A bill in Congress, demanding the US Embassy in Israel be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, would effectively grant de facto US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Michael Jansen explores the ramifications The Foreign Relations Authorisation Act for 2003, signed into law by President George Bush at the end of last month, is designed to secure US de facto recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by hook or by crook. Congress inserted four clauses into the bill which, if implemented by Bush, could dramatically transform US policy on the status of Jerusalem. Section 214, entitled "United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel", reiterates the standard congressional call for the president to relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem. The White House has always argued that the shift cannot be carried out because it would alienate the Arabs and Muslims and have a negative impact on US national security. Frustrated over the failure to secure this important objective, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) inserted into the current bill a ban on the use of US government funds for the US Consulate in East Jerusalem unless the consulate is placed under the supervision of the ambassador. If Bush were to submit to this demand, occupied Arab East Jerusalem would be, effectively, recognised as Israel's capital. Clearly AIPAC -- spurred on by Israel -- is attempting to use the back door to achieve its long-standing goal. The East Jerusalem consulate is an independent mission left-over from the 1948-1967 period when this sector of the city was under Jordanian rule. The consulate has always reported directly to the State Department and not to the government in physical control of the eastern sector of the city. Placing the consulate under the US ambassador to Israel would constitute a volte-face in US policy. Washington does not recognise any portion of the city as Israel's capital and holds that the city's final status should be determined by negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis. Indeed, placing the East Jerusalem consulate under the ambassador would be much more prejudicial to Palestinian, Arab and Muslim interests in the Holy City than shifting the embassy to West Jerusalem. Section 214 also undermines the traditional US policy of treating Jerusalem's status as undefined. One clause prohibits the use of US government funds for any official document which does not speak of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This means that all passports provided to US citizens living in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories would say that the place of issue is "Jerusalem, Israel". All official US government maps of the area would be required to show Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Applicants for US visas would have to designate Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The possibilities are endless. Another clause holds that a US citizen born in Jerusalem should be entitled to list Israel as his country of birth. According to the Jerusalem Post, "AIPAC... sought such legislative language for years, but it has always [been] blocked by the White House. This year, administration and State Department officials, perhaps distracted by the Iraq crisis, did not lobby [the] House and Senate leadership to omit the clauses they oppose." The Jerusalem section of the bill was introduced by Representative Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York who is a strong supporter of Israel. Weiner justified his provision by saying, "With the United States securing the war on terror across the globe, and with conflict looming in Iraq, US-Israeli relations are more important now than they have ever been... It's time we recognise that Israel's rightful and eternal capital is located in Jerusalem." Instead of vetoing or refusing to sign the legislation, President George Bush signed the bill and submitted a written objection to Section 214. Bush should have allowed Congress to carry out its threat to shut down the State Department and US missions abroad if he did not sign. The legislators would have had to climb down in fairly short order. But Congress knew Bush would never challenge APIAC'S provisions. On the personal level, Bush is the "most pro-Israel president" ever as well as the first president to have a close connection with the Likud. On the political level, the bill's authors timed its presentation to the president for signature to coincide with the mid-term Congressional election campaign, knowing that Bush dare not reject a pro-Israel measure during the election period. Once he signed the bill, Bush insisted that US policy on Jerusalem "has not changed" and said he would resist any attempt to make the bill's provisions on Jerusalem "mandatory". He argued this would overstep the limits of the legislature's powers. Congress is empowered to "advise" the president on the conduct of foreign policy and to "consent" to the policies he adopts. However, Congress's "power of the purse" gives it a strong say in foreign policy. Bush could have a much more difficult time trying to evade the multiple provisions of Section 214 than his predecessor had dealing with the embassy issue. On one hand, Congress could deny the funds to operate the East Jerusalem consulate, forcing it to close. Shutting down the facility could be construed as revoking US policy that the status of the eastern sector of the city remains undetermined. On the other hand, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Representative Weiner have said they will confront Bush on the legal issue. Weiner was quoted by saying, "We're at loggerheads. Ultimately the court [the US Supreme Court] is going to have to decide whether Congress had the right to pass this law and whether the president has the right to sign it but not implement it." Having secured the legislation it wants, AIPAC is all the more committed to seeing that it is put into effect. While the issues of the documents and passports of Israeli- born US citizens are important, the key measure is the ban on funding for an independent East Jerusalem consulate. There are eight consulates which have permanent offices in the eastern sector of the city: those of Turkey, Belgium, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the US. The presence of eight foreign consulates accredited to East Jerusalem challenges Israel's claim to sovereignty over the whole of the city. The US Consulate is on Nablus Road, the main thoroughfare for traffic entering the city from the north. This facility serves Palestinians, who find it difficult to go to the US Consulate in West Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has already undermined the consulate's status by keeping the current consul, Ronald Schlicher, in Washington since July. Schlicher, the official who maintained contact with the Palestine Authority, was compelled to return to the US capital and stay there because the Bush administration is boycotting Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and most of his ministers. As one source quipped, "The administration does not want to risk a call from someone at the Mukata," Arafat's compound in Ramallah. During the summer, Washington suggested temporarily moving the consulate to West Jerusalem due to the lack of security in the eastern sector of the city. This, plus Schlicher's absence, may have contributed to Congress's bold decision to try to change the status of the East Jerusalem consulate. By keeping Schlicher hostage in Washington and supporting the idea of moving the consulate, the Bush administration demonstrated its ignorance of the complexities of the Jerusalem issue. By allowing AIPAC to introduce Section 214 into a major appropriations bill, the Bush administration revealed that it is both lax and inept, particularly at a time when its policies towards the Palestinians and Iraq have severely alienated Arabs and Muslims.
