An American Policy for Jerusalem
It should be the fundamental position of the U.S. Government that the Government of Israel is the only legitimate body for making security decisions about the borders of the State of Israel. Contrary to the beliefs of some and the preferences of others, the United States must decline to tell the Government of Israel that any particular territory should be ceded in negotiations. This applies especially to Jerusalem.
It should be the fundamental position of the U.S. Government that the Government of Israel is the only legitimate body for making security decisions about the borders of the State of Israel. Contrary to the beliefs of some and the preferences of others, the United States must decline to tell the Government of Israel that any particular territory should be ceded in negotiations. This applies especially to Jerusalem.
The PLO’s desire to put its capital in a city Jerusalem that was never the seat of any Arab government and which already is the sovereign and historic capital of another state and another people – the Jewish people – is unlike other territory-related issue.
The Administration should not only NOT suggest, but should vehemently oppose any effort to redivide Jerusalem as a matter of interest to the United States.
The importance of the unification of Jerusalem in 1967 is not nationalist or even primarily religious. It is practical. Judaism does not require sovereign control over sites in order for them to be holy. But as experience with Jordanian control of the Old City, and PLO/PA control of Joseph’s Tomb and the Jericho synagogue indicate, Jews require sovereign control over sites in order for them to be accessible to Jews.
There is history here. Israel agreed once before to set issues of sovereignty aside and rely on someone else’s good will to protect Jewish interests in Jerusalem. The 1947 UN partition plan made Jerusalem “corpus separatum.” Sovereignty would be vested in an international body with civil and religious rights, including Jewish civil and religious rights, guaranteed by the rest of the world. Jerusalem would be an “open city” exempt from the plague of nationalism. In 1948, the Arab Legion invaded it, exiled the Jews from the eastern half, destroyed as much Jewish patrimony as they could get away with (and that was a lot) and denied any Jewish connection to the city. The “civilized” world did nothing for the Jews; how much less should Jews expect from Yasser Arafat and the PLO?
For more than 30 years the Israeli government has demonstrated its commitment to religious freedom and civil rights for the city’s inhabitants and visitors. ONLY under Israeli rule has Jerusalem been a truly open city. Any American suggestion for dividing the city is contrary to the often stated desire of this and other Administrations and Congresses that Jerusalem remain open and united. Jerusalem must be a city shared by its inhabitants, not divided among them.
Congress has affirmed Jerusalem as the indivisible capital of the State of Israel and the Administration should follow through with two practical steps: the construction of a new American Embassy in Jerusalem, and an order to the American Consulate in Jerusalem that American children born in there will have their birthplace listed as “Jerusalem, Israel” on their documents, not simply Jerusalem-in-a-vacuum as is the current practice.
America demanded the reunification of Berlin. We dare not demand the division of Jerusalem.