Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| If Jerusalem is not in Israel, what is? |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2011-05-14
Should an American citizen born in “Jerusalem” be recorded, on his passport, as born in “Israel”? A USA statute says “Yes” (upon request). The USA State department says “No”. The USA Supreme Court may well decide. Public Law No. 107-228, signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 30, 2002, declares in Section 214(d) thereof: requiring the State Department to describe a person’s place of birth as Israel if that person was born “in Jerusalem” (the boundaries of which were not specified in the legislation and presumptively include part of the occupied territories) and made a request that the place of birth be recorded as Israel. The president (George W. Bush) signed the act in 2002, but in a so-called “signing statement” said that he believed that this provision was unconstitutional and that he would not honor it. A legal case has been brought (Zivotofsky case) to compel the present Secretary of State to issue a passport with “Israel” as place of birth for a child born somewhere in what Israel calls “Jerusalem”. (The present secretary refused.) In addition to all the fascinating questions of American law, this raises some interesting political questions: 1. Would the USA record birthplace on a passport as “Israel” for a person born somewhere other than “Jerusalem”? Recall that Israel has no declared borders (except, perhaps, some partial-borders with Egypt and Jordan), but its other borders are trucial borders, still juridically subject to settlement by treaty. (Indeed, Israel’s fierce resistance to admitting to having boundaries is the reason that its wall and settlements in the occupied West Bank are understood as signifying its desire and intent to adopt boundaries well outside the trucial boundaries in effect from 1950-1966.) 2. Why do successive administrations hold so firmly to their non-recognition of “Jerusalem” as part of Israel? Are they basing themselves on the idea that UNGA-181 (1947) had the effect of defining an internationalized zone which includes “Jerusalem” and that, as a consequence, “Jerusalem” cannot be part of Israel or of Palestine? The idea that UNGA-181 had any effect whatever will be news to many! Israel, in particular, would not enjoy being territorially “rolled back” to the territory set forth for it in UNGA-181. 3. Or have they made promises to powerful actors (Saudi Arabia for example) not to move the USA’s embassy to “Jerusalem” and not to juridically regard Israel as sovereign of “Jerusalem”? 4. If the problem is these “powerful actors”, then they are surely very powerful indeed, considering AIPAC’s power. What’s going on here? The USA’s Supreme Court will hear this case. Looking forward to seeing if a public law signed by a president can overcome the president’s power to determine USA’s foreign policy. I’d guess that it would. But don’t count on it. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |