There is no need to point out that Jerusalem also belongs spiritually to all Christians. There the voice of Christ was heard many times. The great events of the redemption, the passion, death and resurrection of the Lord, took place there. It was there that the first Christian community sprang up, and there has been, even if at times with great difficulty, a continuous ecclesiastical presence. Numerous shrines indicate the places connected with Christ's life and, ever since the beginnings of christianity, there has been a constant flow of pilgrims to them. In the picture of the world presented by Dante Alighieri in his Divina Commedia Jerusalem is seen as the centre of the earth.

At present all three communities, the Christian, the Jewish and the Moslem, are part of the Holy City's population and are closely linked with its life and sacred character. Each community is the "guardian" of its shrines and holy places. Jerusalem has a whole network of organizations, reception centres for pilgrims, educational and research institutes and welfare bodies. These organizations have great importance for the community they belong to and also for the followers of the same religion throughout the world.

In short, the history and contemporary reality of Jerusalem present a unique case of a city that is in itself deeply united by nature but is at the same time characterized by a closely intertwined religious plurality. Preservation of the treasures of the significance of Jerusalem requires that this plurality be recognized and safeguarded in a stable concrete manner and therefore publicly and juridically, so as to ensure for all three religions a level of parity, without any of them feeling subordinate with regard to the others.

The religious communities of Jerusalem and the international community

The three religious communities of Jerusalem, the Christian, the Jewish and the Moslem, are the primary subjects interested in the preservation of the sacred character of the city and should be partners in deciding their own future. No less than the monuments and holy places, the situation of these communities cannot fail to be a matter of concern for all. As regards the presence of the Christians, everyone is aware of the importance, both in the past and still today, not only of the Catholic community with its various rites, but also of the Greek Orthodox, the Armenian and the other eastern communities, not forgetting the Anglican groups and others springing from the Reformation.

In short, the Jerusalem question cannot be reduced to mere "free access for all to the holy places." Concretely it is also required: (1) that the overall character of Jerusalem as a sacred heritage shared by all three monotheistic religions be guaranteed by appropriate measures: (2) that the religious freedom in all its aspects be safeguarded for them; (3) that the complex of rights acquired by the various communities over the shrines and the centres for spirituality, study and welfare be protected; (4) that the continuance and development of religious, educational and social activity by each community be ensured; (5) that this be actuated with equality of treatment for all three religions; (6) that this be achieved through an "appropriate juridical safeguard" that does not derive from the will of only one of the parties interested.

This "juridical safeguard" corresponds, in substance, to the "special statute that the Holy See desires for Jerusalem: "this Holy City embodies interests and aspirations that are shared by different peoples". The very universalism of the three monotheistic religions, which constitute the faith of many hundreds of millions of believers in every continent, calls for a responsibility that goes well beyond the limits of the States of the regions. The significance and value of Jerusalem are such as to surpass the interests of any single State or bilateral agreements between one State and others.

Furthermore, the international community has already dealt with the Jerusalem question; for instance, UNESCO very recently made an important intervention with the aim of safeguarding the artistic and religious riches represented by Jerusalem as a whole, as the "common heritage of humanity".

THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION AND JERUSALEM

As early as its second session, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved on 29 November 1947 a resolution on Palestine of which the third part was devoted to Jerusalem. The resolution was confirmed in the next two sessions, on 11 December 1948 and 9 December 1949 while on 14 April 1950 the Trusteeship Council approved a "special statute" for the city on the basis of the As

sembly's decisions. The solution proposed by the United Nations envisaged the setting up of a "corpus separatum" for "Jerusalem and the surrounding area", administered by the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.

This "territorial internationalization" of Jerusalem was not of course put into effect, because in the 1948 conflict the Arab side occupied the eastern zone of the city and the Israeli side, the western. The position of the United Nations does not appear at least as yet to have been formally revoked. The General Assembly, as well as the Security Council, has repeatedly, beginning with the resolution of 4 July 1967, insisted on the invalidity of any measure taken to change the status of the city.

The Holy See considers the safeguarding of the Sacred and Universal character of Jerusalem to be of such primary importance as to require any Power that comes to exercise sovereignty over the Holy Land to assume the obligation, to the three religious confessions spread throughout the world, to protect not only the special character of the City, but also the rights connected, on the basis of an appropriate juridical system guaranteed by a higher international body.

HOPES FOR JERUSALEM

In his address to President Carter, the Holy Father referred to the fact that the question of Jerusalem "during these very days attracts the attention of the world in a special way".

The positions of the two sides on the question of sovereignty over Jerusalem are known to be very far apart; any unilateral act tending to modify the status of the Holy City would be very serious. The Holy Father's hope is that the representatives of the nations will keep in mind the "common monotheistic tradition of faith" and succeed in finding the historical and present day reality of Jerusalem reasons for softening the bitterness of confrontation and for promoting "harmony among all those who call upon God". The aim will be to ensure that Jerusalem will no longer be an object of contention but a place of encounter and brotherhood between the peoples and believers of the three religions and a pledge of friendship between the peoples who see in Jerusalem something that is part of their very soul.

Father HEHIR. There are six principles in that declaration, which I will not repeat, but two of them are of significance. They state, first, that the overall character of Jerusalem as a sacred heritage shared by all three monotheistic religions be guaranteed by appropriate measures; and, second, that among these appropriate measures there be an appropriate juridical safeguard that does not derive from the will of only one of the parties interested.

These six principles, of which the two I have mentioned are the most relevant to our discussion, form the basis for the U.S. Catholic Conference position on bill S. 2031.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that what we do in looking at this legislation is to step back and look at the place of Jerusalem in the Middle East as a whole. Of all the foreign policy issues that this country faces today, there are none that are more complicated than the Middle East.

The fusion of local conflict and systemic conflict is tighter than in any other place in the world. The fusion of religious loyalty and political choice is more complex, I submit, than any other place in the world.

We face here perhaps the most single complicated issue that U.S. foreign policy faces.

I submit that wise policy on the Middle East must have both a comprehensive view of a settlement in the region that is a regional settlement, and, second, a programmatic, incremental view of accomplishing that settlement step by step.

In essence, wise policy means that some issues must precede other issues in their settlement.

I suggest that the Jerusalem issue is so delicate and so complicated and so intertwined with the other questions that it ought to be close to the last issue we settle, rather than the first issue we settle.

In short, the preemptive move of this legislation will, I submit, be an obstacle to the achievement of other goals in the Middle East and an obstacle to a settlement in the region.

Therefore, it is because of both the special character of Jerusalem within the larger drama of the Middle East and because of this practical, pragmatic view of policy that some issues ought to precede others in wise policy, it is for these two reasons that the U.S. Catholic Conference opposes the content of S. 2031.

We find the proposal to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem at this time an unwise prescription for policy, one which is not in the interest of peace in the Middle East.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Father Hehir's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REV. J. BRYAN HEHIR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I testify on behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference (USCC), the public policy agency of the Catholic bishops of the United States. I am accompanied today by Msgr. John C. Nolan, Secretary of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association and President of the Pontifical Mission for Palestine.

The proposed legislation S. 2031 raises the question of the status of Jerusalem. This issue is always a highly sensitive one in the Middle East, in the State of Israel and here in the United States, because Jerusalem has a profound religious significance for the three great monotheistic faiths. In submitting this testimony the USCC wishes to be particularly sensitive to the delicate issues surrounding the Jerusalem question, not least of which are the strong and significant bonds which the Church in the United States has with the Jewish community. In spite of the delicacy of the issue, however, it is the conviction of the USCC that the content of S. 2031 will not be a helpful contribution at this time to U.S. policy in the Middle East and for this reason we oppose it on practical prudential grounds.

I. THE HOLY SEE AND JERUSALEM

On any question touching the status of Jerusalem the Catholic bishops of the United States are guided by the position of the Holy See. Both Pope John Paul II and his predecessor Pope Paul VI have set forth the Holy See's position on the Middle East as a whole and on the specific issue of Jerusalem. In 1973 Pope Paul VI spoke of his duty "to ensure that any possible solution touching the status of Jerusalem and the Holy Places in Palestine should take into account the exigencies of the special character of that city, unique in all the world, and of the rights and legitimate aspirations of those belonging to the three great monotheistic religions that have shrines in the Holy Land that are among those most precious and dear to their hearts." (Address to College of Cardinals, Dec. 22, 1973.)

In a meeting with President Carter on June 21, 1980, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Holy See's abiding interest in Jerusalem which "embodies interests and aspirations that are shared by different peoples in different ways." Following this meeting the Holy See submitted to the United Nations Security Council a statement of its position on Jerusalem and the Holy Places. Since this document, first published in the Osservatore Romano (June 30, 1980) sets forth the position of the Holy See in some detail, I request that it be submitted for the record of these hearings. The six core principles concerning Jerusalem are the following:

1. That the overall character of Jerusalem as a sacred heritage shared by all three monotheistic religions be guaranteed by appropriate measures;

2. That the religious freedom in all its aspects be safeguarded for them; 3. That the complex of rights acquired by the various communities over the shrines and centers for spirituality study and welfare be protected;

4. That the continuance and development of religious, educational and social activity by each community be ensured;

5. That this be actuated with equality of treatment for all three religions; 6. That this be achieved through an "appropriate juridical safeguard” that does not derive from the will of only one of the parties interested.

It is on the basis of this position of the Holy See that the USCC submits its specific views on the content of S. 2031.

II. THE MIDDLE EAST AND JERUSALEM

These hearings are not about the general question of Jerusalem but a specific aspect of U.S. policy. In addressing the issue of whether the U.S. Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem at this time, I suggest it is useful to step back and locate any such discussion in the broader context of the Middle East and U.S. objectives in that region.

Among all the problems of foreign policy, few are as complex as the Middle East. The relationship of local, regional and geopolitical factors is tightly interwoven. The fusion of religious loyalties and political choices is perhaps more intense than anywhere in the world. The obstacles to peace are daunting, the danger of war is great and the desire for a stable, just solution is universal. The current tragedy of Lebanon only intensifies the danger and difficulty of the present moment.

From the perspective of U.S. policy, the need in the Middle Fast is for a comprehensive solution in the region, but a specific strategy by which to move toward a comprehensive settlement. Such a specific strategy requires a sense of priority among issues-some steps must precede others in the making of wise policy.

The great delicacy of the Jerusalem question points decisively in the direction of addressing that question after other issues in the Middle East have found an agreeable settlement among the major parties in the Middle East. Preemptive moves which touch the status of Jerusalem only hinder an approach to the larger regional questions in the Middle East. Such moves endanger rather than enhance the pursuit of a peaceful solution.

III. U.S. POLICY AND S. 2031

It is because of the special character of Jerusalem within the larger drama of the Middle East and because of the perspective on the practical priorities of U.S. policy outlined above that the USCC opposes the content of S. 2031 on practical prudential grounds. In brief we find the proposal to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem at this time an unwise prescription for policy, one which is not in the interests of peace in the Middle East.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Father Hehir.

I have a couple of questions to which I would be very interested in getting your reactions. One is a very simple one, and I would start out with Bishop Walker.

If Jerusalem is not the capital, where do you consider to be the capital of Israel?

Bishop WALKER. I have always assumed, until very recently, that Tel Aviv was the capital. I also made the assumption that the settlement of Jerusalem would have to take place before any territories annexed as a result of the 1967 war would have any effect.

Therefore, it would seem to me, by whatever designation we have called Jerusalem, whether we refer to it as the capital of Israel or not, the settlement still has to be made. And that ought to be made, it seems to me, by conversations with all the people involved and not by a unilateral action on the part of Israel or any other government involved here.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sadd, what would your view be as to where the capital of Israel is?

Mr. SADD. My views have been that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Saunders?

Mr. SAUNDERS. First, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt, having worked with the Government of Israel at the seat of its government in West Jerusalem, where the working capital of the State of Israel is. Two Presidents of the United States, five Secretaries of State, and all Ambassadors have done business with the Government of Israel there.

But I don't think that is the issue. We are not talking about recognizing the capital of Israel. We are trying to make peace in the city where the capital of Israel has located itself. That is the issue.

I am afraid, once again, Mr. Chairman-and this is not to disagree with the fact of holding a hearing on an issue that has been presented to the Senate, that is not the issue-but, once again, the administration and the Senate are going to have a terrific debate over an issue which is not of central importance. As Father Bryan Hehir just said, there is a wisdom in putting issues in order in a negotiation. It is that wisdom that is being violated here.

The issue is peace between Israel and its neighbors. When peace is made between the people of Israel and the Palestinians and other Arabs around the City of Peace, I cannot believe that the war will continue in the City of Peace.

But you cannot negotiate an Arab-Israeli peace in the city of Jerusalem alone with all of its complex issues. Jerusalem must be placed later on the agenda when other issues are resolved.

So, the issue is not where the capital is. The issue is not what Senator Moynihan said, the uniqueness of not having an embassy where the capital of the state is. Let's just accept the fact that Jerusalem is unique. There is no other Jerusalem in this world and, therefore, there are no other arrangements for American Embassies in this world like it.

That is a fact. Let's accept it and let's go on and negotiate peace. Then there will be no problem about where the American Embassy is going to be.

Senator PELL. Just to carry that thought a step further, is it your view, then, that Jerusalem is the capital, but we should not recognize that fact until the peace negotiations have come to fruition?

Mr. SAUNDERS. As you know, Senator, the formal act of recognition is a delicate and symbolic political act. The fact that we do business with the Government of Israel in the place where it has established its capital in effect gives a de facto recognition, with a small "r," of the fact that that is the working capital of Israel.

I have no doubt where the working capital of Israel is. I have done enough business there to think that that is the capital of Israel.

But, the formal and symbolic act, as you in politics know better than the rest of us, is often more important than the working reality. The fact in this case, the high political fact, is that we have not settled the status of this city which is of undisputed importance to more than 1 billion people in the world.