Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-
Now the problem is upon us. The United States has tried to stop a plan by Irving Moskowitz to renovate a hotel in East Jerusalem that had been property of the Israel government for many years and create a relatively small number of housing units. US protests were reportedly deliberately leaked by Israeli officials to the media, in order to announce limits to the settlement freeze and to reassert the Israeli position regarding Jerusalem. Israel has rejected the calls. PM Netanyahu said:
[Jerusalem is the] "unified capital of Israel and the capital of the Jewish people, and sovereignty over it is indisputable.
"Hundreds of apartments in the west of the city were purchased by Arabs and we didn't get involved. There is no prohibition against Arab residents buying apartments in the west of the city and there is no prohibition barring the city's Jewish residents from buying or building in the east of the city."
"We cannot accept the notion that Jews will not have the right to buy apartments specifically in Jerusalem.
.A peculiarity of this round of the US - Israel settlement freeze fracas is that only Israel is talking about it in public. An Ha'aretz article headlined "No difference to U.S. between outpost, East Jerusalem construction", but the body of the article stated,
Asked to comment on these remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in New Delhi, said the administration is trying to reach an agreement with Israel on settlements, and "the negotiations are intense."
There is no hint in the article that any US or Israeli official made the statement ostensibly quoted in the headline. Nor has there been any other direct quote by any US official for public consumption, though Ambassador Oren was called in and apparently read the riot act by US officials. The Obama administration is now playing at make believe regarding the pressure on Israel, especially on the Jerusalem issue, both because Jerusalem is politically sensitive and because the US stand on Jerusalem is indefensible and makes no sense. It made no sense for the United States to ignore the existence of Communist China until the Nixon administration. It would have made even less sense if US ally Taiwan had reconquered the mainland, but the US refused to recognize a nationalist government in China.
The Jerusalem question is not new. The United States never formally recognized Israeli sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem, even before 1967. The US stance is consistent with "international law" since the UN declared Jerusalem to be internationalized in General Assembly Resolution 181 and reaffirmed its status as a "Corpus Separatum" in General Assembly Resolution 303. General assembly resolutions are not binding in international law, but there have been a number of Security Council resolutions condemning Israel for upsetting the international status of Jerusalem. Though there was no Security Council resolution regarding Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum, there were several such resolutions (252, 298, 478) that condemned Israeli actions such as having a military parade in Jerusalem and the annexation of Jerusalem in 1980. The annexation was condemned as against "international law" even though no law had been passed and no security council resolution had declared Jerusalem to be internationalized. The UN never condemned Jordanian annexation of Jewish East Jerusalem.
US Presidents continually and farcically side-step a congressional requirement to move the United States embassy to Jerusalem and to register Jewish Americans born in Jerusalem as born in Israel.
A US appeals court recently upheld the refusal of the United States Department of State to list Israel as country of birth for U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem. This is done, "because of fears that recognizing the city as Israeli would pre-judge Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
The fictive and farcical nature of the Jerusalem internationalizatio
Israel and the Jewish people have been tardy and confused in pursuit of Jewish rights in Jerusalem. Perhaps it was because the Arab claims in Jerusalem seemed to be too absurd to merit opposition, or perhaps because of internal Zionist divisions over the importance of Jerusalem. David Ben-Gurion realized its symbolic national importance.