How the U.S. Government Should Deal With the Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital Issue
Yet it is not true that any agreement precludes a simple alternative for U.S. policy that nobody has ever noticed or discussed: there is absolutely nothing to prevent the United States from accepting west Jerusalem, pre-1967 Jerusalem as capital of Israel while maintaining that the status of east Jerusalem is to be determined by future negotiations. The U.S. embassy could be moved to west Jerusalem, with the existing U.S. consulate there continuing to serve east Jerusalem and the West Bank, which means also dealing with the Palestinian Authority.
To be completely honest, such a move would provoke anti-Americanism in Arab and Muslim countries and it would be distorted by radicals, some of whom have been helped into power by the Obama administration. It is possible that U.S. embassies would be attacked. One should not gloss over that fact. Yet so many pretexts are found on a regular basis to do such things, a new decision on Jerusalem would be only one of many.
But keep in mind that the Palestinian Authority/Fatah position has been, for almost twenty years, that they are claiming all of east Jerusalem — everything captured by Israel in 1967 — but not west Jerusalem. Thus, moving the embassy to west Jerusalem would not conflict with Palestinian demands. It could even be coupled with a statement that the U.S. government believes that while the two sides must negotiate, it views with favor a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.
At times, the White House and State Department spokespeople don’t seem to be aware of current U.S. policy on Jerusalem and the basis of it. There is no question that Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The only real issue are its precise boundaries, to be determined by negotiations.
There is a reasonable alternative to a policy that is about 65 years out of date. Recognize Jerusalem — that is, the Jerusalem that the United States and everyone else already recognizes as part of Israel — as Israel’s capital. That’s an option America’s next president might seriously consider.
Barry, it will never happen.
Entrenched anti-Semitism drives State Department policy and also no US President is going to offend Arabs and Muslims – of whom there are far more than there are Jews. That is simple reality.
Israel is never going to relinquish any part of Jerusalem.
Put both of those facts together, the status quo will continue for a long time because any change would impact on US interests. American policy on Jerusalem could have been changed decades ago but if it didn’t happen then, its never going to happen.
Aside from the Executive Branch’s total non-compliance with a 1995 Congressional order, to move the embassy to its rightful home in Jerusalem, the Radical-in-Chief surpasses all the rest when it comes to the Jewish capital. All their excuses not to move it never passed the smell test, but his animus is visceral.
In fact, I wrote a commentary on this very issue yesterday, having gotten confirmation from a trusted source on a story which was recently posted.
Clearly, I wanted to double check all the facts.
It can be found at my blog – http://www.adinakutnicki.com , it is called ‘Barack Hussein Obama’s Jerusalem Obsession…More Than Meets The Eye…Verified By A Trusted Contact Too’.
I am not sure what it will take for the US to finally ! abide by Israel’s rights as a free nation, but I suspect it will be earth shattering for them to do so.
http://www.think-israel.org/duke.gauthierjerusalem.html
I hope everyone who read Rubin’s article reads the linked article you have posted. I wish it was required reading at the UN and in the Obama Administration, and especially in the Arab world. I have read many articles and books about the middle east and the conflicts therein and was never aware of this legal document and precident of San Remo from 1920. It would appear that some parties would like to forget it’s existence as well.
You do realize that no one cares about San Remo as it has been superseded for about 70 years and all the powers that signed it have either been swept into the dustbin of history or have been so radically transformed from what they were then to be virtually unrecognizable so give me a break: you’re not getting Jordan too
So, Thomas, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the United States, Britain, Italy and France have all been “swept into the dustbin of history”?
Hmmm. I may have to grant you that point with regards to Italy….
You need to distinguish between legal rights and the politics surrounding the Middle East. Legally speaking, treaties remain in legal effect unless the parties amend it. The San Remo treaties all fall into this category. Unlike the Mandates for Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, the Palestine Mandate remains valid in terms of international law. That Britain may have violated it during the Mandate period cannot diminish the rights of the beneficiaries as in international law there is really no viable remedy for breaches of agreements without the consent of the breaching party. So, the rights of Jews to closely settle the land should be secure as a matter of international law. But you are really speaking in abstractions here. Politics and diplomacy are pushing matters on the ground. That is why there seems to be a disconnect between the two realms, and that is why, to anyone knowledgeable of the history of the area, linguistic distortions are the order of the day. Under the terms of San Remo, you cannot legitimately speak of Israel “occupying” Judea and Samaria (which terms were replaced by Transjordan with West Bank in 1950). However, in politics, you can say what you want, so that is why we get claims of “occupied” rather than the more accurate “disputed” territories – and I won’t even bother with the wholesale degradation of otherwise important concepts of “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing” and the like. The bottom line is that you can argue that the San Remo treaties were unfair and explain why, but you should not argue as if they never existed or are somehow no longer valid. Granted, that makes the anti-Israeli position more difficult to sustain, but then territorial disputes abound around the world and some do get resolved if both sides are willing. I would be interested in hearing anyone list the concessions made by the PA and Hamas toward reaching any agreement with Israel. That might be a good indicator of whether of how close we are to a peaceful resolution.
Strangely, in Israel the anti-settlement people call the territories “captured”, which in the US is a pro-settlement term. Similarly, the pro-settlement people in Israel call them “settlements” and “Settlers” – in fact, on forms in Israel, “settlement (yishuv)” appears where on an Ameican form “city” would. In the US, these are anti-settlement terms. (The anti- term in Israel is Hitlachluyot, which I do not know how to translate.)
By implication, the U.S. and other governments recognize a Palestinian right to a capital in Jerusalem but not an Israeli one. This is bizarre.
Three religions have claims to Jerusalem. Of these, Judaism is the original. (Generalised) Islam has repeatedly desecrated Jewish sites and denied Jews access to them in a pattern that continues. (Generalised) Christianity has stood by with its hands in its pockets, not even mounting a defence when its own institutions and people are attacked; more often some of its adherents deflect blame onto Israel.
(Generalised) Judaism has facilitated access for all three religions except for favouring Islam by complying with “no-Jews” and “Muslims only” rules at certain sites.
The Jews have it. All in favour say “AYE.”
Aye!
I don’t see how Christianity has a “claim to” Jerusalem.
An <binterest in certainly, but not a claim to ownership.
Fair enough Mark V; if they did claim the whole thing, it would be more legitimate than the Islamic claim and less valid than the Jewish one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Jerusalem
Yet the Vatican has been one of the big proponents of the internationalization of Jerusalem. Some of this is related to protecting Christians in Arab dictatorships, but another reason, which over time I have begun to credit, appears to be theorlogical.
That is, that the Vatican believes that a non-cringing Jewish people is a direct contradiction to Christianity. (The parable of the fig tree, I suppose.) When Israel was declared, grabbed onto the fact that they did not hold Jerusalem. (Note that many Evangelicals hold the exact opposite position.)
The State dept flacks will never give up their ” post retirement” consultancies paid for by Saudi petrodollars. So it is unlikely we will see either candidate move the embassy. If the Jews want to see the Kotel remain intact they should not give control of the area to the Muslims. we know what they do no nonmuslim sites of veneration. Hell, we’re seeing what they do to non salafist sites (timbuktu).
The problem is that the Palestinians only say they want East Jerusalem (not that there is such a thing). Yet everything else they say – accusing Israel of “Judeazing Jerusalem” (as if that’s even possible), complaining about every brick Israel even thinks about laying – and everything they do demonstrates quite clearly that their ambitions do not stop with the eastern part of the city. They’ve made it very obvious that they want it all. And they have no intention of stopping at Jerusalem.
If they only want East Jerusalem, then what’s the problem with a US embassy in West Jerusalem, where all the Israeli government buildings are? Unless they have designs on West Jerusalem, I don’t see the basis for an objection.
The conclusion is the the U.S. (executive branch) position is more anti-Israel than that of the PA. In the case of the Foreign Service, I can believe it.
If Professor had been King Solomon he would have split teh bay in two. A city divided against itself shall not stand.
I wonder how many Americans know that a victory mosque sits atop the Temple at which Christianity was born? One tenth of one percent, maybe.
We can leave the capital of Israel question to the Jews there, yes. But the Moslem question, which much bigger and more fatal, must be taken up by all Inifdels, including all Jews, for that question demands an anser. While we avoid that question for now, sooner or later the Moslems will force it upon all civilized peoples, including the Jews, for a final answer.
You forget that fairly recent issue of Temple denial, which the world treats as if it were merely some anti-Jewish rhetoric. In fact, if the Temple were never in Jerusalem as the Arabs now claim, then the Gospels are all, at best, geographically fraudulent in their rendition of the ministry of Jesus. Where was the Temple from whose courtyard he chased the money-lenders actually located according to the Arabs? To date, I have never heard any Christian group protest against this frontal attack on the very foundation story of their faith. Perhaps the Vatican can denounce this fraud or is its silence the price it feels it still must pay to safeguard the Catholics living in Muslim lands.
To date, I have never heard any Christian group protest against this frontal attack on the very foundation story of their faith.
You’re right that nobody has ever question why the al Asque mosque was built atop Temple Mount, at least that I’m aware of. However, as I recall, when the flap arose over the excavations there over the last ten years, one or two Christian groups did dare to dispute assertions made by Moslems in the argument.
Without raising the painfully obvious question of why they built a mosque atop the Temple Mount, of course. There would be no good answer for that, but plenty of room for taking offense and raising violence, the two things Moslems do quite well.
Barry, you write: “Presidents have repeatedly promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but have never made the tiniest move toward doing so.” I would rather put it this way: In 1995, the US congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act requiring that the United States move its embassy to Jerusalem by May 1999. President Clinton and his successors Bush and Obama have PREVENTED that by signing “security waivers” (every six months) which delay the move on “security grounds”. As soon as America elects a president who does not ACTIVELY OPPOSE the move, it will happen AUTOMATICALLY.
Good Sir Rubin, that was a masterpiece of understatement!
Perhaps, after this regional war goes global, the peace that is attained brings a Third Jewish Temple, and the US Embassy is moved to Jerusalem.
Why should we let them?
I long for the day when we are so independent of Middle East oil we can tell the Saudis and every barbaric Muslim theocracy in that part of the world to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut.
Gov. Romney was right on the money when he said he knows where the capital of Israel lies, and so do I. It’s a shame the terrorist suckups in the State Dept. don’t have a clue. Foggy Bottom indeed.
“I long for the day when we are so independent of Middle East oil we can tell the Saudis and every barbaric Muslim theocracy in that part of the world to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut”
This is the congnizent sentence in the article and posts.
Everyone on PJM dances around the subject and for some reason PJM writers are terrified to state the truth; Saudi Arabia is the worlds funding source of terrorism, Promotion of Sharia Law and Islamic fundamental movements such as Muslim Brotherhood.
Israel and USA have chosen to partner with Saudi Arabia, and from this stem much of today’s problems.
How has Israel partnered with Saudi Arabia? To this day they are still offcially at war with us.
When a people decides to make war on their neighbor, and lose, they must pay a price. Except if one of the combatants is Israel. Then, the rules of war don’t apply. Usually, the victor dictates terms to the vanqished. Not in the Middle East. Here the losers dictate terms to the winners with the assistance of outside powers. This pattern has led to chronic stability. So durining the next war, and of course there will be another war, the Israelis should crush their opponents, despite the objections to outside interests notwithstanding.
The real reason is more sinister. Not only is East Jerusalem on the table, but West Jerusalem is as well. The Palestinians want all of Jerusalem, and the State Dept wants to give it to them. Our entire State Dept could be replaced with the Geico lizard and it would be an improvement
To a great extent the vicious and historically bloody subject of Jerusalem will continue as an armed truce between categorically unyielding Islam, whatever they may say in English, and the historical Jewish outright physical ownership and moral ownership of Jerusalem and its environs. The Temple Mount was only forcefully occupied by those marauding Arabs of…what?..the 7th Cent? C.E…..that’s very, very late in Jerusalem’s Jewish recorded History. They Arabs know that…..the Arabs simply can’t help being an irritant everywhere they settle.
These contemporary Arabs are mere nouveau arrivistes squatters upon the scene.
Hence, our State Department is simply unqualified for many, many reasons to interfere and meddle. They’re in a very real sense nouveau arrivistes themselves…..one can’t tell them that tho’.
It’s very unseemly-smug for anyone at State to think that they can overwrite History. That’s saying that they won’t stop trying; they can’t….they’ll just continue to be spinning their wheels. They’re not as clever over there at State as they think they are….never have been.
“Diplomacy” is so very 19th Cent. striped-pants-and-clattering-tea-cups. They like that at State.
….re: Mr Rubin’s, ……”it views with favor a ….” towards the end of his thoughtful article here,
……oh, my!…..Yikes!….where’ve we heard that phrase before?
Two important “facts on the ground”:
1) While the previous US Consulate building was located on Nablus Road north of Damascus Gate (which, between 1948 & 1967 was controlled by Jordan), the *new* US Consulate Building in Jerusalem is located WEST of the “Kav Ironi” (the city line) which was the cease-fire line between Israel & Jordan 1948-1967, in the neighborhood of Arnona.
What is significant about that is that the Consulate is NOT officially connected with the US Embassy in Tel Aviv but is the facility connected to the Jerusalem-based US Consulate General, who is the official USA diplomatic representative to the PA (with ambassadorial status, reporting directly to the Secretary of State). That American citizens are granted services there is simply a courtesy so that we don’t have to travel to Tel Aviv.
Whether this recognizes the western part of Jerusalem as Israeli or as part of a future “palestinian” capital has not been announced officially by the State Dept., but many of us believe it implies the latter, given the State Dept.’s affinity for all things “PA”.
For more on this policy, see https://www.facebook.com/USConGenJerusalem which documents the US Consulate’s work for “palestinians” but never for Israelis (including Israelis who reside in Judaea & Samaria).
2) The plot of land that long ago was designated for the Embassy of the USA is also WEST of the Kav Ironi, fronting on Derech Hevron. It is beside a large, new apartment development area but remains empty.
Being no authority at all on the arcane aspects of “diplomatic representation” in country,I only remember and comment from living in British Hong Kong for several years as an airline employee that we had a rather large “Consulate General” there during the 1960′s, and some sort of “Public Affairs Office” in Taipei, while having an “Embassy” in London. I can’t remember what we had in Beijing; if an Embassy was there then, it seems we couldn’t “recognize” “The Republic of China” on the island called Taiwan and also at the same time the “Peoples Republic of China” on what we then called “the Mainland”.
There is a parallel of a sort here with this troublesome “Palistinian entity” alongside the State of Israel.
All of this can get very murky-cloudy for the un-initiated, but I remember we were very particular working at Kai Tak airport about “Hong Kong Certificates of Identity” for the Chinese residents there who were not permitted to have British Passports, except in most unusual circumstances; Taiwan travel documents weren’t recognized in Hong Kong, and only a few other destinations.
Chinese traveling between Taiwan and Hong Kong generally did so as legal citizens of some other country.
This only slightly off-topic labyrinth is offered here as an explanation of my posting elsewhere that the “travel documents” in anyone’s possession at any one time is not necessarily evidence of their national loyalty. This, in turn, is why I give little or no credence to the loyalty of resident Muslims inside America traveling on United States Passports. I see these as “travel papers of convenience” for Muslims whose inherent loyalty is to Islam only.
These are complicated times, and this is why the C.A.I.R. is so strident in America.
Still, we must be very careful, as any slight misstep is seized upon by the Muslims and used in “lawfare”.
So, dear Readers, you’re in large company if frustrated by this “recognition” problem.
Are you now allowed to use the embassy? I recall when US residents of Jerusalem were required to use the Counselate.
Just got my tax forms from the IRS. Yay.
The PA claims their capitol will be in Jerusalem, and conveniently ignored the “East” Jerusalem reference for some time, because that is their REAL goal.
If Obama had “the balls” with which to act, (rather than Hillary), recognition of Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel would happen overnight.
It would, of course, not solve the problems for Americans here, who have to make this stupied differentiation between Jerusalem and ISrael when delaing with the US government. If a baby is born in Ramot (lots of Americans there), which straddles the line, would they need to take a map printout to the embassy to have it add “Israel” to place of birth in the passport? What if they were born on the line itself; it’s pretty thick?
Israel would have an issue, depending on the phrasing, because this would recognize the division of Jerusalem.
Do you guys know that in the treasury exchange rates, Jerusalem has its own currency?
-
%
Muslims should not be allowed in Jerusalem or Israel,
the Illusion of the “West Bank” should automatically be converted to Israel,
Israel needs to be contiguous
Arabs and muslims could be allowed by Jewish or Christian Israelis a work permit to work in or near Israel.
Arabs working in Israel will not be paid cash.
!