the Vatican, which the United States will propose to recognize, does not even recognize Israel's legal existence to this date.

Fairness and respect toward such a close friend and ally as the State of Israel should preclude continuation of a forced, artificial refusal to recognize that nation's legitimate capital. The fear of censure by the rejectionist Arab States should not keep us from taking the proper course of action toward a friend and an ally.

Failure to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is a continuing example of the lack of respect and support the United States has been accused of showing toward its friends.

As for the practical consequences of our Embassy being in Tel Aviv, it is unfortunate that Mr. Samuel Lewis, the respected U.S. Ambassador to Israel, is not here to describe the real perils and problems, the added cost and the inconvenience of dealing with the Israeli Government at a distance from its capital. These are compounded by the artificial constraints on the parts of Jerusalem in which he and other U.S. officials may meet. I understand from this morning's elaboration by the State Department, however, that our representatives may go on tours with the municipal authorities, but may not meet with government officials there.

In any event, I am amazed at the fact that the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem is not under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, but reports directly to the State Department in Washington, a situation unique in the scheme of our worldwide diplomatic system.

While I have not discussed these matters with Mr. Lewis, we can well imagine his frustrations in attempting to convey American policies to the Israeli Government and to keep track of Israeli perceptions and policies.

This is a tough job in any country. Sam Lewis does it better than almost any other U.S. Ambassador. But I wonder why we must continue to frustrate his effectiveness and complicate his work.

Although this hearing is not the place to recount the differences in perception and understanding which have marked the course of Israeli-American relations, one need look no further than this week's newspapers to see that the respective perceptions of even fairly fundamental agreements have differed widely-for example, the Israeli-Lebanon accord and the United States-Israel agreement not to meet with the PLO.

While the relocation of the U.S. Embassy is not a panacea for such problems, its symbolic and practical day-to-day effects will help insure that the reality of United States-Israeli relations matches more closely the ideals, the stated policies, and the rhetoric of the U.S. Government and the expressed wishes of the American public.

I have some personal insight into the practical aspects of the problem dealing with the U.S. Embassy at a distance, as a result of 4 years' experience as a consultant with the Israeli Ministry of Interior under a joint project of Israel and the U.N. Environment Programme.

Despite good intentions on all sides, our contacts with the Tel Aviv U.S. Embassy were infrequent and sporadic, although they were profitable when they did materalize. In one case, an Embassy inquiry regarding a toxic agricultural chemical-DBC-led to a valuable exchange of data between the two countries and to more effective health measures with a minimal disruption of agriculture.

How many other valuable opportunities for productive cooperation were lost will never be known. Certainly the United States lost commerical opportunities and many Israeli environmental advances went unrecognized by the U.S. Embassy staff.

Although I do believe that Israel clearly qualifies as the legal sovereign of Jerusalem, the U.S. Government does not need to decide this issue in order to move our Embassy to West Jerusalem. Since our ambassador and other officials, including visitors, meet regularly in West Jerusalem and present their credentials there, this constitutes de facto recognition.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe the evidence in favor of moving our Embassy to Jerusalem is compelling. The arguments against such a move, chiefly the expediency of appeasing parties who will only be appeased by Israel's destruction, are unworthy of a great power or a good friend. The hour is late. Let us not delay any longer this urgent business.

We heartily endorse this legislation and its enactment unless, of course, the President decides to use his authority now to make the change administratively. I call attention again to our suggested amendments which will make the legislation stronger and more effective, although our approval of S. 2031 is not contingent upon their adoption.

We appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony and will submit any added information you may request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Hellman's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. HELLMAN

Dear Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure and an honor to appear before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations today on behalf of the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem, to express our enthusiastic support for S. 2031, a bill "to require that the United States Embassy in Israel be located in the city of Jerusalem." As Bible-believing Christians, we support the bill on scriptural, practical and legal grounds. Although I invite your attention to the strengthening amendments which we recommend, our support of this legislation is not contingent upon their adoption.

First, a few words about the International Christian Embassy. The Embassy is a private, voluntary organization founded in September 1980, by Christians residing in Jerusalem as an expression of concern and love for Israel and the Jewish people at the time when the last remaining national embassies were being withdrawn from the city.

As such, the Christian Embassy is a unique entity with a different perspective from that of the other organizations interested in this legislation. It is truly international with consulates and representatives throughout the United States and in many other countries spanning all the continents of the globe. It is authentically Christian in that it represents millions of Bible-believing Christians who follow the scriptural exhortations to "bless Israel," to "comfort my People," and to "pray for the Peace of Jerusalem," among others. The organization is headquartered in Jerusalem at the Embassy itself. Although spiritual rather than political, the Embassy personnel understand, as perhaps no other non-jews can, the biblical, historic and diplomatic significance of Jerusalem in the play of international events at this historic juncture.

The Christian Embassy, through its Executive Director, Johann Luckhoff, its spokesman, Jan Willem Van der Hoeven, and its chief musicians, Merv and Merla Watson, among others, have had a close, continuing and fruitful association with Israel's Prime Minister, Cabinet and Knesset members, as well as Israeli religious, economic, social and artistic figures at all levels. This has

fostered mutual understanding, respect and love between Israel and the Christian communities, both within Israel and abroad.

This relationship is expressed practically in the Christian celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles which has been held annually since 1980 during the Jewish holiday of Succoth. In this spiritual, musical and artistic pageant, thousands of Christians from around the world go up to Jerusalem ". . . to worship the King, the Lord of hosts and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles," in anticipation of that day which the prophet Zechariah foresaw (Zech. 14:16) and “. . . to comfort ye, comfort ye my People" Israel (Isaiah 40:1).

Other tangible expression of interest and support for Israel and its people include social work projects with the Arab, Jewish and other citizens of Israel, and the encouragement of Israeli exports.

On a personal note, I was privileged to live in Jerusalem for 7 years (through mid-June 1983) first as a legal consultant to the Israeli Government under a joint project with the United Nations and later as a private entrepreneur operating a business there. Thus as a Christian dealing daily-and amicably-with the Jewish, Arab and other citizens of the city, I had a unique opportunity to see Jerusalem as the dynamic, integrated functioning organism which it has become.

The Holy Scriptures declare that Jerusalem is and forever will be the capital of Israel. In a unique way, the Lord said He chose Her:

"But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek and thither thou shalt come . . . Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offering in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings and there thou shalt do all that I command thee." (Deuteronomy 12:5, 13–14)

This place the Lord has chosen is Jerusalem as He says throughout the Scriptures and particularly the Psalms, for example:

"For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it. “(Ps. 132:13, 14). Jerusalem is synonymous with Zion and symbolizes not just the city but the whole land and the Jewish people. Most poignantly, this is expressed by the Psalmist :

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yet, we wept, when we remembered Zion...

How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand lose her cunning.

If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy." (Ps. 137 :1,4-6)

Although anyone who visits or resides for a time in Jerusalem must come to love Her timeless beauty and spiritual uniqueness, only for the Jewish people does she represent the embodiment of 3,000 years of history, culture and religious experience. For most Christians there is a desire to visit, to see the actual places where the great events of the Bible took place, but not to make a permanent abode or to exercise political control over the city or the land.

In this context, it must be emphasized that the Israeli administration of Jerusalem, the system of justice (and particularly the protection of the rights of Christians, Moslems and others visiting or residing in the land) and the protection of so-called holy sites of all faiths have been exemplary. Any fairminded witness of the experience under previous regimes, notably that of Jordan, will note the striking contrast.

More immediate and tangible than the scriptural and historic reasons for relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is the elemental need to deal fairly and honestly with a friend and ally. It is time that we recognized Israel fully as our only like-minded and dependable friend and ally in the Middle East-and one of the few in the entire world. This relationship depends on our shared system of values which goes back to Biblical truth, our democratic representative systems of government, our cultural, economic and technological cooperation, and the practical strategic objectives which we share. Any details on which we may differ are dwarfed by these fundamental shared interests.

Fairness and respect toward such a close friend and ally as Israel should preclude continuation of a forced, artificial refusal to recognize that nation's legitimate capital. By contrast it is incredible that we have placed our embassy in East Berlin, although we do not recognize the sovereignty of the German Democratic

Republic, a member of the Warsaw Pact, over that city, while refusing to accord like courtesy to Israel. The fear of censure by the rejectionist Arab States should not keep us from taking the proper course of action toward a friend and an ally. Failure to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is a continuing example of the lack of respect and support the United States has been accused of showing to its friends. The only remaining question is why we have waited so long to take this step.

As to the practical consequences of our Embassy being in Tel Aviv, it is unfortunate that Mr. Samuel Lewis, the highly respected U.S. Ambassador to Israel, is not here to describe the real perils and problems of dealing with the Israeli Government at a distance from its capital. These are compounded by the artificial restraints on the portions of Jerusalem which he and other U.S. officials may visit, and by the fact that the Jerusalem Consul General is not under his authority, but reports directly to the State Department in Washington, a unique situation in the scheme of our worldwide diplomatic system.

While I have not discussed these matters with Mr. Lewis, we can well imagine his frustrations in attempting to convey American policies to the Israeli Government and keep track of evolving Israeli perceptions and policies. This is a tough job in any country. Sam Lewis does it as well or better than any other U.S. Ambassador. But why must we continue to frustrate his effectiveness and complicate his work?

I have some personal insight into the practical aspects of the problem from 4 years experience as a consultant within the Israeli Ministry of the Interior. Despite good intentions on all sides, our contacts with the U.S. Science Attaché at the Tel Aviv Embassy were infrequent and sporadic-albeit profitable when they materialized. In one case, an Embassy inquiry regarding DBCP, a toxic agricultural chemical that caused sterility in workers and other adverse effects, led to a valuable exchange of data between Israel and the United States. This led to more effective health measures in both countries with minimal disruption of agriculture.

How many other valuable opportunities for productive cooperation were lost just in our office due to the distance separating us in Jerusalem from the Embassy staff in Tel Aviv will never be known. Certainly the United States lost commercial opportunities to promote pollution control equipment and services in a growing Israeli market. Similarly, Israeli advances in integrating cost-effective environmental measures with physical and economic planning went largely unrecognized by our Embassy staff.

This hearing is not the place or time to recount the differences in perception and understanding which have marked the course of Israeli-American relations. One need look no further than this week's newspapers, however, to see that the respective perceptions of even fairly fundamental agreements have differed widely. While the relocation of the U.S. Embassy is not a panacea for such problems, its symbolic and practical day-to-day effects will help ensure that the reality of United States-Israeli relations matches more closely the ideals, stated policies and rhetoric of the U.S. Government and the wishes of the American public.

Based on my review of Jerusalem's legal status, Israel clearly qualifies as the legal sovereign of Jerusalem, having acquired that sovereignty according to international law. The United States Government, however, does not need to arrive at this conclusion in order to move our Embassy to West Jerusalem. Since our Ambassador and other officials, including visiting American Presidents and Cabinet officials, meet regularly with Israeli officials in West Jerusalem, and present their credentials there, this constitutes a certain de facto recognition and no added status would be conferred by placing our Embassy there. I certainly would trust that no responsible American official expects Israel to relinquish its authority over West Jerusalem in any political settlement.

While the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem, wholeheartedly supports S. 2031 as introduced, the following strengthening and clarifying amendments are suggested for consideration by the Committee. These are proposed to ensure that the intent of the legislation be implemented as quickly as possible without bureaucratic foot-dragging and, as completely as practicable, with all key U.S. Embassy functions and elements transferred expeditiously to Jerusalem. Therefore, we recommend that the legislation authorizing appropriations for the State Department be conditioned upon implementation of the terms of this bill. This would appear consistent with the original intent of this bill in the form introduced by Senator Moynihan last year.

Second, we propose a section be added to the bill calling for a complete transfer of all Embassy functions and organizational elements, apart from certain consular functions, to Jerusalem within a fixed time, perhaps 18 months.

Third, we recommend that a section be added to call for a study by the Executive Branch to be submitted to the Congress within 90 days of enactment of this legislation, which study would detail the procedures, costs and benefits involved in the transfer.

Fourth, we recommend that the legislation provide explicitly that all U.S. consular and diplomatic activities in Israel, including Judea and Samaria, be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Ambassador.

The evidence in favor of moving our embassy to Jerusalem is conclusive and compelling. The arguments against such a move, chiefly the expediency of appeasing those who will be appeased only by Israel's destruction, are unworthy of a great power or a good friend. The hour is already late. Let us not delay any longer this urgent business.

We heartily endorse enactment of this legislation, unless, of course, the President decides to use his authority now to make the change administratively.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony in favor of S. 2031 and will be pleased to submit any added information regarding this or other matters affecting Israel.

Senator ZORINSKY. Thank you. Mr. Hellman.

The next witness who will testify is Mr. Kenneth J. Bialkin.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. BIALKIN, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. BIALKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Kenneth J. Bialkin, and I am the national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

I appear today, however, on behalf also of other Jewish organizations who have yielded their place so that others may sit here, specifically the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who is represented here also by Howard Squadron, who is available and would be prepared to respond to questions or to speak if the chairman would so indulge; the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Tom Dine is here; the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council; and others.

We have all prepared written statements which we have submitted for the record, which I will not read at this time. I would like to make some extemporaneous comments in the light of your time constraints.

Senator ZORINSKY. Without objection, all of the written statements that you have from the various organizations will be accepted as part of the record.

Mr. BIALKIN. I am very grateful, Mr. Chairman.

It is a little hard to organize one's thoughts when you hear so many swirling around, but I will try to do it.

First of all, I would like to say that, contrary to what others may have said, this is not a Jewish issue, this is not a Moslem issue. This is an American issue. This is a question where the citizens of this country have to meet together and decide among themselves what is the right thing to do, what is the fair thing to do, what is the just and honest thing to do.

I was disappointed that the representative of the Catholic conference indicated that he takes his signals from the Holy See. We don't take our signals from anybody but our consciences, our American citizenship, and our concern for the welfare, for the image, for the status