Although Public Law 104-45, effective since November 1995, clearly states that it is US policy to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, once again, it has been postponed. Just as ex-President Bill Clinton did during his two-term administration, President George W. Bush suspended the relocation, asserting US national security will be harmed, and signed another six-month security waiver as required by that law.



The question is whether the US should move the Embassy, and when.



Background



The Public Law 104-45, better known as "The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act", was approved overwhelmingly by the Congress in November 1995, during the Clinton Administration. The act calls on the President to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and, as indicated in Section 3, to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. However, the same law has a clause to restrict its implementation. According to Section 7, the President is authorized to waive Section 3(b) for two six-month periods provided that the waiver is necessary for national security interests. If the President does not invoke the waiver, then it is subject to financial penalties, precisely for not complying with the law. In a nutshell, the same law mandates the relocation of the Embassy and at the same time legal means for not fulfilling the law.



Therefore, once again, President Bush determined on June 15, through a "Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Presidential Determination No. 2004-36", that it was necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to "suspend for a period of six months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act." Nevertheless, his administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving the embassy to Jerusalem. The question is when will the process really begin? Clinton promised the same and nine years went by. An option to stop these postponements would be new legislation denying the waiver.



Argument



The current status of Jerusalem remains the critical issue in the Middle East, as both Israel and Arab-Palestinians claim it as their capital. Therefore, if the US moves the Embassy to Jerusalem, it will indirectly admit that Jerusalem is indeed Israel's capital, possibly leading to more violence from terrorist groups such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade. However, this would be just another excuse. One might ask, has the violence ever stopped? And the answer would be: of course not.



From the Israeli perspective, they insist that complying with the law is important as it might put a stop to Arab-Palestinians using the waiver to strengthen their efforts in claiming Jerusalem as their capital. Based on historical facts, Israel sustains that an undivided Jerusalem has been their capital since King David established it over 3,000 years ago.



From the Arab-Palestinian perspective, they insist that relocating the Embassy would only interfere with the peace process. Consequently, it appears that the argument made by the Arab-Palestinians has been the stronger, since the Law has been continuously waived.



Yet, the avoidance of relocation has not proved to bring any decrease of violence or improvement in the so-called peace negotiations, but there has been an escalation with the 2000 Intifada. The level of hypocrisy goes as far as the open challenge of the Palestinian Authority - led by none other than Yasser Arafat, terrorist leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization - in having its own military groups involved in terrorist acts. Therefore, moving the Embassy and having Israel eradicate terrorist infrastructures could be a bold message to terrorists.



As for the US Congress, in 1992 the US Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the 102nd Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.



The US Position



Politically speaking, the US solution will be to implement the Embassy Act and to stand firm by its policy. Yet, implementing the relevant law is tricky; one can argue that by wavering for almost nine years they are complying with the law, too. The Clinton and Bush Administrations have continuously postponed implementation of the law on grounds that it might upset Middle East peace negotiations. First, it was Camp David and Oslo, now it is the Roadmap. The decision to finally relocate the US Embassy will mark a turning point in the Roadmap, which strives to establish two states "living peacefully side by side." The fact is that the policies of the Embassy Act and the Roadmap conflict one another.



If the US decides to abide by its own law, in this case PL 104-45, the moving of the Embassy will indirectly admit that Jerusalem indeed is Israel's capital. The problem now is the current US policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, under which, for the first time, a US president suggested the concept of "two states living peacefully side by side"; therefore, implementation of PL 104-45 will further hinder the almost defunct Roadmap. In other words, had it not been for this Roadmap policy, then it would have been easier to abide by PL 104-45.



Bush?s suspension of the fulfillment of PL 104-45 also plays a role in the coming November election.



On one hand, the Arab community and pro-Palestinian groups could see the relocation as a challenge, raising domestic and international public protest by the Arab states and the European states, which mostly have a pro-Palestinian position. On the other hand, many Jewish groups support the Bush Administration because they consider him a strong friend of Israel. However, since there is no one Jewish vote, but a group divided between Democrats and Republicans, pressure to fulfill the relocation of the Embassy is not strong. Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, for his part, also does not indicate that he will fulfill the relocation of the Embassy.



Yet, despite Bush postponing the relocation of the Embassy, he assured his Secretary of State that his administration "remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem." The question is when will it be?



The Jerusalem Question



Historically, while Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since King David established it over 3,000 years ago, it has never been the capital of any Arab state, even when it was under control of Jordan for 19 years (1948-1967). Also, there has never been a Palestinian country, language or culture. Modern Palestine is the political invention of the Roman Empire during the 2nd Century CE. That is a fact. Arabs invaded Jerusalem in 634 CE in their quest to convert the world to Islam. Therefore, mathematically speaking, Jerusalem belonged to the Jews for around 2,400 years before Prophet Mohammed founded Islam in the 600s CE. Then the question is, "Why can't Jerusalem be called Israel's capital and the U.S. Embassy moved to Jerusalem?" Well, here, the role of the United Nations comes in.



On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, while declaring Jerusalem an international city. The big problems started in 1948, when Arab forces (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq) attacked Israel. Jerusalem was then divided for the very first time when Jordan invaded the city and took control of the eastern part. Israel retained the western side. Jordan later annexed the city in 1950.



From 1948-1967, Israeli citizens were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan. Moreover, Jewish synagogues and cemeteries were desecrated. Israelis were also forbidden to pray at the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, which is the Jews' holiest shrine, representing the connection to their past, present and future.



However, after Jordan for the second time attacked western Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War, Jerusalem was again reunited by Israel. One interesting point is that contrary to previous Jordanian rule, since the reunification of Jerusalem by Israel, worshipers of all religious faiths - including Jews, Christians and Muslims - have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city. Interestingly, in 1987, when Jordan's King Hussein relinquished Jordan's administrative and legal ties to Judea and Samaria (West Bank), he did not delegate them to the PLO.



Continuing with an examination of historical claims, we note: Jews pray facing Jerusalem, Muslims pray facing Mecca; Muslims consider Jerusalem their third holiest place, for the Dome of the Rock, after Mecca and Medina; Jews consider Jerusalem their first holy city. Furthermore, the Dome of the Rock was built during the Umayyad Dynasty in 691 over the ruins of the Second Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, and the Al-Aksa was built in 715. So, who has a stronger valid claim?



The Clinton Administration



PL 104-45 was passed during President Bill Clinton's Administration. Still, like President Bush, he exercised the waiver of relocation based on Section 7(a), alleging national security reasons.



Clinton had the opportunity to fulfill the relocation, but like the Bush Administration, he also faced peace negotiations and did not want to undermine the peace process. Nevertheless, in July 2000, after the failed Camp David talks, aside from suggesting that he was considering moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, it did not happen. That time, Hizbullah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah threatened to turn the Embassy "into rubble and return your diplomats in coffins." The Hizbullah, we'll point out, is a terrorist group, according to the US State Department.



Despite peace negotiations, the Palestinian Authority has also become part of the terrorist problem, since their militias are declared terrorist groups such as Fatah and the Al-Aksa Martyrs. However, the eradication of terrorist groups in Judea and Samaria (wrongly referred as the West Bank) has not been done, and every time Israel defends itself from terrorist attacks, the US criticizes it.



Has it been beneficial or not to waive continuously the relocation of the Embassy?



Conclusion



Arguably, the failure to fulfill PL 104-45, which recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and mandates moving the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, is interpreted by many as sending a loud message to terrorists that their tactics and strategies are working. Hence, for almost nine years, it appears that PL 104-45 consists of only executing waivers. Whether the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem would help or hurt in the current war against terrorism, however, is yet to be seen.



What do you think?