinguished colleagues, Senator Moynihan and Senator Specter. They will be followed by Under Secretary of State Eagleburger.

Senator Moynihan.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK

Senator MOYNIHAN. Mr. Chairman, may I first express my own appreciation and that of so many persons that you have found the time for this hearing, as you said you would do in our exchange on the Senate floor last autumn. It was for me sufficient, as it would be for any Member of this body, that you said you would see that time was found. Nothing more was required to know that it would be done.

The CHAIRMAN. I think to symbolize that this is totally a bipartisan issue, perhaps Senator Arlen Specter could join you at the table now. Senator MOYNIHAN. Fine. Actually, I had expected him to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Also, you might indicate how many cosponsors you have, and perhaps you have it in your testimony.

Senator MOYNIHAN. Twenty-six, I believe, is the last count. No, it is 28, and rising weekly.

Mr. Chairman, would you like me to proceed, or Senator Specter? The CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate your going ahead first, then to be followed by Senator Specter.

Senator MOYNIHAN. Fine.

My testimony is brief, sir, and is illustrated.

I begin with the simple proposition that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel and our Embassy in that state should be in its capital.

This would seem to be an unexceptional statement, Mr. Chairman. That it is not is the result of actions the United States has taken and actions not taken.

In the first category is the unprecedented and bewildering practice of the U.S. Government in its official publications to record that there is a "country" named Israel in which our Embassy is located at a "post" named Tel Aviv; and another "country" named Jerusalem in which we are represented at a "post" named Jerusalem.

Now this will seem odd to you. It would seem odd, I would think, to anyone. This is the telephone directory of the U.S. Department of State. It will tell you where you can find Ambassador Bennett, where you can reach Under Secretary Eagleburger, and it gives their telephone numbers. The book also contains a "post directory." It says here at the head of one column "country" and it says here above the next column "post," in fairly straightforward manner. Looking down the columns one sees there is a country called Iraq and a post called Baghdad. There is a country called Ireland and a post called Dublin. There is a country called Israel and a post called Tel Aviv. That is on the same page, 167, where further down, is listed a country called Jerusalem and a post called Jerusalem.

If you look to the U.S. Department of State Manual of Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts: A Guide for Business Representatives," you will find a country called Israel with a post called Tel Aviv, and a

country called Jerusalem. There is enumerated various kinds of information about the post, such as the name of the Consul General, the DPO, the POL-all of the accoutrements of an embassy-the ECO/ COM, the CON, the RSO, and so forth.

If you want to take the examination for the Foreign Service, our Department sends you along with the application forms a list of Foreign Service posts where you can take the examination. In Italy there is Rome; you can take the examination in Israel, in Tel Aviv; you can take the examination in Jerusalem, in Jerusalem.

And so it goes.

The anomaly of this designation and nomenclature is not lost on the world. At the very minimum, Mr. Chairman, it indicates that we have not thought our way through this question. I think it is important to note, as you have done, that this is the first time the Committee on Foreign Relations has held a hearing on this subject.

I would note in concluding the illustrated portion of this brief testimony that in the "Diplomatic List" which the U.S. Department of State publishes, recording who has sent emissaries to the United States, there is an Ambassador accredited here from Israel, but, unaccountably, there is no Ambassador from Jerusalem.

In the second category-things not done-I would list foremost the U.S. acquiescence in an extraordinary series of U.N. Security Council resolutions in the course of which the Council addressed itself to "Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem."

This took place in the course of 1980. On August 20, 1980, the United States declined to veto, as it easily could have done, a measure calling on all member nations to withdraw their embassies from the city of Jerusalem.

At that time, Mr. Chairman, there were some 13 nations that routinely had their embassies to Israel located in Jerusalem, it being the capital of the country. In the aftermath of the resolution which the United States, by failing to veto, in effect acquiesced in and agreed to, in the aftermath of that measure, all of the embassies were withdrawn. One later returned.

This honorable committee is fully aware of the vicious anti-Israeli measures which are routinely, and at ever higher levels of hostility and assertion, adopted by the United Nations. But I would call particular attention to the inane nature of this particular grotesquery.

Mr. Chairman, what is the thing called "Arab territory" which Israel is alleged to occupy? What is it? Is there a nation named Arab? If so, it does not appear in the Diplomatic List or any of the other publications I have mentioned.

Is this the mythic country of Araby once said to be inhabited by the Sheik thereof? Perhaps so. But there is surely no sovereign nation named Arab whose territory is capable of being occupied by another sovereignty.

I have had more than a few occasions in recent years to remark on the decline in attention to international law in the conduct of American foreign policy. But in this matter, we lapse into incoherence. We have allowed the United Nations to adopt as a position of law a view that has no meaning in law.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »