This article addresses the same question that mine did about the US position on Jerusalem, but it is far superior because Tauber added greatly to the facts. By Ted Belman
The refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is actually a decades-old policy which bears no relation to peace negotiations.
Even if he hadn’t advocated moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney proved something that has vexed US spokespeople for decades: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and it’s no biggie to say so.
Romney accomplished this during his visit to Israel, stating on Sunday, “it is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.” This simple statement strongly contrasted with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s refusal last week to answer a reporter’s question regarding which city the US considers Israel’s capital. Carney only repeated “Our policy has not changed.” (Reporter: “Can you give us an answer? What do you recognize?” Carney: “Our position has not changed.”)
In March, a similarly comedic standoff took place with State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland who refused to state that Jerusalem was even part of Israel. (Reporter: “Is it the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?” Nuland: Well you know, our position on Jerusalem has not changed.”) This refusal to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel even includes Western Jerusalem, which has been part of Israel since 1948 and which served as Israel’s capital since 1950. This contradicts US President Barack Obama’s call for a solution in which Israel returns to the pre-’67 borders, whereby at least Western Jerusalem would remain part of Israel.
Much as it seems that some kind of speech disorder must be behind the official position, there is an alleged policy-rationale. According to that rationale the status of Jerusalem is something which should be determined by the parties in negotiations – and the US will not “prejudice the outcome of negotiations,” even if that means merely recognizing that Jerusalem is part of Israel.
This rationale does not make the position any less ridiculous. It makes it insulting. It rejects the threemillennia- old status of Jerusalem as the center of the Jewish people’s national-cultural-religious life and the center of the modern Jewish nationalist movement, which was named after Zion, i.e. Jerusalem, long before a Palestinian people was ever claimed to exist. Insult to national identity aside, it denies Israel’s sovereign right to choose its capital and further subjects that right to the veto of the Palestinian Authority.
What’s more infuriating is that the refusal to recognize Jerusalem is actually a decades-old policy which bears no relation to negotiations between the parties. According to a 1962 State Department memorandum, Israel’s establishment of Jerusalem as its capital in 1950 violated UN General Assembly resolutions and “the status of Jerusalem is a matter of United Nations concern and no member of the United Nations should take any action to prejudice the United Nations’ interest in this question.
The memo continues, stating that the US opposes the resolution of the issue through “fait accompli.”
The original decision against moving the US embassy to Jerusalem may be even more untenable. According to State Department papers released in 1983 (“Foreign Relations of the United States 1952- 1954,” Vol. V), on July 16, 1953, four days after Israel’s Foreign Ministry moved its offices to Jerusalem, Secretary of State John Dulles met with British Acting Foreign Secretary Lord Salisbury.
During the meeting Dulles explained, “We do not intend to move our embassy to Jerusalem and we will probably wait for Israeli officials to come to our embassy rather than send embassy representatives to Jerusalem for the conduct of business,” reasoning “after all we [are] considerably more important to them than they to us.”
More outrageous is the 1962 memo’s revelation that the US lobbied other countries against establishing embassies in Jerusalem. It stated that “when the Department learns that a government for the first time is contemplating the establishment of a diplomatic mission in Israel, we inform that government of the historical background of United Nations’ attitudes toward Jerusalem and express the hope that, in deference to United Nations’ attitudes, its mission will be established in Tel Aviv, where most other missions are located.”
Presumably, the sanctity of the UN rationale remained at least until the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, when the concept of a negotiated settlement with the PLO became acceptable.
The swapping of policy rationales betrays the fact that the true rationale is probably not about the UN, a just settlement, or international law – but some other goal, such as appeasing the Arabs or reining in perceived Israeli unilateralism.
Even accepting the stated rationale as sincere, the policy is still counterproductive.
By shielding negotiations from long-established facts on the ground, the US in effect encourages the Palestinians to take extreme positions which lack any basis in reality. This in turn makes a final-status agreement between the parties less likely to be achieved.
This was the Obama administration’s mistake in demanding a settlement freeze even in major settlement blocs which no one seriously envisions being destroyed. By PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s own account, Obama’s call for a full freeze led Abbas to make such a freeze a precondition to Palestinian participation in negotiations.
Thus the 10-month freeze, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “unprecedented,” created a new precedent for Palestinian demands.
Furthermore, treating negotiations as if they were taking place in 1947-49 prejudices the outcome of those negotiations, enabling the Palestinians to act as if (and even believe that) Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, or part thereof, is something which can be undone or which Israel should have to pay for in the final-status agreement.
This goes for other unrealistic positions on the right of return, Israel’s Jewish character or settlements.
In reality, the existence of major Jewish population blocs in Judea and Samaria, the inability of the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees to immigrate to Israel, Israel’s existence as a Jewish state and Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem are accomplished facts whether or not the Palestinians, the US or the UN recognize them, or whether a final-status agreement is ever concluded.
The sooner this reality is recognized, the sooner a just and lasting peace can be achieved.
Daniel Tauber is director of Likud Anglos.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=279577
@ Commentator:
That statement is blatant stereotyping like saying all Jews are good businessmen or Jews are good with money etc.
Mormons might be good administrators but to base that opinion on one Mormon “Benson”, and I’ll take your word for it that he was a Mormon and a good administrator, does that mean that non Mormons are bad or worse administrators?
The Embassy Law passed both houses by wide margins and it was bipartisan. A president can veto a Law but once passed must obey the law. Dole (Republican) the one who inserted the presidential waver. It would have passed without it and left to the president to veto the bill which theoretically could have been overridden. (Not very good political move by any president).
In the American system the congress makes and passes Laws and only the Supreme Court is empowered to declare what is or isn’t constitutional. This Law was never brought before the court.
Romney showed his true colors on this issue.
For those unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution, my comment about budgetary pressure being the only way Congress can pressure the President applies, of course, to matters of Foreign Policy. In most other areas It is Congress that makes the law.
@ Commentator:
Let’s get real. Congress can only pressure the Administration through budgetary means. The Constitution gives the President foreign policy power; Congress only has “oversight”– translation: they get to watch and express opinion. That’s why there’s the waiver in the Embassy law about Jerusalem. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional. I don’t like it, but it’s U.S. law.
The only way the U.S. can move the embassy is if the President wants to. Like any good politician, Romney’s being ambiguous about that until after the election. For what he might do we could look to Mormon theology about Jerusalem, which believes it is the capital of the Jews. And Mormons are good administrators; one of the best Secretaries of Agriculture we ever had was Ezra Taft Benson, a Mormon “elder”.
Nigel Shaw Said:
There is a legal princciple in what you say where treaties and agreements are ended becuase basically “things have changed”. certainly Israel has an opportunity to not only repudiate Oslo but every other agreement which contradicts the original Balfour declaration. without a doubt UNGA 181(partition) and UNSC 242 (land for peace). Regarding Oslo they probably dont want the expense of supporting the pals and dont have the courage for transfer as was done to the Jews.
Ever since the much heralded Camp David Accords, Israel has conceded to the concept of peace negotiations.
Agreeing to negotiations, imply that Israel is willing to compromise and give up something in order to achieve the chimera of some hoped for state of peace.
Not only the left wing, but also Likud, have become wedded to this suicidal mindset.
The current impasse and so-called breakdown in negotiations with the mythical Palestinian people, which fortunately has been brought about by Obama’s ineptness and ill-will towards the Jewish state, has presented Israel with the ideal opportunity to declare the Oslo Accords a dead duck, due to continual Palestinian rocket attacks, and the realization that peace will never come from a people who 20 years after the “White House Handshake”, inculcate their children with vile anti-semitic material, continually programming them to crave to murder Jews.
To effect the breaking of the international stranglehold, which diplomtically obligates Israel to eventually disappear, called “the Peace Process”, Israel has the simplest of means at its disposal – ANNEXE JUDEA AND SAMARIA!
The only peace that will be durable, is when our neighbours recognize and acknowledge that Israel is here to stay, and it is to their advantage not to be Israel’s enemy, rather its friend.
Hell freezes over? We can wait.
By marginalizing G-d to the realm of the “religious”, Israel loses the cogency of its arguement as to why Jerusalem, as the Holy City, the place of the Holy Temple is and has been Israel’s capital since the days of King David. We only need to refer to the book of Kings in the Torah to find the deeds.
To talk about the status of Jerusalem being dependant on political negotiations or contingent on international agreements is absurd and totally pointless.
For the country that has as its motto, “In G-d We Trust”, it appears the Americans are having a pretty hard time in the trusting department.
@ Canadian Otter:
There is no logical reason for any Israeli PM even Barak and Rabin to oppose recognition of Jerusalem as Israels capital by the Americans and moving the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem unless the carrot and big stick approach was invoked by the American Administrations.
That Israeli Governments have been accomplices in this farce is only one of many such cowardly even treasonous decisions and capitulations since even before the creation of the State. That said, why should congress be deterred from doing what is right simply because they have no overt green light from Jerusalem?
There are many indirect methods of transmitting messages other than public declarations. No, congress in this instance has it both ways. Appearance of being pro Israel, but legislating built in out clauses making the Law and other resolutions empty of any real actionable power to impose it’s own stipulated will on the executive.
Israel’s fear of asserting its rights has worked to its adversaries’ advantage.
Here are some excerpts of a 2012 column by Yoram Ettinger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you see, Israeli leaders – under pressure perhaps – have undermined Congress’ strong support for Jerusalem. And they many continue to do so.
And that’s the first obstacle that Israelis need to overcome: the Israeli government’s submissiveness to the State Department and to the leftist agenda.
There is a possibility that Romney could have gone as far as to promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but was prevented from doing so by the Israeli government itself, mindful of the State Department’s script.
Anyway, for a US candidate to state that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital means close to nothing unless it is accompanied by a solemn commitment to move the US embassy there.
Otherwise that statement could again get tangled up in semantics, just as it happened with Obama’s earlier support for an “undivided Jerusalem”.
Remember?
Obama in 2008:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Romney in 2012:
“JERUSALEM IS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.” …. Donations this way, please…
– Will you move the US embassy there, if elected, Mr Romney?
– Hmmm, no, well, we’ll see….
Israel can demand it but I think the world would cut off diplomatic relations with Israel before it moves its embassies to Jerusalem.
After all, there are more Arabs than Jews in the Middle East, they have the oil and no one wants to offend them.
I don’t see foreign embassies in Jerusalem in this century.
How long before Israel finally recognizes this reality and demands that all embassies relocate or leave the country?