Israel Matzav
I have discussed the Zivotofsky case, in which Jerusalem-born 9-year old Menachem Zivotofsky seeks to exercise his right to have Israel listed as his country of birth on his US passport, several times, most recently here.
Many American Jewish organizations are filing amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, which are due this week. Shockingly, the American Jewish Committee is not only filing a brief in opposition to the Zivotofsky's, but it is arguing that Israel has no right to designate any part of Jerusalem as its capital. That, like everything else, must be 'left to negotiations' in the view of the AJC.
But there is not unanimity in the Jewish community over this issue. Marc Stern, associate general counsel of the American Jewish Committee, said his organization believes “all issues in the Israel-Palestinian conflict have to be settled at the negotiating table and not the U.S. Supreme Court or the UN with unilateral declarations. For that reason we not participating in this case because we think it is inconsistent with our general view that peace will come to the Middle East at the negotiating table and at no other forum.
“It doesn’t mean that we don’t think West Jerusalem isn’t part of Israel,” Stern continued. “We do and we have our office there, and we say it is Jerusalem, Israel. But this is about official declarations, and official declarations don’t come about because somebody goes to court.”
But no one other than the government of the United States and the 'Palestinian rejectionist' groups has ever suggested that 'west' Jerusalem would not be part of Israel and could not be Israel's capital. The peace processors keep telling us that 'two states for two peoples' will each have their capital in Jerusalem. And none of the Jewish hospitals in Jerusalem are across the 1949 armistice lines (even Hadassah Mount Scopus is built on land that remained part of Israel between 1948-67). Menachem Zivotofsky was born in 'west' Jerusalem.
In fact, the issue in this case is not the 'peace process' or who will control Jerusalem. The issues are whether the State Department has the right to act contrary to a law passed by Congress and whether private citizens have the standing to contest the State Department's behavior when they are directly affected.
Moreover, in a remarkably similar case, the State Department acceded to Congress' desire.
The government argues that agreeing to such a change now would in effect compel the president to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem — “one of the most sensitive and longstanding disputes in the Arab-Israeli conflict” — resulting in major foreign policy ramifications.
But Alyza Lewin and her father, Nathan, who are representing Menachem, said in court papers filed last Friday that the government’s claim is “greatly exaggerated.” They pointed out that the U.S. in 1994 enacted a “virtually identical statute” regarding Taiwan over the vehement objections of China, which claims sovereignty over the island.
“The Department of State altered its earlier rule to comply with the statute and there was no perceptible effect on United States’ foreign policy,” according to their court papers.
At the same time, the brief said, Israel is “a recognized nation that Palestinians and the Arab world have learned to accept. … [The State Department] bars only supporters of Israel — overwhelmingly Jews who have a religious attachment to the land — from identifying their birthplace in a manner that conforms with their convictions.”
Marc Stern has it wrong (and our mutual friends who read this blog are invited to tell him so). This has nothing to do with the 'peace process.' It has to do with the right of Israel and Israelis to be treated like every other country in the World by the United States. Doesn't America's #1 ally at least deserve that much?
No comments:
Post a Comment