countries in the area and the international community. 32 This was an explicit recognition that a territorial dispute over sovereignty existed between Israel and Jordan, and should be resolved by them.

The Yost statement and the Rogers' Plan both implied that Israel and Jordan had equal claims to Jerusalem. Yet the United States had denied until 1969 that either Israel or Jordan had any claim to the city. Now it was saying that Jordan had title to east Jerusalem, while Israel had the status of a belligerent occupant there. Paradoxically, the U.S. did not even accord Israel sovereign status in the western part of the city that it held before 1967.

Since 1969, most policy statements on Jerusalem have included the assertion that east Jerusalem is occupied territory. On this basis, Ambassador William Scranton stated before the Security Council in 1976 that “the substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population to occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal. . . .

9933

In the 1978 Camp David Accords, and in the subsequent Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, President Carter agreed with President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin to disagree on the question of Jerusalem. In an exchange of letters accompanying the Camp David Accords, in which each leader clarified his country's position, President Carter reiterated that the position of the U.S. on Jerusalem remained as stated by Ambassador Goldberg in the U.N. General Assembly on July 14, 1967, and by Ambassador Yost in the U.N. Security Council on July 1, 1969.34

Barely eighteen months after Camp David, the U.S. voted in favor of United Nations Security Council Resolution 465 of March 1, 1980, a resolution condemning Israel for its policies in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem."35 The resolution referred to Jerusalem seven times in all. Although President Carter claimed that the vote was an error-the result of a "breakdown in communications" (all references to Jerusalem were to have been deleted in the final text)—the vote in favor of the resolution vividly demonstrated the 180 degree shift away from the pre-1967 internationalization proposal to the position that "there was occupied territory in Jerusalem, namely east Jerusalem."36

The Reagan Administration has also called for a unified Jerusalem subject to negotiations. Thus President Reagan, in his televised address of September 1, 1982, declared that "we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations."37 His Administration also continues to insist that east Jerusalem is "occupied territory.'

9938

In private, however, President Reagan has told American Jewish leaders that "he preferred for Jerusalem to remain undivided under Israeli sovereignty." He also said he favored "some type of Vatican-like solution that would continue to preserve the free access to the holy sites that Israel has afforded since 1967.39

The Vatican-like solution suggested by President Reagan would give Christians and Moslems special rights over their own holy places. This solution, also known as "functional internationalization," is precisely what Israel endorsed in 1949 in the General Assembly. Nevertheless, as soon as the President voiced this opinion the State Department spokesman reemphasized that "there is no change in U.S. policy toward Jerusalem. Its status must be settled through negotiations."40 Although the President himself has voiced support for a different policy, the policy remains unchanged.

The Absurd Consequences of the Policy

This brief historical account reveals a policy riddled with contradictions, a policy which from its very inception never corresponded with Jerusalem's changing reality, a policy in need of change.

The contradictions are manifold. The United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and yet in reality and in law Israel has never had any other capital but Jerusalem.

The United States does not recognize Israel's sovereignty even over the western sector of Jerusalem which in reality Israel has controlled since its establishment. Yet, once the eastern sector came under Israeli control, the United States implicitly and post facto recognized Jordanian sovereignty over that sector even though the U.S. had refused to legitimize Jordan's rule when the eastern sector was officially under Jordanian control from 1948 to 1967. The United States maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv even though in reality, Jerusalem is Israel's administrative center, housing the offices of the prime minister, the president, the Foreign Ministry and the Knesset. In no other country is the American Embassy located outside the administrative capital. Even the American Embassy to the German Democratic Republic is located in East Berlin although the United States does not recognize East Berlin as East Germany's capital.

America's declaratory policy has also been at odds with itself. Until 1967, the United States repeatedly declared that it supported the internationalization of Jerusalem. Yet in the United Nations, the United States voted against a resolution calling for internationalization. Since 1967, the United States has expressed support for the principle of a unified Jerusalem but has refused to acknowledge the reality that the city is already unified. By declaring east Jerusalem "occupied territory," the United States is effectively calling for the redivision of Jerusalem while at the same time expressing support for unification.

Moreover, by insisting that the city be undivided but that its status be subject to negotiations the United States is implying that even west Jerusalem could be handed over to the Arabs.

In short, for 35 years the United States has maintained a policy at odds with reality and therefore a policy that lacks logic and consistency. In this time, the

United States has always had a choice between what is practical and preferred and what is acceptable to the Arabs. In effect, the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept reality has been allowed to prevent the United States from doing so. The practical result is a series of absurdities.

For example, in recent editions of the State Department's schedule of sites for the United States Foreign Service examination, cities where the test was being offered are grouped by country, listed in alphabetical order. Jerusalem, the city, appears between the countries of Japan and Jordan.41

Although the United States has insisted that the city be undivided, many American officials are prevented by the State Department from visiting the eastern part of the city accompanied by an Israeli official. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said during a tour of the old city following Golda Meir's funeral in December 1978, "I've been to Jerusalem 50 times and I could never come here. The American policy barring official visits to the Arab sector of Jerusalem should be reconsidered.'

42

In October 1977, when Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal was in Jerusalem on official business, the American Embassy insisted that Jerusalem's mayor, Teddy Kollek, could take him only to west Jerusalem and not to the eastern part of the city.43 Former Attorney General Griffen Bell was not permitted to meet his counterpart in his east Jerusalem office during a 1977 visit.44 When Secretary of Defense Harold Brown was in Israel on an official visit, he was accompanied to the Western Wall by the U.S. consulgeneral in Jerusalem. The Israeli military escort attached to Brown's party and other Israeli officials who had been accompanying him did not go with him to the old city.45

When Vice President Walter Mondale visited Jerusalem in 1978, he was advised by State Department officials not to include the old city in his itinerary. Mondale reminded the officials that Sadat had made such a stop during his recent visit, and indicated his own intention to do so as well. As Vice President, he also overruled State Department advice not to fly the American flag on his official car during the visit to east Jerusalem.46

Reagan Administration policy has also been inconsistent. Deputy assistant to the attorney general, Mark Richards, returned to the United States rather than meet with Israel's Attorney General Itzchak Zamir in his east Jerusalem office.47 But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger toured throughout Jerusalem, old and new, with Mayor Kollek in August 1982. United States Ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick also visited the old city with Teddy Kollek when in Israel on official business in March 1983.

The implementation of these peculiar restrictions is inconsistent with the stated policy of maintaining a unified Jerusalem. Moreover, the practice itself appears full of contradictions; some officials travel freely throughout the city accompanied by Israeli officials, while others are forbidden by State Depart

ment rules from doing so for fear of admitting that united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

A further and even more problematic product of U.S. policy is the go-italone philosophy of the consulate in Jerusalem. The American Embassy in Tel Aviv and this consulate operate independently. The ambassador has no "official" role or status in Jerusalem, save that of dealing with the Government of Israel which happens to be located in Jerusalem. At Washington's instructions, "he can't even stamp a U.S. visa in Jerusalem." He controls neither the consulate's activities nor its reporting. All cables to Washington originating in Jerusalem are signed by the consul-even those concerning visits to the Israeli capital by high ranking U.S. officials. The absurdity of this practice is that it is the ambassador, not the consul, who usually participates in the meetings with Israeli leaders. 48

The net effect is that the United States speaks with two voices and often pursues two policies in Jerusalem. This divergence has long generated tensions between the embassy in Tel Aviv and the Jerusalem consulate. In 1980, the antagonism reached such heights that the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, Harold Saunders, was forced to intervene.49

In sum, U.S. policy toward Jerusalem is marked by a nostalgia for solutions whose time has passed or for situations that never existed. Israel has already fulfilled the conditions that the United States has proposed, namely a unified city in which there is free access to the holy places. Yet, for all intents and purposes in the State Department's mind, the Mandelbaum Gate, the concrete barriers, and the minefields still divide the city.

CHAPTER II:

Time to End an Anti-Israel Policy

American policy toward Jerusalem is a mess. It achieved this lamentable condition because for over three decades successive administrations have ignored one simple reality: Jerusalem is, has been, and always will be, the capital of Israel. This reality is not the product of mere politics or economic advantage. Jerusalem is the embodiment of Jewish history, the heart and soul of the Jewish people. They sanctified Jerusalem and they are responsible for its universal resonance. It is Judaism's birthplace and the central shrine of the faith. Ancient Israel's capital was Jerusalem as surely as modern Israel's capital remains Jerusalem. On no occasion in the intervening centuries of exile and dispersion did the Jewish people fail to make Jerusalem the focus of their national and religious yearning. The refrain "next year in Jerusalem" marks the end of Passover, the festival of national redemption, and closes the Yom Kippur service, the festival of personal redemption. The words of Psalm 137 "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget her cunning"-reflect this unparalleled attachment of the Jewish people to Jerusalem.

The city has had a Jewish majority for at least a century; today Jews constitute 72 percent of its population. 50 Israel has also paid dearly in lives for its defense of Jerusalem. In the War of Independence, the Haganah lost almost 2,000 men in defending the city against the attack by the Arab Legion.51 In the 1967 Six Day War, 299 men fell in the battle with Jordan which reunited the city. 52 Clearly, as long as Israel survives, it will have— and can have no other capital but Jerusalem.

Any hypothetical "solution" for Jerusalem-short of the physical destruction of the Jewish State-will not change a reality created by three thousand years of Jewish history. Some in the Arab world may dream of erasing this reality, but unless they succeed in physically dispossessing Israel of Jerusalem, they will not alter the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

Certainly, no Israeli government could agree to removing the nation's