Jousting on Jerusalem

Jousting on Jerusalem / An unwanted twist in an old controversy

Thursday, October 17, 2002

The stalled attempt to resolve the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a subject discussed (along with Iraq) during Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to the White House yesterday, recently took an unhelpful turn. President Bush signed a law containing language inserted by Congress to try to fence the United States in on the status of Jerusalem. He then issued a statement that the new language was unconstitutional.

Jerusalem contains holy sites of three great world religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For that reason, possession of the city has been a bone of contention for centuries. Since 1967, when the Israelis captured east Jerusalem from Jordan in the Six Day War and virtually annexed it, the city's status has been an issue in the Middle East peace process.

Jerusalem's status also has been a less visible issue in American politics. The United States regards Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel and maintains its embassy there, with a consulate general in Jerusalem. U.S. administrations of both parties have maintained that status quo pending a definitive resolution of the issue.

Members of Congress, more susceptible to domestic political pressure and less sensitive to foreign policy concerns, inserted language in this year's Foreign Relations Authorization Act requiring U.S. documents that mention Jerusalem to call it -- rather than Tel Aviv -- the capital of Israel. American citizens born in Jerusalem would list Israel as their country of birth.

Mr. Bush signed the legislation, but the White House immediately afterward issued a statement that if Congress considered the new language regarding Jerusalem mandatory, as opposed to advisory, the administration considered it to be an unconstitutional encroachment on the president's right to conduct foreign policy. The statement added that U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem had not changed.

Nonetheless, in a reflection of the sensitivity of the issue, the Palestinian National Council immediately passed a bill designating Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. Palestinian street demonstrations followed.

Given the delicacy of this issue, Congress should not have put this language in a bill it knew Mr. Bush would have to sign for other reasons. Mr. Bush was right to tell Congress politely that his signature did not mean any change in U.S. policy on Jerusalem.

We can only hope that Palestinians and Israelis have been able to follow the ball in this play, understanding that for the United States the status of Jeru-salem remains a matter for them to settle.