12

Friday, March 23, 1984

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

JERUSAL

A city divided
By U.S. policy

BY SARA M. AVERICK
Editor's note: Israel is the
only country in the world in
which the U.S. embassy is
located outside the capital
city. The following is an ex-
cerpt from a monograph
published by the American
Israel Public Affairs Com-
mittee showing how this
strange arrangement came
about and offering reasons
why now is the time for a
solution.
This brief historical ac-
count reveals a policy rid-
dled with contradictions, a
policy which from its very
inception never corre-
sponded with Jerusalem's
changing reality, a policy in
need of change.
The development of
America's Jerusalem policy
can be divided into three
stages. The first stage dates
from 1947, when the United
States became deeply in-
volved in United Nations
deliberations over the fu-
ture of what remained of the
Palestine Mandate. It ended
on June 7, 1967, when the
Israel Defense Forces re-
united Jerusalem. This
period was characterized by
an unbending commitment
to an internationalized
Jerusalem and a refusal to
recognie the partition of
the city between Israel and
Jordan.
The second stage lasted
from the reunification of the
city in June 1967 through
the remaining 18 months of
the Johnson Administra-
tion. Washington continued
to oppose any unilateral
changes in the status of
Jerusalem (partition or un-
ification under one sover-
eign) and stressed that
Jerusalem's status be re-
solved through negotiations
by all concerned parties.
During this period, the
United States also
enunciated its conditions
for any future solution:
Jerusalem should never
again be divided and free
access to the holy places for
people of all religions would
have to be granted.
Ambassador Charles
Yost initiated the third and
current stage in a July 1969
speech to the UN General
Assembly. This policy dif-
fers markedly from the
previous stages. In addition
to reaffirming America's
commitment to a unified
Jerusalem whose status is
subject to negotiations, it
proclaims that the U.S. re-
gards east Jerusalem to be
occupied territory.
It
thereby implicitly concedes
United States recognition of
the armistice demarcation
line of 1949 as a legal boun-
dary dividing the holy city.
Paradoxically, Jordanian
sovereignty over east
Jerusalem, which the U.S.

Sara Averick is a Mideast
analyst for the American
Israel Public Affairs
Committee in Washington

refused to recognize while
the Hashemite Kingdom
occupied the area, was im-
plicitly accepted retroac-
tively after Jordan no
longer controlled it.
Through all three stages
there has been a noticeable
gap between American pol-
icy toward the status of
Jerusalem and on-the-
ground reality in the city.

•

The contradictions are
manifold. The United
States does not recognize
Jerusalem as Israel's capi-
tal and yet in reality and in
law Israel has never had
any other capital but
Jerusalem.
The United States does
not recognize Israel's sover-
eignty even over the west-
ern sector of Jerusalem
which in reality Israel has
controlled since its estab-
lishment. Yet, once the
eastern sector came under
Israeli control, the U.S. im-
plicitly and post facto recog-
nized Jordanian sover-
eignty over that sector even
though the U.S. had refused
to legitimize Jordan's rule
when the eastern sector was
officially under Jordanian

For 35 years the U.S.
has maintained a
policy at odds with
reality, lacking in
logic and
consistency.

control from 1948 to 1967.
The United States main-
tains its embassy in Tel
Aviv even though in reality,
Jerusalem is Israel's ad-
ministrative center, hous-
ing the offices of the prime
minister, the president, the
Foreign Ministry and the
Knesset. In no other coun-
try is the American Em-
bassy located outside the
administrative capital.
Even the American Em-
bassy to the German Demo-
cratic Republic is located in
East Berlin although the
United States does not rec-
ognize 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 U.S.
voted against a resolution
calling for internationaliza-
tion. Since 1967, the U.S.
has expressed support for
the principle of a unified
Jerusalem but has refused
to acknowledge the reality
that the city is already un-
ified. By declaring east
Jerusalem "occupied terri-
tory," the United States is
effectively calling for the
redivision of Jerusalem
while at the same time ex-
pressing support for unifi-
cation.

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 main-
tained a policy at odds with
reality and therefore a pol-
icy that lacks logic and con-
sistency. In this time, the
U.S. has always had a
choice between what is
practical and preferred and
what is acceptable to the
Arabs. In effect, the un-
willingness of the Arabs to
accept reality has been
allowed to prevent the U.S.
from doing so. The practical
result is a series of absur-
dities.
For example, in recent
editions of the State De-
partment's schedule of sites
for the U.S. 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.
Although the United
States has insisted that the
city be undivided, many
American officials are pre-
vented by the State De-
partment from visiting the
eastern part of the city ac-
companied by an Israeli of-
ficial. Former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger said
during a tour of the old city
following Golda Meir's fun-
eral in December 1978, "I've
been to Jerusalem 50 times
and I could never come here.
The American policy bar-
ring official visits to the
Arab sector of Jerusalem
should be reconsidered."
In October 1977, when
Secretary of the Treasury
Michael Blumenthal was in
Jerusalem on official busi-
ness, the American Em-
bassy insisted that
Jerusalem's mayor, Teddy
Kollek, could take him only
to west Jerusalem and not
to the eastern part of the
city. Former Attorney Gen-
eral Griffen Bell was not
permitted to meet his coun-
terpart in his East
Jerusalem office during a
1977 visit. When Secretary
of Defense Harold Brown
was in Israel on an official

visit, he was accompanied to
the Western Wall by the
U.S. consul-general in
Jerusalem. The Israeli mili-
tary escort attached to
Brown's party and other Is-
raeli officials who had been
accompanying him did not
go with him to the old city.

When Vice President
Walter Mondale visited
Jerusalem in 1978, he was
advised by State Depart-
ment officials not to include
the old city in his itinerary.
Mondale reminded the offi-
cials that Sadat had made
such a stop during his re-
cent visit, and indicated his
own intention to do so as
well. As Vice President, he
also overruled State De-
partment advice not to fly
the American flag on his of-
ficial car during the visit to
East Jerusalem.

Reagan Administration
policy has also been incon-
sistent. Deputy assistant to
the attorney general, Mark
Richards, returned to the
United States rather than
meet with Israel's Attorney
General Yitzhak Zamir in
his East Jerusalem office.
But Defense Secretary Cas-
par Weinberger toured
throughout Jerusalem, old
and new, with Mayor Kol-
lek in August 1982. U.S.
Ambassador to the United

Nations Jeane 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 contradic-
tions; some officials travel
freely throughout the city
accompanied by Israeli offi-
cials, while others are for-
bidden by State Depart-
ment rules from doing so for
fear of admitting that
united Jerusalem is the cap-
ital of Israel.
A further and even more
problematic product of U.S.
policy is the go-it-alone phi-
losophy of the consulate in
Jerusalem. The American
Embassy in Tel Aviv and
this consulate operate inde-
pendently. The ambassador
has no "official" rule or
status in Jerusalem, save
that of dealing with the
government of Israel which
happens to be located in
Jerusalem. At Washing-
ton's instructions, "he can't
even stamp a U.S. visa in
Jerusalem." He controls
neither the consulate's ac-
tivities 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.
The net effect is that the
United States speaks with
two voices and often pur-
sues two policies in
Jerusalem. This divergence
has long generated tensions
between the embassy in Tel
Aviv and the Jerusalem
consulate. In 1980, the an-
tagonism reached such
heights that the assistant
secretary of state for Near
East affairs, Harold Saun-
vd ee n
rse,. was forced to inter-

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 al-
ready fulfilled the condi-
tions that the United States
has proposed, namely a un-
ified 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 con-
crete barriers, and the
minefields still divide the
city.

Congress looks at embassy

Secretary of State George Shultz told a Washington press conference this week
that moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be "damaging" to
U.S. interests.
Those sentiments are not shared by a growing group of Congressen. Thirty-
seven Senators, including Michigan's Carl Levin, have signed a bill sponsored by
Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) which would require the U.S. to move the embassy
at an unspecified date.
Michigan's other Senator, Donald Riegle, has yet to take a position on the
issue.
Hearings on the Moynihan bill were held Feb. 23 and Sen. Charles Pervy
(R-Ill.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has indicated that
he will schedule an additional day of hearings.
In the House, 202 Representatives have signed a companion bill to the Senate
legislation. Rep. William S. Broomfield of Birmingham, the ranking Republican on
the House Foreign Affairs Committee told The Jewish News this week that he is
leaning toward supporting the legislation.
Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, in two sepa-
rate statements over the weekend, affirmed that he would move the American
Embassy in Israel after Mideast negotiations. He repeated this stand in a televised
debate with former Vice President Walter Mondale and the Rev. Jesse Jackson on
Sunday night before Tuesday's primary election.
Mondale also backed moving the embassy, while Jackson called for new
negotiations to settle all Middle East issues.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
criticized Hart for taking the same stance as the Reagan Administration. "We
believe that moving the American Embassy will encourage the negotiations Sen.
Hart envisions," the conference said.

