Jerusalem, Israel

No news, right? Something we write on letters to friends and relatives, refer to in conversations and publications. A given. But not according to the U.S. State Department. Officially, the United States has never recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or as any part of Israel, for that matter. That's why the U.S. passports issued to my nieces and nephews list their place of birth as Jerusalem. Period. No country. Stateless by half.

But "new" (in the works for quite some time) legislation is now, finally, on its way to President Bush's desk that would change all that.

Tucked into an $8.6 billion bill authorizing State Department programs for next year, are provisions on the status of Jerusalem including a clause that says a US citizen born in Jerusalem could choose to have Israel listed on their passport as their country of birth. There is also a clause calling on the president once again to immediately begin the process of relocating the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The US refuses to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, fearing it would prejudge final status negotiations with the Palestinians, who also want part of Jerusalem for a future capital of a Palestinian state.

The bill also says that the US Consulate in Jerusalem, which currently answers directly back to the State Department in Washington, will come under direct supervision of the US ambassador in Tel Aviv.

Good news? Some say, "not so fast."

Sources say the Bush administration believes Congress´ stance on this issue obstructs the White House´s freedom in setting foreign policy, and that it can basically ignore the provisions.

Instead of vetoing the legislation or seeking a compromise, however, the administration is expected to simply ignore the provisions.

Mary Cheh, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, said the constitution grants the president discretion on foreign policy matters, which would allow him to ignore the provisions in the authorization act with near impunity.

On the other hand, the President could follow the advice of the Arab American Institute which, of course, is urging a veto.

James Zogby, AAI President commented, “If made into law, H.R. 1646 will further inflame and deepen resentment among Arabs and Arab countries towards the United States. While the administration works to strengthen our relations throughout the region, a few members in Congress, use stealth tactics, pass legislation that was not considered fully by either house. This is not the way to make policy where so many vital US interests are at stake.”

"...of the people, by the people, for the people..."? The clearly expressed will of our elected representatives notwithstanding, it looks like Americans born in Jerusalem are going to remain half-"stateless" for quite some time to come.

UPDATE: No veto. Bush signed the bill yesterday. Palestinians unhappy.

But, as predicted,

Bush himself insisted that "U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed" as he signed the bill on Monday said he would treat the clauses as a recommendation rather than an order.

As an order, Bush said, they would "impermissibly interfere with the president's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs."