Zivotofsky case reveals bizarre US policy towards Jerusalem

From JPost:

In a major blow to a 13-year-old effort to bolster Jerusalem's status under American law as an undisputed part of Israel, the US Supreme Court on Monday struck down as unconstitutional a Congressional law which authorized placing "Israel" on passports of Jerusalem-born Americans.

The 6-3 split ruling was also a victory for the administration of US President Barack Obama, which said the law unlawfully encroached on the president's power to set foreign policy and would, if enforced, undermine the US government's claim to be a neutral peacemaker in the Middle East.

Notice that the decision is not about US citizens born across the Green Line. It is about citizens born in any part of Jerusalem.

All of the bluster from the White House about how Israel shouldn't build in "east Jerusalem" covers for the fact that parts of US policy have never made a distinction between any parts of Jerusalem. The Green Line - that is disingenuously claimed to be an "internationally recognized border" - doesn't exist in Jerusalem, unless people want a further excuse to bash Israel.

This memo from the State Department in 1953 seems like it could be written today by the same department:

The United States regrets that the Israeli Government has seen fit to move its Foreign Office from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

We have made known our feelings on that subject to the Government of Israel on two prior occasions. It was done in July 1952 and again in March 1953, when our Ambassador, hearing rumors that this was in contemplation, called upon the Israeli Government and requested them not to transfer their Foreign Ministry to Jerusalem.

We feel that way because we believe that it would embarrass the United Nations, which has a primary responsibility for determining the future status of Jerusalem. You may recall that the presently standing U.N. resolution about Jerusalem contemplates that it should be to a large extent at least an international city. Also, we feel that this particular action by the Government of Israel at this particular time is inopportune in relation to the tensions which exist in the Near East, tensions which are rather extreme, and that this will add to rather than to relax any of these tensions.

The views that I express here are, we know, shared by a considerable number of other governments who have concern with the development of an atmosphere of peace and good will in that part of the world.

We have notified the Government of Israel that we do not intend to move our own Embassy to Jerusalem.

In 1962, the US wrote a memo explicitly discouraging nations from opening embassies in Jerusalem.

The results of a US policy that seems to be reliant on a UN resolution that was never implemented are often bizarre. For example, the Obama White House once went through its website to erase any mention of "Jerusalem, Israel." Yet US diplomats often make speeches in Jerusalem where they say they are happy to be "here in Israel."

President Obama said that he was "here in Israel" when speaking from Jerusalem a number of times on his most recent trip to Israel in March 2013: at the Prime Minister's residence, Yad Vashem and twice at the Jerusalem Convention Center. 

The State Department spokesperson once went through a bizarre exercise in answering questions about whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital:

QUESTION: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the Department about the travel of your boss.MS. NULAND: Yes.QUESTION: Is it the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first Media Note was issued in error without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that Under Secretary – Acting Under Secretary for R, Kathy Stephens, will be traveling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations between the parties.QUESTION: Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the Embassy, the location of the U.S. Embassy?MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.QUESTION: Does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations.QUESTION: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue --QUESTION: No, no. But --MS. NULAND: -- and I have nothing further to say on it.QUESTION: You’ve spoken to the issue but didn’t answer the question, and I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying – and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.MS. NULAND: That is our --QUESTION: What is the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.QUESTION: What is the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: Our Embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.QUESTION: So does that mean that you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.Lalit, thank you....QUESTION: I just want to go back to – I want to clarify something.MS. NULAND: Yeah.QUESTION: Perhaps give you an out on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final status issue or do you think – or is it just East Jerusalem?MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further to what I said 17 times on that subject. Okay?QUESTION: All right. So hold on – so – I just want to make sure, you’re saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final status issue?MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further on Jerusalem to what I’ve already said.Please.

As I have noted, though, no one is claiming that the status of Bethlehem is up to the UN or negotiations - even though Bethlehem was meant to be part of the "corpus separatum" that the UN envisioned Jerusalem to be a part of:

The US policy on Jerusalem is still in many ways stuck in 1947, and the idea that US recognizing any part of Jerusalem as part of Israel is detrimental to peace is a shameful legacy of the past 12 US administrations.