[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1892-1894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                JERUSALEM EMBASSY RELOCATION ACT OF 1995

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 13, 2001

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a resolution expressing 
the sense of Congress with respect to relocating the United States 
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem 
Embassy Relocation Act of 1995, which states that as recognition of an 
undivided Israel, the

[[Page 1893]]

U.S. Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. 
The bill, which President Clinton signed, also contains waiver 
authority that the president may exercise if he feels the embassy move 
should be delayed for national security reasons. Each year since the 
bill was passed, the President has issued a national security waiver, 
and the Embassy has still not been moved.
  The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital enjoys the broad 
support of the American public. Further, it would be consistent with 
the United States' practice of accepting the host nation's decision as 
to where its capital is, and where the U.S. Embassy is located. 
Currently, Israel is the only nation in which the U.S. Embassy is not 
located in a city recognized internationally as the capital.
  In short, moving the Embassy to Jerusalem is consistent with U.S. 
policy, and does not infringe on the remaining issues of conflict over 
East Jerusalem. I call my colleagues to support this resolution and I 
am hopeful that the House International Relations Committee will 
consider it in the coming weeks. Finally Mr. Speaker, I submit for the 
Record the following essay, written by one of my constituents, which 
makes the case for an embassy move most eloquently:

 Relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem: A Proposition Whose 
                             Time Has Come

                        (By Cheston David Mizel)

       Englewood, CO.--On May 22, 2000 President George W. Bush, 
     speaking in front of the American Israel Public Affairs 
     Committee, promised that he would begin to move the U.S. 
     Ambassador from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as soon as he was 
     inaugurated. Now that he has been elected and the 
     inauguration has passed, the time to move the U.S. Embassy 
     has come. Moving the embassy, at this time, is not only 
     morally and politically apropos, but would augment vital 
     American interests by sending a clear and unequivocal 
     message, to the region, reaffirming the vitality of the 
     American-Israeli relationship.


                    Domestic Political Implications

       The recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and 
     relocation of the U.S. Embassy would immediately and 
     significantly bolster the President's standing with key 
     constituencies on both sides of the aisle. Not only would it 
     clearly demonstrate his determination to fulfill his campaign 
     promises, but it would garner enormous favor among Jewish 
     voters who have felt disenfranchised by the recent 
     presidential election. The prompt relocation of the embassy 
     would further the President's goal of uniting


                           Moral Implications

       An immediate relocation of the American Embassy is a 
     morally appropriate decision. Israel is the only true western 
     style democracy in a region dominated by ruthless 
     dictatorships. Israel and the United States enjoy a 
     relationship that is unparalleled in the region. Israel is 
     clearly the most loyal pro-American state in the Middle East. 
     Moreover, since biblical times, Jerusalem has always been 
     considered the capital of the people of Israel, whether 
     residing in their land or in exile. The modern State of 
     Israel is no exception. Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's 
     government: the site of parliament and its Supreme Court. 
     Despite Palestinian claims to the contrary, Jerusalem has 
     never been the capital of any other nation during the more 
     than 3,000 years of its existence. The official recognition 
     of this reality by Israel's closest ally is long overdue. It 
     is not appropriate for the United States to choose the 
     location of the capital of any nation nor is it the practice 
     of the United States to do so anywhere else in the world.


                         Security Implications

       In 1995, The United States Congress passed the Jerusalem 
     Embassy Relocation Act requiring the embassy to be moved to 
     Jerusalem. This act was passed in the senate by a vote of 93 
     to 5 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 347 to 37. 
     Since that time, President Clinton refused to move the 
     embassy, using the excuse that it would harm America's 
     National Security. Nevertheless, it must be noted that 
     Americans vital security interests in the region are closely 
     tied to the security of Israel and its Capital. These 
     interests would be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of 
     an embassy move. In stark contrast to the paternalistic 
     approach of the Clinton Administration, George W. Bush, in 
     December of 1999, speaking before the Republican Jewish 
     Coalition, acknowledged that ``A lasting peace will not 
     happen if our government tries to make Israel conform to our 
     vision of national security.''
       In Navigating Through Turbulence: America and The Middle 
     East in A New Century, The Washington Institute for Near East 
     Policy's Presidential Study Group concluded that ``[t]he top 
     Middle East priority for the new President is to prevent a 
     descent into regional war.'' The Report cites multiple 
     scenarios for the current situation deteriorating into a wide 
     scale conflict. While the scenarios differ in regard to 
     course of events, they are all connected to the same general 
     instability in the region, which has been greatly contributed 
     to by the United States' failure to demonstrate the strength 
     of its allegiance to Israel. Indeed, the Presidential Study 
     Group's initial recommendation in averting a war is that:
       The United States needs to ensure that Middle Easterners 
     have no doubt about the strength, vitality and durability of 
     the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership, about America's 
     willingness to strengthen Israel's deterrent, and about the 
     U.S. commitment to provide political, diplomatic and material 
     support to Israel. These objectives can be achieved through 
     presidential statements, meetings with senior Israeli 
     officials and acts that signal U.S. resolve and support.
       The rationale behind the Report's suggestion is that such a 
     course would silence those extreme Anti-Israel elements which 
     view Israel's willingness to compromise as a sign of 
     weakness; and America's ``even-
     handedness'' as evidence that Israel can be defeated while 
     America stays uninvolved to preserve its ``evenhanded'' 
     diplomatic role. The Presidential Study Group concludes, 
     however, that a showing of stronger American commitment to 
     Israel would actually ``strengthen the U.S. role as mediator 
     in negotiations, which flows from--and is not antithetical 
     to--the U.S. role as Israel's ally.'' Where equivocal support 
     has served to embolden Israel's enemies, a showing of 
     strength and absolute support for Israel will command respect 
     and force a recognition that Israel cannot be defeated and 
     that compromise is the only viable Arab option.
       In light of the Clinton plan for Jerusalem, which President 
     Clinton himself acknowledged would not bind the Bush 
     administration, Israel's position on Jerusalem has been 
     significantly weakened and is in much need of rehabilitation. 
     The Clinton proposal, which calls for division of Jerusalem's 
     Old City, and transfer the Temple Mount to Palestinian 
     control, is opposed by the majority of the Israeli people and 
     has been ruled completely unacceptable by Israel's Chief 
     Rabbinate. It should be noted that other elements of the 
     Clinton proposal, such as transfer of the Jordan Valley, have 
     drawn severe criticism from members of the Israeli security 
     establishment as posing a severe danger to Israeli security 
     and regional stability. What is worse is that the Clinton 
     proposal has given the Palestinians an unrealistic 
     expectation that they will receive even more than what has 
     already been offered.
       Moreover, this unrealistic expectation is exacerbated by 
     the perception, in the Arab world, that the Bush 
     administration will be even more sympathetic to Palestinian 
     positions. This misconception could lead to dangerous 
     miscalculations, with potentially dangerous consequences, and 
     should be remedied.
       So long as America encourages Israel to engage in a policy 
     of appeasement, there can never be long-term stability in the 
     Middle East. Each Israeli concession merely increases the 
     appetite of its enemies. This process will inevitably lead to 
     a scenario where Israel is unable to give any further and its 
     foes will respond with escalated violence. In a world of 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation, America can not 
     afford to re-learn the lessons of World War II concerning 
     appeasement of hostile regimes.
       U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and 
     immediate movement of the American Embassy to the western 
     part of the city, will force the Palestinians to revise their 
     expectations. Nevertheless, it will still leave room for a 
     Palestinian presence in the Eastern part of the city, if an 
     agreement can be reached which is not opposed by the Israeli 
     people and does not jeopardize Israel's security or national 
     interests.
       This policy is entirely consistent with President Bush's 
     statement that ``[his] support for Israel is not conditional 
     on the outcome of the peace process. * * * And Israel's 
     adversaries should know that in [his] administration, the 
     special relationship will continue even if they cannot bring 
     themselves to make true peace with the Jewish State.''


                         Timing Considerations

       With negotiations deadlocked and a new administration 
     taking root in Washington, the appropriate time to officially 
     recognize Jerusalem and move the U.S. Embassy has come. The 
     fragility of the Oslo process is no longer a deterrent to 
     such a move in that many of the remaining issues have 
     revealed themselves to be intractable.
       Opponents of the immediate recognition of Jerusalem as the 
     capital of Israel and the relocation of the American Embassy 
     generally argue that the appropriate time for the move would 
     be within the context of a final status agreement. While this 
     thinking may have been tenable before the outbreak of the 
     current violence, when peace seemed an imminent possibility, 
     it has little credibility in the current situation.
       Initially, this argument relies on the premise that there 
     will be an agreement in the near future. Given the fact that 
     the Palestinians are unwilling to compromise on key issues, 
     shamelessly fabricate blood-libels before the international 
     community, and continue to inculcate anti-Israel sentiment in 
     the media and schools, a final settlement could be 
     generations away. Moreover, leaders throughout the Arab world 
     have made very clear statements that there never will be 
     peace without full Israeli recognition of the Palestinian 
     ``Right of Return.'' (The ``right''

[[Page 1894]]

     for the four million descendants of Arabs, who fled Israel in 
     1948 to make way for advancing Arab armies, to resettle 
     within Israel proper, despite the creation of a neighboring 
     Palestinian homeland.) Given the fact that such a recognition 
     would mean demographic suicide for Israel, as a Jewish state, 
     the perpetual call for Israel to accede to such a 
     recognition, is little more than a politically correct 
     euphemism for the old refrain of ``Death to Israel.''
       In the current environment, any further delay in 
     recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the 
     embassy would simply reward Arafat for his intransigence. If 
     the U.S. allows Arafat to set the American timetable and 
     agenda, America's esteem is greatly diminished and its 
     strategic interests are harmed.
       Secondly, many argue that the relocation should only occur 
     upon reaching a final agreement in order to avoid offending 
     Arab sentiment. It is true that the Palestinians and 
     neighboring Arab states will likely respond negatively. Such 
     is the natural consequence of having faulty expectations 
     shattered. Given the fact that the far-reaching concessions 
     asked of Israel, in the Clinton proposal, were viewed by the 
     Arab world as decidedly pro-Israel, any action which the 
     United States takes in furtherance of its strategic 
     relationship with Israel will always be condemned by the Arab 
     world. They simply have not accepted Israel's right to exist. 
     Moving the embassy will demonstrate the U.S. determination to 
     support Israel's existence in the face of regional hostility. 
     Failure to relocate the embassy only perpetuates unachievable 
     expectations that make violent conflict all the more likely.
       The Presidential Study Group recently concluded that 
     America's ties with Arab states should not be dependent on 
     avoiding pro-Israel positions, but rather;
       America is the country with which the large majority of 
     regional states will still wish to have close political, 
     economic, and military ties. Maintaining a strong alliance 
     with Israel has not stopped Arab Gulf states from welcoming 
     the United States as their defender against potential 
     subregional hegemons. Similarly, it has not prevented every 
     state on Israel's border, except Syria, from accepting 
     America as a major, if not the principal source of military 
     aid and material. Indeed, the very closeness and solidity of 
     U.S.-Arab ties is a reason why some Arab leaders and 
     spokespersons can afford to use license in their rhetoric.
       Finally, many of those who argue that a relocation of the 
     embassy should not occur at this time subscribe to the notion 
     that America should use its political capital with Israel to 
     nurture Israel's willingness to engage in further 
     negotiations and concessions. Not only does this directly 
     contradict the approach suggested by the Presidential Study 
     Group, but it also directly opposes President Bush's own 
     statements that his support would not be conditional on the 
     peace process.


                               Conclusion

       We are at a critical time of transition for America, 
     Israel, and the entire region. The Middle East, and perhaps 
     the entire world, may be confronted with a situation with 
     devastating potential. President Bush is just beginning his 
     administration. He possesses the opportunity to make an 
     eventful decision that will not only contribute to the 
     advancement of his political agenda but will reinforce vital 
     American interests in the region by contributing to stability 
     through the promotion of more realistic Arab expectations.
       The relocation of the embassy enjoys strong bi-partisan 
     support. It will contribute to the unifying culture being 
     promoted by the administration. It will finally bring the 
     United States into compliance with its own law and fulfill 
     the weighty moral obligations imposed by the sacred 
     principles of democracy and freedom to our faithful ally 
     which has been ignored for too long.

     

                          ____________________