Washington Report, August 27, 1984, Page 4

Update on Jerusalem

The issue of whether or not the U. S. should move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is heating up once again, with congressional action possible as early as mid-September. Early in the current election-year session of Congress, bills requiring the embassy to be placed in Jerusalem were introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) and Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), and co-sponsored by a clear majority in both chambers (51 Senators and 227 Representatives).

After hearing testimony that, if enacted, the bills would cause serious international repercussions, members of the two subcommittees handling the House bill have decided to seek a compromise with the Reagan Administration. They will offer to halt consideration of the proposed legislation for the remainder of the year, if the Administration will agree not to oppose a non-binding "sense of the Congress" resolution containing similar language which would be introduced early next year. Such a resolution would put Congress on record as favoring an embassy move without forcing the President to carry it out.

The Administration has warned it would veto the legislation if it is passed. Therefore, it seems unlikely the President will accept the compromise proposal which Chairmen Lee Hamilton of the House Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East and Dan Mica of the International Operations Subcommittee are planning to present to him.

Intensifying Pressure on Reagan

In that case Congress will have only one month to complete work on the bill from the time it returns, September 5, until it adjourns for the year on October 4. Key congressional supporters of the bill may try to attach a sense of the Congress resolution to a stop-gap spending bill for next year, which is expected to be adopted before the current fiscal year ends on September 30. Such a move would intensify pressure on the President to accept the non-binding resolution, since the only way he could reject it would be to veto the entire spending bill containing operating funds for major sections of the government.

A second option for proponentsof the bill would be to introduce, in September, a sense of the Congress resolution independent of a money bill, primarily as a means of embarrassing the Administration just prior to national elections.

Administration opposition to the move is based on the fact that the U.S. has never recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Under the U. N. partition plan which created Israel, Jerusalem—in deference to its special significance to Christians, Muslims and Jews—was not awarded to either the proposed Jewish or Arab state but instead was given international status as a "Corpus Separatum." Israel occupied West Jerusalem in the 1948 fighting and declared it Israel's capital. It seized East Jerusalem in the 1967 war and unilaterally announced its annexation into the state of Israel. The U.S., and the other members of the United Nations, refused to recognize either Israeli action—in keeping with the principle of international law banning acquisition of territory by force. The U.S. government under all administrations made it clear that the final status of Jerusalem can be decided only by negotiations, and not by unilateral military action.

Middle East experts testifying before Congress have declared that, were the U.S. suddenly to move its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as having abandoned its support for a negotiated settlement and its credibility as a potential peacemaker in the Middle East would be effectively destroyed. The repercussions would move far beyond the immediate parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition to negative reaction from Christian countries in Europe and Latin America, the move would be regarded by the world's 800 million Muslims as a direct affront. Even if Islamic countries in Asia and Africa were able to prevent violence that would endanger U.S. diplomats and military and commercial installations, public opinion would force those governments—including most of the world's major oil producers—to re-evaluate their strategic and economic relations with the U. S.

The bill also raises questions of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the U. S. government. The Administration maintains that both the text of the Constitution and its judicial interpretation give the President the constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.

Although some sponsors of the bills are consistent, die-hard supporters of Israel, political observers believe that much of the current support comes from congressmen seeking to position themselves favorably with pro-Israel campaign contributors during the current election campaign and at the same time seeking to create an election-year problem for President Reagan by depicting him as "soft" in his support of Israel.