Posted on 03/08/2004 5:22:16 PM PST by Alouette
The US State Department has long been the most anti-Israel organ of a generally pro-Israel American government, ever since the days when then secretary of state George Marshall fought a pitched battle to prevent the Jewish state from coming into existence.
Caroline Glick aptly described one manifestation of this attitude two weeks ago in her analysis of the department's annual human rights report, which personalizes Palestinian intifada victims while leaving Israeli victims nameless and faceless.
Nowhere, however, is State's bias more evident than in its steadfast refusal to recognize Israel's capital city as part of the State of Israel. The extent of this refusal, as well as its discriminatory nature, is on full display in a lawsuit filed last year by two American immigrants to Israel who want their son's passport to list his birthplace as "Jerusalem, Israel" rather than merely "Jerusalem."
The baby was born in Sha'arei Zedek Hospital, in west Jerusalem – the part of the city that has been Israeli since 1948, and that everyone, even the Palestinians, agrees will remain Israeli under any final-status agreement. Moreover, Congress enacted an explicit law in 2003 stating that if an American citizen is born in Jerusalem, "the Secretary [of State] shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel."
Nevertheless, the US embassy in Tel Aviv refused to register the baby's birthplace as Israel. His parents, Naomi and Ari Zivotofsky, therefore filed suit in an American court to get the registration changed.
In its response to the suit, filed on December 22, 2003, the State Department explained that it has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy since 1948 not to recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli unless the entire Arab world does so first – or in State lingo, "the consistent foreign policy of the United States is that the competing claims to Jerusalem are open questions to be resolved pursuant to 'Permanent Status Negotiations,' as part of a negotiated settlement in the Middle East."
Indeed, this refusal is so all-encompassing that the US consulate in Jerusalem – which is headquartered in west Jerusalem, with a branch in the eastern part of the city – is maintained as "an independent US mission whose members are not accredited to a foreign government" and "do not report to the US ambassador to Israel."
It is hard to imagine a greater insult to Israeli sovereignty than that – though here, Israel is equally at fault: What self-respecting country allows a foreign consulate in its capital city to refuse to be accredited to its government?
Were State's policy simply that it does not recognize the 1949 armistice line as the final border of the State of Israel, it might be hard to object – after all, neither does Israel. Even the most dovish Israelis want to retain parts of east Jerusalem and a few major settlements under any final-status agreement.
But State does consider everything on the other side of this line to be Palestinian: Current Secretary of State Colin Powell, for instance, has repeatedly said that Israel has no right to build its separation fence east of the Green Line because that is all Palestinian territory.
It is only on the Israeli side of the line, in west Jerusalem, that State views the armistice line as meaningless.
THE EXTENT of the bias is even more astonishing, however, when one considers State's claim, expounded in its response to the lawsuit, that nonrecognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is so central to American policy that the 2003 law would constitute an unconstitutional infringement on the executive's right to set foreign policy unless the court reinterpreted the "shall" in the law to mean "may" – thereby allowing State to continue refusing to register people born in Jerusalem as born in Israel.
As the Zivotofskys' lawyers, Nathan and Alyza Lewin, point out in their response to State's brief (filed on February 4, 2004), nowhere else in the world does the US government view a mere line in a passport as an existential threat to US foreign policy.
For instance, they note, the US never recognized the Soviet Union's annexation of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – yet Americans born in these countries were allowed to list their birthplace as the USSR if they so chose.
And in cases of disputed territory – which Jerusalem, by State's own definition, is – the general rule laid down by State is that the birthplace should be listed in the passport as "shown on the application," meaning in accordance with the applicant's wishes. Only in Jerusalem does this rule not apply.
Even more incredible, however, is that State gives people born in Israel the right not to recognize the Jewish state's existence, even within the borders that America does recognize.
The Lewins point out that not only are people born before 1948 allowed to list their birthplace as "Palestine" rather than "Israel" if they so choose, but even people born in Israel after 1948 – in Tel Aviv or Haifa, for example – are given the option of listing only their city of birth, with no country, "if the applicant objects to showing the country having present sovereignty," i.e. Israel.
Thus State is perfectly willing to subordinate American foreign policy to the individual's wishes if the goal is to deny Israeli sovereignty. Only if an individual wishes to affirm Israeli sovereignty does foreign policy suddenly become sacrosanct.
That, it seems, is State's idea of an "even-handed" approach to the conflict.
The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.
WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
Not much to worry about there.
But something will happen when I'm president: as soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital
Presidential Candidate Bush
May 23, 2000
August 28, 2000
American Jewish Committee's Election 2000 Questionnaire, October, 2000
"President Bush is committed to moving our embassy to Jerusalem. The process is ongoing. We have not started any actions yet."
Colin Powell, March 2001
Bush doesn't have control over the State Dept? If he really wanted to do it, he could.
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~
Buchanan's actually admitted that the pro-Israel position is the Biblical position, so his evil doesn't even wear a fig leaf any more.
One of my favorite scriptures.
If you look up "fear" in Armaic, it means "respect, deepest respect, or reverence. Not to be confused with "afraid of," but in deep admiration of.
:~)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.