U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–071 PDF 2018

MOVING THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN ISRAEL TO 

JERUSALEM: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

Serial No. 115–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA General Counsel 

ARI WISCH, Professional Staff Member 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Ron DESANTIS, Florida, Chairman 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

Vacancy 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 8, 2017 ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. John Bolton, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

The Hon. Dore Gold, President, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Mr. Morton Klein, President, Zionist Organization of America 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Dr. Michael Koplow, Policy Director, Israel Policy Forum 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 49 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51 

Mr. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law, Northwestern University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 55 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 57 

APPENDIX 

Statement for the record of Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, submitted by Ranking Member Lynch ............................................................................................... 88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

MOVING THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN ISRAEL 

TO JERUSALEM: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

Wednesday, November 8, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Duncan, Amash, Foxx, Hice, 

Comer, Lynch, Welch, and DeSaulnier. 

Also Present: Representatives Jordan, Zeldin, Ross, Mast, 

Grothman, Meadows, and Issa. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Subcommittee on National Security will come 

to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, 

which states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, that it should 

remain an undivided city, and that the American Embassy should 

be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Yet, for more than 20 

years, U.S. Presidents have signed waivers for stalling the Embassy move. 

To this day, 50 years after the liberation and reunification of Jerusalem, the State of Israel, one of America’s strongest allies, is the 

only nation in the world in which the American Government refuses to locate its Embassy in the host nation’s chosen capital. 

Now, as a candidate for President, Donald Trump promised to 

move the Embassy to Jerusalem, and he has reaffirmed that commitment since taking office. And there are good reasons why the 

President will follow through with his commitment. 

For one thing, U.S. policy should recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s 

capital because Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for thousands of years and is the beating heart of modern 

Israel. Why should we reject the chosen capital city of a close ally? 

Second, Israel’s stewardship of Jerusalem’s holy sites has been 

tremendous, especially regarding religious freedom. During the 

Arab occupation of the Old City of Jerusalem, between 1949 and 

1967, Jews were systematically discriminated against and Christians were treated as second class citizens. Most of the Old City’s 

synagogues were destroyed or desecrated. Under Israeli sovVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28071.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

ereignty, religious freedom is the rule, and the holy sites, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, are treated with care and respect. The 

disrepair that plagued Jerusalem under Arab occupation has given 

way to a flourishing city that is one of the world’s crown jewels. 

Third, following through with the commitment to move the Embassy will demonstrate American leadership. Leaders in the Middle 

East respect the strong horse, and acting with decisiveness to defend American interests and to stand by a close ally is far more 

preferable to defaulting on a key promise like past leaders have 

done. 

Fourth, the Embassy can be relocated to one of the sites in Jerusalem that the U.S. already controls. This can be as simple as 

changing the sign on one of the existing consulates. For example, 

the consulate annex in Arnona combined eventually with the adjacent Diplomat Hotel can be a sizeable complex that provides adequate security. That the annex in Arnona straddles the 1949 armistice line also counsels in its favor as a potential site. 

The Trump administration has delayed moving the Embassy in 

light of its efforts to pursue a peace deal between Israel and the 

Palestinian Arabs, but there are incremental steps that the Trump 

administration could take in the meantime. 

The State Department should allow Americans born in Jerusalem to list Jerusalem/Israel on their passports. The U.S. Ambassador should make a point to conduct at least part of his workweek 

from Jerusalem, and the American consulates in Jerusalem should 

report to the American Embassy in Israel, not directly to the State 

Department. 

Now some say the U.S. can’t move its Embassy to Jerusalem because that enrage elements of the so-called Arab street and provide 

a pretext for acts of terrorism. And who knows? That may be true, 

but does it make sense to shirk from doing what is right for fear 

of what our enemies might do? 

With the advent of the Trump administration, the U.S.-Israel relationship is probably stronger than it has ever been. Our countries 

have shared security interests, common cultural ties, and mutually 

beneficial economic relationships. Relocating the Embassy to Jerusalem, especially if done in 2017, the 50th year anniversary of Jerusalem Day, will make the relationship that much stronger. 

I want to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses here 

today. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

And I’m happy to recognize my friend, the ranking member, Mr. 

Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for holding this hearing. 

It is my understanding that today’s hearing will include the examination of the national security challenges related to the immediate relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And to this end, I would like to thank all of our witnesses 

for appearing before the committee today to help us with our work. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Our strong and enduring bilateral relationship with the State of 

Israel is founded on genuine bonds of friendship and indeed kinship that are unshakable. These profound and long-standing ties 

with our closest regional ally are reflected in our unwavering comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28071.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

mitment to Israel’s security, as well as robust U.S.-Israel cooperation on a range of critical issues, economic, intelligence, and defense matters. 

We also afford maximum respect to the historic and religious significance of Jerusalem and its holy sites to Israel. And I do join the 

chairman in my own experience and with many of our committee 

colleagues, having been to Jerusalem on many occasions, appreciate the religious freedom that is available now in Jerusalem. And 

we’ve taken full advantage of those opportunities to spend time 

with our friends in Jerusalem and enjoy the wonderful, wonderful 

benefits of that city. 

The proposal to unilaterally and immediately relocate the U.S. 

Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem instead presents a specific question 

of whether such action would truly protect and preserve U.S., 

Israeli, and regional security interests. I am strongly concerned 

that we must proceed with caution, that a decision unilaterally by 

the current administration to simply disregard the positions of 

other regional partners on this matter that had been expressed by 

the governments of Jordan and Egypt and other regional Arab nation partners, will prove ultimately detrimental to U.S., Israeli, and 

regional security interests in the near term. 

In February of this year, King Abdullah of Jordan reported to 

members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that moving the 

U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem now, unilaterally, will threaten the 

two-state solution and could lead to a, ‘‘violent escalation,’’ in the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

The Government of Jordan has also publicly warned that such 

action would have catastrophic ramifications on regional stability 

and would mark a red line for Jordan. 

I would note that we recall that Jordan is a key U.S. and coalition partner, including with Israel, in countering the Islamic State, 

whose cooperation has included aircraft missions in support of Operation Inherent Resolve in Syria and Iraq, as well as the employment of Jordanian ground forces and special operators targeting Islamic State fighters along the Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi-Jordanian borders. We also are working with the Jordanian Government as it is accepting and continues to provide careful influx of 

over 660,000 Syrian refugees to date. 

In a cautionary note, Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry of Egypt, 

another regional security ally protecting the interests of Israel and 

the United States and democratic interests in the region, has called 

the proposed immediate Embassy relocation, ‘‘a very inflammable 

issue at this moment,’’ and asserted that this is one of the final status issues that has to be addressed between the two sides, resolved 

through negotiations with respect to the Palestinians. 

Egypt is an official member of the global coalition to defeat the 

Islamic State. Moreover, about 700 troops, I had a chance to visit 

them in the Sinai fairly recently, are currently stationed in Egypt’s 

Sinai Peninsula as part of an international peacekeeping force that 

partners with the Egyptian military to stabilize the region against 

insurgents from the Islamic State affiliate in the Sinai Province 

group and other militant organizations, including Islamic Jihad. 

In a statement submitted to our committee for this hearing, Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, Ambassador to Israel under President 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

George Bush and Ambassador to Egypt under President Clinton, 

notes that the immediate relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would not only cross a red line for the Palestinians but also, 

‘‘for many Arab and Muslim states, including those with whom we 

share friendship and regional security interests.’’ 

Ambassador Kurtzer additionally explains that if the United 

States were to engage in unilateral action on this central disputed 

issue, we would substantially undermine our ability to persuade 

the parties themselves or other third parties to avoid from doing 

so. 

I ask for unanimous consent that the statement of Ambassador 

Daniel Kurtzer be entered into the official record. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Without objection. 

Mr. LYNCH. So, in essence, I’m just advising caution that we consider the regional, including the Israeli security interest on this 

issue, and that we give respect to our allies in the region, again, 

moving forward but proceeding with caution. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair notes the presence of a number of our colleagues. We 

have the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan; the gentleman from 

Florida, Mr. Ross; the gentleman from New York, Mr. Zeldin; the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast; and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman. 

I ask unanimous consent that these members be allowed to fully 

participate in today’s hearing. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

I’m pleased to be able to introduce a really stellar panel of witnesses here today. We have Ambassador John Bolton, senior fellow 

at the American Enterprise Institute, and chairman of the Foundation for American Security and Freedom; Ambassador Dore Gold, 

president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; Mr. Morton 

Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America; Dr. Michael Koplow, policy director at the Israel Policy Forum; and Mr. 

Eugene Kontorovich, professor of law at Northwestern University. 

I want to welcome you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So if you could please rise. Please raise your right 

hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you 

God? 

The witnesses, all witnesses answer in the affirmative. 

And Ambassador Gold has affirmed that he will tell the truth as 

well. So you can be seated. 

Mr. GOLD. We don’t swear. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I know, I know. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made a part 

of the record. And as a reminder, the clock in front of you shows 

your remaining time. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 

seconds left and red when your time is up. Please, also remember 

to press the button to turn your microphone on before speaking. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

And, with that, I’d like to recognize Ambassador Bolton for 5 

minutes for his opening statement. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BOLTON 

Mr. BOLTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Lynch, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important subject of moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. 

I believe that recognizing Jerusalem is Israel’s capital city and 

relocating our Embassy there on incontestably Israel sovereign territory would be sensible, prudent, and efficient for the United 

States Government. 

Indeed, fully regularizing the American diplomatic presence in 

Israel will benefit both countries, which is why, worldwide, the 

U.S. Embassy in virtually every other country we recognize is the 

host country’s capital city. 

Relocating the Embassy would not adversely affect negotiations 

over Jerusalem’s final status or the broader Middle East peace 

process, nor would it impair our diplomatic relations among predominantly Arab or Muslim nations. 

In fact, by its honest recognition of reality, shifting the Embassy 

would have an overall positive impact for U.S. diplomatic efforts. 

Over the years, as with so many other aspects of Middle Eastern 

geopolitics, a near theological and totally arid to scholasticism has 

developed here and abroad about the impact of moving the Embassy. Now is, in fact, the ideal time to sweep this detritus aside 

and initiate the long overdue transfer. 

It stands to reason that America’s diplomats posted abroad 

should be located near the seat of government to which they are 

accredited. Proximity to host government political leaders, major 

government institutions, and representatives of domestic political, 

economic, and social interests all argue for the commonsense decision that U.S. representatives to a foreign state should be at that 

state’s center of government. 

There may be logistical reasons for temporary deviations from 

this principle, but there is no compelling diplomatic business reason to wait nearly 70 years, as has been the case in Israel. 

Given Israel’s geography, certain key national security institutions, such as the Ministry of Defense, are located in Tel Aviv, 

which means that legitimate considerations will dictate that a U.S. 

Embassy annex should remain there. But cost, efficiency, and effectiveness considerations also compel the conclusion that the bulk of 

our Embassy’s personnel should follow the example of their colleagues and virtually the entire rest of the world and be moved to 

Israel’s capital. 

Modern transportation and telecommunications capabilities notwithstanding, distance still imposes cost, both in time and resources, not to mention aggravation on our diplomats in Israel. 

Moreover, there is still no substitute to personal contact, face-toface communication, and easy accessibility, especially in times of 

crisis, with key host government officials and political leaders. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Moreover, security concerns, especially in the volatile Middle 

East, are always major factors and decisions to move existing diplomatic facilities to new locations within existing capitals where 

physical conditions are better suited to address contemporary risks 

assessments. 

So, while I think the overwhelming diplomatic and managerial 

advantages to the United States argue for relocation, there are obviously a number of political arguments to the contrary. I think 

there are three, basically. 

And I think it’s important to take these arguments seriously, because many are made in good faith, but let’s be honest, many are 

argued for precisely the opposite reason, to continue to deny to 

Israel the acknowledgment that it is a legitimate state with a legitimate capital. 

The three arguments basically are that moving the Embassy, 

even to West Jerusalem, would somehow affect final status negotiations about that city. I think this stems from U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181, which contemplated an international status for 

Jerusalem. That resolution was rejected by the Arab State shortly 

after it was passed. And let’s face it, 181 is a complete dead letter 

today. Jerusalem will never be an international city, and we need 

to move on from it, as indeed the Russian Federation acknowledged 

earlier this year. 

The second argument is that it will break the broader Middle 

East peace process. And I have to say, if the peace process is such 

a delicate snowflake that moving our Embassy would destroy it, 

you have to ask what its viability is to begin with. And it’s also to 

mistake pretext for cause. If somebody wants to demonstrate 

against the United States or Israel, can pick a lot of other pretexts 

as well, not just moving the Embassy. 

And, finally, to conclude, Mr. Chairman, we hear over and over 

again that we want to move the Embassy but the time is just not 

right. As they say in the Near East Bureau of the State Department, they only have to press one key on their computers to spit 

out the phrase ‘‘at this particularly delicate point in the Middle 

East peace process.’’ 

In diplomatic circles, Mr. Chairman, ‘‘not now’’ too often means 

‘‘not ever.’’ We should reject that counsel and move the American 

Embassy to Israel’s capital city. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bolton follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 28071.001

Testimony of 

John R. Bolton 

On 

The Implications for Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to 

Jerusalem 

Before the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on National Security 

10:00 A.M Wednesday, November 8, 2017 

2247 Rayburn House Office Building, 

Washington, D.C. 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 28071.002

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and members of the Subcommittee on 

National Security, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss 

whether to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is an important 

and timely topic, well worth the Subcommittee's continuing consideration. 

I. Executive Summary 

I believe that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital city and relocating our Embassy 

there on incontestably Israeli sovereign territory would be sensible, prudent and efficient for the 

United States government. Indeed, fully regularizing the American diplomatic presence in Israel 

will benefit both countries, which is why, worldwide, the U.S. Embassy in virtually every other 

country we recognize is in the host country's capital city. 

Relocating the Embassy would not adversely affect negotiations over Jerusalem's final 

status or the broader Middle East peace process, nor would it impair our diplomatic relations 

among predominantly Arab or Muslim nations. In fact, by its honest recognition of reality, 

shifting the Embassy would have an overall positive impact for U.S. diplomatic efforts. Over the 

years, as with so many other aspects of Middle Eastern geopolitics, a near-theological and totally 

arid scholasticism has developed here and abroad about the impact of moving the Embassy. 

Now is in fact the ideal time to sweep this detritus aside, and initiate the long-overdue transfer. 

II. Diplomatic Effectiveness and Efficiency 

It stands to reason that America's diplomats posted abroad should be located near the seat 

of government to which they are accredited. Proximity to host-government political leaders; 

major government institutions; and representatives of domestic political, economic and social 

interests all argue for the common-sense decision that U.S. representatives to a foreign state 

should be at that state's center of government. There may be logistical reasons for temporary 

deviations from this principal (such as where a government relocates its capital city, and time is 

necessary before an embassy relocation can be effected), but there is no compelling diplomaticbusiness reason to wait nearly seventy years, as has been the case in Israel. 

2 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 28071.003

Given Israel's geography, certain key national-security institutions, such as the Ministry 

of Defense, are located in Tel Aviv, which means that legitimate considerations will dictate that 

a U.S. Embassy annex should remain there. But cost, efficiency and effectiveness considerations 

also compel the conclusion that the bulk of our Embassy's personnel should follow the example 

of their colleagues in virtually the entire rest of the world, and be moved to Israel's capital. 

Modem transportation and telecommunications capabilities notwithstanding, distance still 

impose costs, both in time and resources, not to mention aggravation, on our diplomats in Israel. 

Moreover, there is still no substitute to personal contact, face-to-face communications and easy 

accessibility, especially in times of crisis, with key host-government officials and political 

leaders. Moreover, security concerns, especially in the volatile Middle East, are always major 

factors in decisions to move existing diplomatic facilities to new locations within existing 

capitals where physical conditions are better suited to address contemporary risk assessments. 

Budgetary issues concerning both existing operations and the costs of a new Embassy are 

perfectly legitimate for Congress to raise. Here, the verdict is already clear. Over twenty years 

ago, Congress staked out its position by enacting the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, I 09 Stat. 

398, Public Law 104-45), with overwhelming majorities in both Houses. President Clinton 

opposed the legislation, but allowed it to become law without his signature rather than veto it in 

the face of a near-certain Congressional override. The Act provided that the Embassy must be 

relocated to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999, or the Department of State's overseas building funds 

would be cut by half. President Clinton and his successors have uniformly used Section 7(a) of 

the Act to waive its relocation requirement by invoking "the national security interests of the 

United States." Legislation designed to augment the Act has been introduced frequently, 

including earlier this year. President Trump signed the most recent waiver this past June I. 

I believe the Act's waiver procedures, and particularly, the waiver's serial invocation by 

successive Presidents, are entirely Constitutional. Indeed, efforts to more completely restrict 

Executive authority in this area would almost surely violate the President's Article II foreignaffairs powers and responsibilities. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 

576 U.S.---, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015), regarding Jerusalem's status in passport matters certainly 

points in that direction. If Congress wishes to challenge the Executive Branch's near-plenary 

power in this field, it must assert one of its own express Constitutional authorities, namely 

through the appropriations process. The Jerusalem Embassy Act threatened such a response, but 

the legislation's waiver authority vitiated its impact. Whether Congress chooses to go further is 

obviously up to Congress, but the more prudent and regular order would be for an unambiguous 

Executive Branch decision to make the necessary political decisions. 

Locating and building a new Embassy in indisputably Israeli sovereign territory would be 

neither difficult nor notably more contentious than any other property transaction in Israel. The 

government ofisrael has designated a site in Jerusalem's Talpiot neighborhood, held in Israeli 

3 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 28071.004

hands since its independence, for a new U.S. embassy. 1 While construction is underway, the 

U.S. Consulate General on 18 Agron Street, which now serves both as the residence for the 

Consul General and the location of several of its important offices, could be redesignated as an 

Embassy annex. 

III. The Effects Beyond Israel's Boundaries 

Despite the overwhelming diplomatic and managerial advantages to the United 

States of relocating its Embassy, numerous political contentions have been advanced for keeping 

the Embassy in Tel Aviv. I will address these in turn. Some of these arguments are offered in 

good faith, including by those who wish Israel no harm. But let's be honest: many are argued 

for precisely the opposite reason: to continue to deny to Israel the acknowledgment that it is a 

legitimate state with a legitimate capital. Among all of these arguments, there is a sense that 

perhaps repetition over time can make them more persuasive than their underlying merits. 

Falling prey to such false concreteness is a fatal mistake in diplomacy, where confusing the 

world of rhetoric for the real world leads to missed opportunities with sometimes tragic 

consequences. 

The United States can and should treat with respect the legitimate opinions of those 

affected by foreign-policy decisions such as the Embassy move. But it should not -- indeed, 

must not -- be held hostage to the misconceptions of those who wish neither us nor the Israelis 

well. We should not underestimate or ignore our ability to explain and justify our actions, even 

in the face of propagandists who might attempt to falsify and distort our intentions and our 

integrity. Succumbing to threats and verbal abuse for decades shows precisely the opposite 

about the character of our nation. It shows us susceptible to intimidation on one issue -- the 

location of the Embassy -- and, therefore, potentially susceptible to intimidation on others as 

well. By so behaving, we are compromising our own interests, and the larger interests of a 

peaceful and secure Middle East. Where the U.S. locates its Embassy in Israel is a matter for 

America and Israel to decide. 

The first argument against moving the U.S. Embassy is that so doing would prejudice the 

final status negotiations over Jerusalem. This argument is, at best, disingenuous, since no serious 

proposal has ever suggested building Embassy facilities anywhere east of the Green Line. This 

1 "Jerusalem of Trump: Where the president-elect might put the US embassy," Times of 

Israel, December 13, 2016, https://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-of-trump-where-thepresident-elect-might-put-the-us-embassy/ 

4 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 28071.005

is territory that Israel will hold unless its most ardent opponents get their wish, and the State of 

Israel is eliminated entirely. Ironically, despite being the first country to recognize the new State 

of Israel in 1948, no American President has formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over any 

part of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, ambiguity over the U.S. position whether West Jerusalem is 

sovereign Israeli territory, whether Jerusalem is even Israel's capital, let alone whether our 

Embassy should be there, is helping to keep alive a dangerous misconception of the true facts on 

the ground. 

Indeed, U.S. unwillingness to acknowledge that the Israeli state has an actual physical 

capital city undercuts the idea that Israel is truly a state. Under any recognizable definition of 

"statehood" under customary international law, an entity has a capital city and carries out the 

normal functions of government, all of which Israel manifestly does. Acting as though we are 

uncertain what Israel's capital is, or that somehow we can't find it, or that we are too timid to 

accept the palpable reality of Jerusalem as that capital, is demeaning to both the United States 

and Israel. 

The origin of the opposition to establishing foreign embassies in Jerusalem stems from 

UN General Assembly Resolution 181, adopted on November 29, 1947, creating three entities 

out of what remained of the United Kingdom's Palestinian Trusteeship: an Arab State, a Jewish 

State and "the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem." Under Resolution 181 

(and as further elaborated shortly thereafter in General Assembly Resolution 194), Jerusalem 

was designated as a corpus separatum, to be under the authority of the UN Trusteeship Council, 

the body established by the UN Charter to administer, among other things, former Mandatory 

Territories under the League of Nations. 

Today, just a few weeks before Resolution 181 's seventieth anniversary, it and its 

successor Resolutions are dead letters. Whatever else Jerusalem's final status may be, there is no 

serious advocacy that Jerusalem be internationalized, and no real-world possibility that it will 

happen. Nonetheless, the lingering effects of the internationalization idea persist in the 

contention that uncertainty exists over whether any part of Jerusalem will ultimately become 

Israel's capital city. 

Earlier this year, on April 6, the Russian Federation's Foreign Ministry announced that: 

"We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, 

which include the status of east Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the 

same time, we must state that in this context we view west Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."2 

To be sure, Russia's broad position on Israeli-Palestinian issues, as the Ministry's statement 

2 "Foreign Ministry statement regarding Palestinian-Israeli settlement," April 5, 2017 at I 0:40 

A.M., accessed at http://www.mid.ru/enlweb/guest/foreign policv!news/-

/asset publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2717182 

5 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 28071.006

indicates, is not the same as Israel's or the United States, Nonetheless, Moscow's frank 

acknowledgement of Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital, and the near-total absence of reaction 

around the world, especially in the Middle East, should tell us something about the reality into 

which a U.S. decision to relocate its Embassy would fall. If Russia can explain its position on 

Jerusalem as Israel's capital without massive blowback, then surely the United States can do so 

as well. 

The second argument against relocating the U.S. Embassy, expanding on the 

narrower issue of Jerusalem's status, is the assertion that the broader Middle East peace process 

would be adversely impacted. For example, Palestinian negotiator Saab Erekat said in 

December, 2016, during the Presidential Transition, that moving the Embassy would cause the 

"destruction of the peace process as a whole.''3 Surely, quite apart from being the kind of threat 

the United States should treat with disdain, this argument proves too much. Given the amount of 

bilateral economic and military assistance that the United States government has supplied to 

Israel over the years, not to mention the huge amounts of private donations and humanitarian 

assistance that U.S. citizens have provided, one might think that American sentiments on the 

permanence of the modern Israeli state would hardly be surprising. 

Moreover, looking at the enormous, world-historical events affecting the Middle East that 

have occurred since the modern State oflsrael's independence in 1948, the issue of 

acknowledging Israel's capital and moving the U.S. Embassy pales into insignificance. If the 

Middle East peace process is such a delicate snowflake that the location of the U.S. Embassy in 

Israel could melt it, one has to doubt how viable it is to begin with. This question calls for 

realism, not the overheated rhetoric that we have heard too often. Washington's role as an 

honest broker in the peace process will not be enhanced or reduced in the slightest by moving its 

Embassy to Jerusalem. To say otherwise is to mistake pretext for actual cause. Moving the 

Embassy may produce new talking points for those who have never reconciled themselves to 

Israel's existence in the first place, but it will not "cause" any change in the existing geopolitical 

state of play. 

Finally, we hear constantly the variation that concedes an eventual decision to 

relocate the Embassy, but pleads that "right now" is not the correct time. This approach argues 

for a supposedly temporary deferral of the move, but curiously, "temporary" deferral has now 

lasted for nearly seventy years. We hear it still today. When I served in the Department of State, 

there was a standing joke that on the word processors in the Near East Bureau, one needed to 

strike only a single key to produce the phrase "at this particularly delicate point in the Middle 

East peace process" on the computer screen, so often did it appear in NEA memos and cables. 

3 David Smith, "Republican senators introduce bill to move US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem," 

The Guardian, January 3, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/us-embassyisrael-jerusalem-republican-bill 

6 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 28071.007

The Trump Administration has been exploring whether potentially profound 

changes in the Middle East now provide an auspicious moment to make progress in the peace 

process. These diplomatic efforts, like all previous ones since 1948, have their ups and downs. 

But with respect to a possible decision to move the Embassy, saying at an optimistic point that 

"we don't want to risk the progress we're making," or saying at a pessimistic point, "this could 

completely doom our efforts," means there is never a good time. This is why in diplomatic 

circles, "not now" often means "not ever." I applaud the Administration's efforts, but I see them 

as only coincidentally connected to the Embassy issue. 

The effective management of America's bilateral relations with Israel; 

consistency with international geopolitical realities; and plain common sense all argue that the 

United States should acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocate our embassy to 

indisputably Israeli sovereign territory in West Jerusalem. The political arguments against 

following U.S. diplomatic interests to their natural conclusions are overblown, misguided, and 

outdated. We should treat the Israel Embassy issue as we have treated it in essentially every 

other country in the world with which we have diplomatic relations. 

Mr. Chairman, let me once again express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear 

before the Subcommittee, and I would be pleased to try to answer the Subcommittee's questions. 

7 
14 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Ambassador Bolton. 

Ambassador Dore Gold, you’re up. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DORE GOLD 

Mr. GOLD. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and 

members of the subcommittee, I commend you for holding this 

hearing. It is my view that President Donald Trump has made a 

commitment regarding the transfer of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and I believe he will stand by what he has said. Indeed, on 

June 1st, the White House released a statement stressing that, 

with regard to moving the Embassy, ‘‘the question is not if that 

move happens, but only when.’’ 

The U.S., of course, will have to consider many factors in making 

that decision. What is often overlooked in the debate about the location of the U.S. Embassy is why it matters. The Embassy question is a subset of a much more important issue: the need for Western recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. That recognition is 

vital for several reasons. What I’d like to discuss is the international interest. That interest concerns the protection of holy sites 

and assuring complete freedom of access to them. Religious freedom and pluralism are core values which both our countries share. 

Protecting Jerusalem’s holy sites is the responsibility the State 

of Israel assumed in law back in 1967 when Jerusalem was reunited after the Six-Day War, for etched into the collective consciousness of all of us is what happened to Jerusalem when we 

were absent and when we were barred from that city, and what 

has happened to the holy sites since 1967, since Israel unified Jerusalem and protected access for all peoples and faiths. What is clear 

from a brief survey is that only a free and democratic Israel will 

protect the holy sites of all the great faiths in Jerusalem. 

Let me stress, to the extent the U.S. reinforces Israel’s standing 

in Jerusalem, it is reinforcing core American and Western values 

of pluralism, peace, and mutual respect, and it is reinforcing the 

position of the only international actor that will protect these sites. 

Even today, it is surprisingly argued in certain diplomatic circles 

that the point of reference for any political solution on Jerusalem 

should be, or could be, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 from 

1947, also known as the Partition Plan. This resolution called for 

establishing an international entity around Jerusalem, which it 

called the corpus separatum. 

I think Ambassador Bolton made the point well. This resolution 

is a dead letter because after, for example, in 1949, after the U.N. 

failed to protect the Old City of Jerusalem from invading armies, 

our Prime Minister in December of that year stood in front of the 

Knesset and talked about the corpus separatum. David Ben-Gurion 

reminded his listeners that the U.N. did not lift a finger during 

1948. And he said that Jewish Jerusalem could have been wiped 

off the face of the Earth had it not been for the newly created 

Israel Defense Forces, Tzahal, and the prestate of—military formations. 

Ben-Gurion then addressed internationalization. And I’m quoting 

him from 1949: ‘‘We cannot today regard the decision of 29 November 1947 as being possessed of any further moral force since the 

United Nations did not succeed in implementing its own decisions. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 

In our view, the decision of 29 November about Jerusalem is null 

and void.’’ Internationalization was not an option. 

Fast forward several years after the signing of the Oslo agreements. In July of 2000, Yasser Arafat and the PLO launched what 

became known as the Second Intifada. Religious sites were specifically targeted. In December 2000, in Bethlehem, Fatah operatives 

and Palestinian Security Services assaulted Rachel’s Tomb. Two 

years later, 13 armed Palestinians from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and 

Fatah Tanzim forcibly entered the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus and one of the holiest sites in Christianity. Violent attacks on Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus were common 

in the same period. 

In Jerusalem, the key organization that represented radical 

Islam was called the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement 

under Sheikh Raed Salah. It was an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its leader falsely accused Israel of endangering the Al-Aqsa 

Mosque in Jerusalem, and it convened rallies under the banner 

‘‘Al-Aqsa is in Danger,’’ inciting violence and hatred with this lie. 

Let me conclude with the following remark. Jerusalem must not 

be left to the vagaries of the Middle East. What we see is that religious sites are under attack across the entire region, from the famous attack of the Taliban on the—on the Buddhas, 2000 year-old 

Buddhas in the Bamiyan Valley in Afghanistan to Coptic Orthodox 

churches in Egypt to the religious sites of Iraqi Christians and 

Yazidis in Iraq. 

There is a regional assault going on against holy sites. It is 

under way across the whole area. Israel deserves your support as 

it defends Jerusalem from these kinds of assaults. As I said earlier, 

only a free and democratic Israel will protect Jerusalem for all the 

great faiths. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gold follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 28071.008

ilDII~f"' ilniD11 i'll'lDI "'\l:l':lif 'l"lll"l 'D'i'ell"l'i\ r::nDi\ 

jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Registered Amuta 

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

"Moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem: 

Challenges and Opportunities" 

Wednesday, November 8, 2017, 10:00 a.m. 

Ambassador Dore Gold 

President, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; Former Director-General of Israel's 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador of Israel to the United Nations 

Witness Testimony 

Today, I am not going to address the question of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel 

Aviv to Jerusalem directly. It is my view that President Donald Trump has made a 

commitment in that regard and I believe he will stand by what he has said. The United 

States will evaluate the timing and circumstances for executing that decision in 

accordance with its interests. 

The US will of course have to consider many factors in making that decision. But what 

is often overlooked in the contentious debate about the location of the US Embassy in 

Israel is why it matters. The embassy question is a subset of a much more important 

issue: the need for western recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That recognition 

is vital for several reasons. 

On a political level, the denial of recognition helps fuel the dangerous fantasy, popular 

in the Middle East, that Israel is impermanent and illegitimate. On a religious and 

cultural level, the denial of recognition helps fuel the dangerous fantasy that Jews have 

no connection to Jerusalem and Israel- that their presence is an imposition because the 

land is not their homeland. 

Those could be characterized as Israeli interests alone. But what I'd like to discuss 

today is what could be called the international interest, or the interest in Jerusalem of 

concerned states. That interest often concerns the protection of the Holy Sites and 

assuring complete freedom of access to them. Religious freedom and pluralism is a core 

value which both our countries share. 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 28071.009

Protecting Jerusalem's holy sites is a responsibility that the State oflsrael assumed in 

law back in 1967, when Jerusalem was re-united after the Six Day War. It is also a 

responsibility that the people of Israel, I believe, are prepared to assume in the future 

as well. 

For etched into the collective consciousness of all of us is what happened to Jerusalem 

when we were absent and when we were barred from the city, and what has happened 

to the holy sites since 1967 -since Israel unified Jerusalem and protected access for all 

peoples and faiths. What is clear from a brief survey is that only a free and democratic 

Israel will protect the holy sites of all the great faiths in Jerusalem. Let me stress, to the 

extent that the US reinforces Israel's standing in Jerusalem, it is reinforcing core 

American and western values of pluralism, peace, and mutual respect - and it is 

reinforcing the position of the only international actor that will protect Jerusalem's holy 

sites. 

The Internationalization of Holy Sites 

The very fact that Jerusalem is viewed as a holy city by all three of the great 

monotheistic faiths - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - has frequently led to illconceived proposals to internationalize Jerusalem or sections of it in any resolution of 

the Arab-Israel conflict. 

It is not widely remembered, but this idea was actually tried -and failed miserably. 

Nonetheless, it is sometimes surprisingly argued in certain diplomatic circles that the 

point of reference for any political solution on Jerusalem should be UN General 

Assembly Resolution 181 ofNovember 29, 1947, which is also known as the Partition 

Plan. It should be recalled that Resolution 181 called for establishing an international 

entity around Jerusalem, which it called a Corpus Separatum. It would be governed by 

the United Nations itself. 

On May 15, 1948, when Israel declared its independence, invading Arab armies placed 

Jerusalem under siege. Its Jewish population was cut off from food and water. In 

addition to all this, Jerusalem faced intense artillery bombardment. The Egyptians took 

up positions on the outskirts of Bethlehem. An Iraqi Expeditionary Force reached the 

Jerusalem neighborhood ofTalpiot. The Old City was invaded by the Arab Legion of 

Transjordan. Israel's Foreign Minister, Moshe Sharett, reported to the UN that "ancient 

Jewish synagogues are being destroyed one after the other as a result of Arab artillery 

fire." Those artillery shells hit churches and even the Dome of the Rock on the Temple 

Mount. The mounting attacks led to a mass exodus of the Jewish population of the Old 

2 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 28071.010

City- what today would be called "ethnic cleansing." The only question that arose was 

what the UN was going to do with this unfolding situation. 

Frankly, it did nothing. Its internationalization proposal was failing. Standing in the 

Knesset, Israel's parliament, on December 5, 1949, after the end ofthe first Arab-Israeli 

War, Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, spoke about the Corpus 

Separatum and the UN's role. The UN, he reminded his listeners, "did not lift a finger" 

to protect Jerusalem. Only the newly created Israel Defense Forces, along with prestate formations, protected "Jewish Jerusalem from being wiped off the face of the 

earth." The recently formed Har'el Brigade of the Palmach, which had been placed 

under the command of Yitzhak Rabin, that was given the mission to break the siege, 

thereby permitting relief columns to enter the city. 

Ben Gurion then went on in his Knesset speech to address the internationalization 

proposal contained in Resolution 181: "We cannot today regard the decision of 29 

November 194 7 as being possessed of any further moral force, since the United Nations 

did not succeed in implementing its own decisions. In our view, the decision of 29 

November about Jerusalem is null and void" (emphasis added). In other words, Israel 

still adhered to the rest of the resolution, but it could not give up parts of Jerusalem to 

international control. Ben Gurion reminded the UN that "the people which faithfully 

honored for 2,500 years the oath sworn by the Rivers ofBabylon not to forget Jerusalem 

- this people will never reconcile itself with separation from Jerusalem." Eight days 

later, Ben Gurion declared that he was moving the Knesset from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem: 

"For the State of Israel there has always been, and always will be, one capital only -

Jerusalem the Eternal." 

3 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 28071.011

Jewish residents their homes in the Old City through the Zion Gate. The Jews of the 

City were either expelled or following Jordan's invasion of Jerusalem in 

1948 what today would be known as cleansing. Right: The Porat YosefYeshiva is blown 

by the Jordanians after the fall of the Jewish Qumter in 1948 and the of its residents. 

Jordanians blew up and dozens of synagogues and the ancient Mount of 

Olives cemetery (Photos: John LIFE lvfaga:::ine. Getty !mages, 1948). 

Again, this is not just a history lesson. In March 1999, when I served as Israel's 

ambassador to the UN, there was an initiative underway to revive Resolution 181 with 

respect to Jerusalem. This effort was supported by members of the European Union, 

several Arab states, and by the PLO. I doubted that the Palestinians really 

wanted internationalization, but it served as a convenient instrument for prying 

Jerusalem away from Israel. 

During a visit by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 

the internationalization idea contained in 181 re-surfaced and came up in a formal letter 

to the Secretary-General that was distributed to all member states. I asked for 

instructions from my prime minister, and I was told to go back to Ben Gurion's 

formulations in this regard from 1949 and use them, which I did. While 

internationalization and division of the city has no credibility today given the 

experience of the past, the idea nonetheless still creeps up in prestigious research 

institutes and academic bodies that influence the policy-making community. 

4 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 28071.012

Holy Sites in the Interim Period 

In 1993, with the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, a 

second scenario for holy sites arose. Those agreements, which created 

interim arrangements, were implemented with respect to the West Bank and the Gaza 

Strip. Jerusalem was designated as an issue for final status negotiations in the future. 

The Interim Agreement from 1995, which was the most important of the 

implementation instruments created under Oslo, made reference to religious sites in the 

West Bank and the Gaza Strip that were transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction (Annex 

III, Appendix 1, Article 32). While these agreements were signed by Prime 

Minister Yitzhak Rabin, or by his foreign minister, Shimon Peres, in his presence, it 

became clear that he never planned to relinquish Jerusalem. One month before 

his assassination in November 1995, Rabin stood in the Knesset and stated plainly that 

the borders of Israel during the "permanent solution" will include "first and foremost 

united Jerusalem ... as the capital oflsrael." 

In the meantime, during the interim period, guarantees were given to protect the 

holy sites, to assure free access to them, and to provide freedom of worship and 

practice. The Interim Agreement was signed by the parties here in Washington, in the 

White House, and witnessed by the US, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Norway, and the EU, 

which added their signatures. How did this arrangement tum out? If the Interim 

Agreement was intended to provide a test run for the management of holy sites by the 

Palestinian leadership in a future final status agreement, it fell far short of what even 

the strongest advocates ofthe Oslo Accords had expected. 

In the aftermath of the failure of Camp David summit in July 2000, the PLO launched 

what became known as the Second Intifada. Religious sites were specifically targeted. 

In Bethlehem, Fatah operatives and Palestinian security services assaulted Rachel's 

Tomb in December 2000. Less than two years later, in April 2002, 13 armed 

Palestinians, from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah Tanzim, forcibly entered the 

Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem - the birthplace of Jesus and one of the holiest 

sites for Christianity. 

The gunmen seized the Christian clergy as hostages, looted church valuables, and 

desecrated Bibles. Another repeated target for attack was Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, the 

protection of which was undertaken by the Palestinian side in the Oslo II Agreement. 

Gunmen from Fatah and Hamas took part in the ransacking of the site in October 2000. 

The site came under attack again, as Palestinians torched Joseph's Tomb in October 

2015 and set it on fire. 

5 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 28071.013

Palestinians stand on the roof of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus on October 7, 2000, after 

and civilians stormed the Israeli enclave, destroyed holy books and set the 

in a victory "celebration'' held after the !DF evacuated the site. (AP 

Pitarkis). A Greek Orthodox priest in Church of the Nativity in 

Bethlehem by Palestinians who entered forcibly, seized the Christian clergy as hostages. looted 

church valuables and desecrated Bibles. holding sign saying ''PLEASE HELP.'' April 2002. 

(Government Press 

The Growing Assault by Jihadi Groups on Holy Sites across the 

Middle East 

The escalating aggression against holy sites in the West Bank cannot be examined in 

isolation. It was becoming a hallmark of many jihadi groups across the Middle East 

There was the famous 2001 attack by the Tali ban in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan 

against the 2,000 year old Buddhist statues there which were reduced to rubble. Ten 

years later in 20 II, a suicide bomb exploded at the Coptic Orthodox Church in 

Alexandria, Egypt killing 23 and wounding nearly I 00. The Egyptian Interior Ministry 

placed responsibility for the attack on Jaish al-Islam, a Gaza-based organization that 

had conducted joint operations with Hamas in the past. 

These threats to Christian sites continued. In December 2016, a suicide bomber struck 

a chapel next to St. Mark's Cathedral in Cairo. ISIS, which in the meantime had 

established itself in eastern Libya and in northern Sinai, took responsibility for the 

attack. But Egyptian security personnel also looked for a connection to the Muslim 

Brotherhood. And in 2017 on Palm Sunday, twin bombing attacks were perpetrated 

6 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 28071.014

against churches m the Egyptian of Tanta and Alexandria killing 41. ISIS 

Left: in 200 L Tali ban decided to destroy two-thousand year-old Buddhist statues in the 

Bamiyan valley of with explosives. them to rubble (AP). Right: A Coptic 

church set aflame by Muslim Sala11sts in a Cairo amid violent clashes (EPA). 

The fact that ISIS participated in the assault should not have been surprising, since it 

came to Egypt after its involvement in a sectarian war in the Levant. In northern Syria, 

armed opposition groups had been targeting religious sites, including Christian 

churches not long after the Syrian civil war began. A Shia institution, found in a number 

of villages known as a husseiniya, was a repeated object of attack. In Iraq, ISIS broke 

off the cross from one of Mosul's main Syrian Orthodox churches and announced its 

conversion into a mosque. It was the second conversion of this sort to be conducted in 

Mosul. 

What is clear is that many of the organizations perpetrating attacks on holy sites were 

interconnected. Jaish al-lslam issued a communique in 2015 announcing its allegiance 

to ISIS. Sheikh Yusuf -al Qaradawi, who is viewed as the spiritual head of the Muslim 

Brotherhood and who resides in Qatar, issued his opinion on the 2001 Taliban attack 

on the Bamiyan Buddhas. His only reservation was based on his concern that such a 

move would elicit Buddhist retaliation against Muslims. Thus the attack itself was not 

prohibited, but he was only concerned with its possible repercussions. Qaradawi's 

religious opinions appear on the websites of Hamas, thus they can have an impact on 

other theaters of conflict. 

7 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 28071.015

In Jerusalem, the key organization that represented radical Islam was the Northern 

Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel - an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

On the one hand, its leader Sheikh Raed Salah falsely charged Israel with threatening 

to undermine the foundations of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. He convened rallies 

under the banner of "al-Aqsa is in Danger," and incited much of the Middle East with 

this lie. Yet while this movement claimed Israel was threatening the al-Aqsa Mosque, 

it had been instrumental in digging out the underground halls under the compound of 

the al-Aqsa Mosque, which ironically posed the greatest potential threat to its stability. 

At its own initiative, Israel worked with regional partners to protect the area from any 

instability. 

In 1947, Jerusalem was being showered with artillery fire and synagogues were being 

blown up. During the 1950's and 1960's, Jerusalem was divided by barbed wire, walls, 

and machine gun emplacements. Today, the unified city under Israeli control welcomes 

over three million tourists a year who visit its holy sites in peace and security. 

The State of Israel has acted responsibly in protecting this legacy of humanity. The 

question ofthe location of the US Embassy is really a question of whether the United 

States recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's permanent capital-sending a signal to the world 

that efforts to delegitimize Israel, to rewrite the history of other religions, and to pit 

western countries against each other will fail. By recognizing Jerusalem and moving its 

embassy, the United States would help promote peace and security in the region. 

I wish to remind this committee that in the past there were states that fully respected 

Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Indeed, 13 states had their embassies to Israel in Jerusalem 

until 1980. That year, however, the Soviet and Muslim blocs in the United Nations 

pushed through a resolution demanding that the 13 remove their embassies. They all 

did. The U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie called the Resolution "fundamentally 

flawed," and that the U.S. considered the instruction that states remove their diplomatic 

missions from Jerusalem "not binding" and "without force," stating, "We reject it as a 

disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations." 

Whatever is finally decided on the embassy issue, states have a clear choice. They can 

support the State of Israel, which has acted responsibly in protecting this legacy of 

humanity. Or they can undercut Israel, by preferring arrangements for the Holy City 

that plainly have not worked in the past and will undoubtedly fail in the future. There 

is a regional assault on holy sites underway across our region. Israel deserves your 

support as it defends Jerusalem. For only a free and democratic Israel will protect 

Jerusalem for all the great faiths. 

8 
24 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Ambassador Gold. 

Mort Klein, you’re up. 

STATEMENT OF MORTON KLEIN 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Chairman and members. First of all, I 

have to say I have Tourette syndrome. I may make sounds I can’t 

control. It’s a neurochemical disorder. My father had it. He gave it 

to me. I’ve always thanked him for it. 

The U.S. should move the Embassy to Jerusalem, not only because it’s the just and moral thing to do, but because it’s a law, 

passed with bipartisan, almost unanimous support, almost 22 years 

ago. Delaying implementation sends the message that Islamist 

threats and terrorism work, but moving the Embassy will strengthen American security and enhance worldwide respect for America 

by demonstrating the U.S. can be counted on to keep her commitments to her allies and will not, dare not, be intimidated by appeasing radical Islamic threats. 

If we allow U.S. policy to be determined by terror threats, we 

have only encouraged more such threats, more such terror, and undermined the U.S. campaign to eradicate radical Islamic terror. 

And Israeli control of Jerusalem is critical to security in all of Jerusalem and its surroundings. 

And moving the Embassy will not cause further Mideastern instability. Israel’s relationship with Egypt and Jordan and Saudi 

Arabia are strong today because of strong mutual concerns and interests and threats from Iran. Moving the Embassy will not change 

this. 

The Jerusalem Embassy Acts waiver provision has been inappropriately used for 22 years. The act’s drafters made it clear that the 

waiver was not intended to be invoked repeatedly or for policy disagreements, but only for a serious security emergency. Senate Majority Leader Bob Doyle said then: The President cannot lawfully 

invoke this waiver because he thinks it’s better to move it at a 

later date. The President dare not infinitely push off the establishment of the American Embassy in Jerusalem. 

‘‘If a waiver were to be repeatedly and routinely exercised by a 

President, I would expect,’’ said Dole, ‘‘that Congress should remove the waiver authority.’’ 

And by the way, Dole and Kyl, who I spoke to at the time, told 

me the President should never use it, once or twice at the most. 

We haven’t moved the Embassy for 22 years, yet we’re further 

from peace today than we were 22 years ago. Not moving the Embassy did not help. Peace is impossible solely because of the Palestinian Arabs’ refusal to accept Israel within any border, their refusals to even negotiate and outlaw terrorist groups, and refusal to 

end the promotion of hatred and murder and violence in their 

speeches, schools, and media. They are continuing to pay Arabs to 

murder Jewish people. It’s an outrage. This is the regime we’re 

talking about. In addition, they have now reconciled with the terrorist group, Hamas. This tells you their real intentions. This is the 

emblem that Abbas commissioned of the Fatah party of the Palestinian Authority. You see all of Israel there with a Kofia over it, 

a Kalashnikov rifle, and the arch-terrorist Arafat. These are the 

types of posters they put up in schools, universities, and high 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

schools showing, honoring killers, murderers of innocent people 

when they commit their heinous crimes. 

We have to tell them the jig is up, that the only way for peace 

is if we hold them accountable and say there will be no more 

money, no more support to the Palestinian Authority, no more 

American money, unless they change. Remember, the greatest outbreak of Palestinian Arab violence occurred not after Israeli actions 

that the Palestinians disliked but occurred when Israel offered unprecedented concessions and a Palestinian state in 2000. The PA 

has used any excuse to promote violence against Israel. And the 

only place in the Middle East where the Christian population has 

grown is in Israel. And under Jordanian control, 70 percent of the 

Christians left because of oppression, and under Palestinian control, 80 percent of the Christians left Bethlehem. Mahmoud Abbas, 

the President of the PA, made it clear that he would cut off access 

to religious sites by regularly making the astonishing racist statement, and I quote: In a final solution, we will never see a single 

Israeli civilian or soldier in our land. Jews and Christians have suffered greatly. Now their sites are under PA control. Jerusalem has 

been the capital only of Israel throughout history, never any other 

regime, country, or entity. 

I now turn to a rarely mentioned fact. Jerusalem is not very holy 

to Muslims. They have not treated Jerusalem as holy to them when 

they controlled it. During Arab Muslim control of Eastern Jerusalem, they allowed it to become a slum. There was virtually no 

water, electricity, or plumbing. Jordan built its royal residence and 

universities in Amman, not Jerusalem. They broadcast their Friday 

prayers from a mosque in Amman, not the Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. 

In the Holy Koran, Jerusalem is never mentioned. In the Jerusalem Holy Books, it’s mentioned 700 times. 

But Abbas and others claim that Muhammad flew from a winged 

horse from Jerusalem to Heaven, and I don’t have time to get into 

that. Let me just say, Jews face Jerusalem when they pray; Muslims face Mecca. When Jerusalem was under Arab control, not a 

single Arab leader, other than King Hussein and his father, visited. 

If it’s so holy, why didn’t others visit it? It belies their claim of holy 

status. 

Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, has recently 

stated: Move the Embassy to Jerusalem now, an undivided Jerusalem. 

Senator Joe Biden, at the time future Vice President, said, quote: 

‘‘Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem will send the right signal, 

not a destructive signal. To do less would be to play into the hands 

of those who will try the hardest to deny Israel full attributes of 

statehood.’’ 

‘‘The only way,’’ Biden said, ‘‘there will be peace in the Mideast 

is for the Arabs to know there is no division between the U.S. and 

Israel.’’ None, zero, none. Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 28071.016

Written Testimony of 

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President Morton A. Klein 

Hearing on Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: 

Challenges and Opportunities 

Before the 

House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on National Security 

November 8, 2017, 10:00 a.m. 

Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167 

Introduction: 

Chairman DeSantis, Vice Chairman Russell, Ranking Member Lynch, and Members of the 

Committee: Thank you for holding this hearing to examine relocating the United States 

Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, 1 thereby finally implementing the bi-partisan Jerusalem 

Embassy Act of 1995, which Congress passed virtually unanimously' twenty-two years ago. 

It is a special privilege to come before you during this year of momentous anniversaries: the 

lOOth anniversary of both the Balfour Declaration and President Woodrow Wilson's essential 

prior U.S. consent to the Balfour Declaration'; and the 50th anniversary of the miraculous 

reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel defended herselffrom Jordan's 

attack. 

I'd like to quote from then-Senator and subsequent Vice President Joe Biden's statement in 

1995, urging Congress to pass the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Senator/VP Biden eloquently 

described the central importance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people, and the justice of 

recognizing and moving the American embassy to Israel's unified sovereign capital Jerusalem, 

as follows: 

"Those familiar . .. with the Jewish people know the centro/ meaning that the ancient 

city of Jerusalem has for Jews everywhere. Time and again, empires have tried to sever 

1 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (S. 1322 (104th)), Pub. L. 104-45, Nov. 8, 1995, 109 Stat. 398, 

at https://www .gpo.gov /fdsys/pkg/STA TUTE-109/pdf/STA TUTE-109-Pg3 98.pdf 

2 S. 1322 passed by 93 to 5 in the Senate, and by over 90% of the vote in the House (374-37). 

https://www .govtrack.us/ congress/bills/104/s1322/ details 

3 Britain required prior consent from its allies France and the United States before issuing the 

Balfour Declaration. "The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration," by Prof. Martin 

Kramer, Mosaic Mag., June 5, 2017, at https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/theforgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/ 

633 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 31-B, NEW YORK, NV 100171 (212) 481-1500 I FAX' (212) 481-1515IINFO@ZOA.ORG I WWW.ZOA.ORG 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 28071.017

the umbilical cord that unites Jews with their capital. They have destroyed the temple. 

They have banished the Jews from living in Jerusalem. They have limited the number of 

Jews allowed to immigrate to that city. And, finally, in this century, they tried simply to 

eliminate Jews. They may have succeeded . .. in destroying physical structures and lives. 

But they have never succeeded in wholly eliminating Jewish presence in Jerusalem, or 

in cutting the spiritual bond between Jews and their cherished capital. After the 

horrific events of the Holocaust, the Jewish people returned to claim what many rulers 

have tried to deny them for centuries: The right to peaceful existence in their own 

country in their own capital. How many of us can forget that poignant photograph of an 

unnamed Israeli soldier breaking down in tears and prayer as he reached the Western 

Wall after his army liberated the eastern half of the city in the Six Day War? Those tears 

told a story. A story of a people long denied their rightful place among nations. A people 

denied access to their most hallowed religious sites. A people who had finally, after long 

tribulation, come home."4 

The Jews were indeed the largest religious group in Jerusalem from at least the time of the first 

census in 1844, through the present day.5 In approximately 1880, Jews became the majority in 

Jerusalem. In 1906, out of a total Jerusalem population of 60,000: 40,000 were Jews; 13,000 

were Christians and only 7,000 were Muslims. 6 

Senator/VP Biden also commented that maintaining embassies in Tel Aviv for the previous 

forty-seven years (1948-1995) was a "continued sham" and "a denial of fundamental reality." 7 

That sham and denial of fundamental reality has now continued for 69 years. 

As I will discuss, moving the U.S. Embassy to Israel's capital will achieve tremendous benefits 

for the United States and our allies throughout the world. 

1. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Fulfills U.S. and International Law and Policy: 

The move to Jerusalem will effectuate U.S. law and policy, as well as binding international law, 

to which the United States is a party, designating Israel, including Jerusalem, as the Jewish 

homeland. 

(a) The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 199S Establishes Moving the Embassy as U.S. Policy 

4 Statement of Senator Joe Biden, Cong. Record Vol. 141, No. 165, Oct. 24, 1995 (Senate), p. S15533, at https:ljwww.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-10-24/htmi/CREC-1995-10-24-ptlPgS15522.htm (Emphasis is supplied, unless otherwise specified.) 

5 "Population of Jerusalem: 1844 to Present," Jewish Virtual Library, at 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/population-of-jerusalem-1844-2009 

6 Baedeckers' Guide to Jerusalem, 1906. 

7 Statement of Senator Joe Bid en, Oct. 24, 1995, supra, p. S-15533. 

2 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 28071.018

The bi-partisan Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed virtually unanimously, states that it is 

U.S. policy that Jerusalem "should remain an undivided city ... recognized as the capital of the 

State of Israel" and that "the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem 

no later than May 31, 1999."8 

The Jerusalem Embassy Act lists seventeen historical, religious, factual and legal findings 

warranting the embassy move. Legal-related findings include: "{1) Each sovereign nation, under 

international/ow and custom, may designate its own capital"; "{2) Since 1950, the city of 

Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel"; and "{16) The United States conducts 

official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status 

as the capital of Israel." The Jerusalem Embassy Act also invokes the prior passage of 

unanimous Congressional resolutions (1990 and 1992); and respective 1995 Senate and 1993 

House letters to the Secretary of State encouraging "planning to begin now" for relocation of 

the embassy to Jerusalem, and that the relocation "should take place no later than . .. 1999."9 

(b) The Jerusalem Embassy Act's Waiver Provision Is Required to be Narrowly Construed, 

and is Not Intended to be Invoked Repeatedly or for Policy Disagreements 

For the past two decades, successive U.S. administrations have repeatedly invoked the 

Jerusalem Embassy Act's waiver provision every six months, even though the waiver provision 

was not intended to permit such repeated delays. The Jerusalem Embassy Act states that the 

President may invoke additional six-month waivers 

"if the President determines and reports to Congress in advance of the additional 

suspension that the additional suspension is necessary to protect the national security 

interests of the United States." 10 

In Congressional hearings in 1995, then-Senator and Majority Leader Robert ("Bob") Dole, who 

introduced the Jerusalem Embassy Act along with Senators Moynihan, Kyl, Inouye, and 61 other 

colleagues, 

Senator Dole also explained, during the following revealing exchange with then-Senator Kyl, 

that the waiver provision is required to be narrowly construed, may not be lawfully invoked 

simply because an administration disagrees as to when or if the embassy should be moved, and 

is not intended to allow indefinite delays. The Jerusalem Embassy Act's intent was for the 

American embassy to be established in Jerusalem by May 1999: 

8 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, supra, § (3)(a)(1)-(3), Statement of Policy of the United 

States. 

9 ld., § 2, Congressional findings (1), (2), (9), (10), (13), (14) and (16). 

10 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, supra, Presidential Waiver,§§ 7(a)(1) and (2). 

3 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 28071.019

Mr. KYL: The waiver provision inS. 1322 will be examined by many people. I would like to 

join with the distinguished majority leader in clarifying on the Record the meaning and 

purpose of the waiver language. 

Mr. DOLE: ... It is important that no one think that this [waiver] provision would allow 

the President to ignore the requirements of S. 1322 simply because he disagrees with the 

policy this legislation is promulgating. The President cannot lawfully invoke this waiver 

simply because he thinks it would be better not to move our Embassy to Jerusalem or 

simply because he thinks it would be better to move it at a later time. The waiver is 

designed to be read and interpreted narrowly. It was included to give the President 

limited flexibility-- flexibility to ensure that this legislation will not harm U.S. national 

security interests in the event of an emergency or unforeseen change in circumstances. 

Mr. KYL: What is the significance of the phrase "national security interests" as opposed 

to "national interest"? 

Mr. DOLE: This is the way we are ensuring that the waiver will not permit the President 

to negate the legislation simply on the grounds that he disagrees with the policy. 

"National security interests" in [sic] much narrower than the term "national interest"--

and it is a higher standard than national interest. The key word is security. No President 

should or could make a decision to exercise this waiver lightly. 

Mr. KYL: Is it fair to say that the intention of the waiver is to address constitutional 

concerns that have been raised about S. 1322? 

Mr. DOLE: It is fair to say the waiver is intended to address unusual or unforeseen 

circumstances. We believeS. 1322 is constitutional even without the waiver, but the 

constitutional questions that have been raise about it deal [{PageS 15532]] with issues 

so important that we think it is best to offer the President the limited flexibility of the 

waiver. It is within the constitutional appropriations power of Congress to withhold 

funds from the executive branch if it does not act in accordance with congressional 

mandates. 

Mr. KYL: Although in drafting the legislation Senators did not limit the number of times 

the President could invoke the waiver authority, is it correct to say that the intent of the 

drafters is not to grant the President the right to invoke the waiver in perpetuity? 

Mr. DOLE: The waiver authority should not be interpreted to mean that the President 

may infinitely push off the establishment of the American Embassy in Jerusalem. Our 

intent is that the Embassy be established in Jerusalem by May 1999. If a waiver were 

to be repeatedly and routinely exercised by a President, I would expect Congress to act 

by removing the waiver authority. 11 

11 Statement of Senator Bob Dole, Oct. 24, 1995, supra, p. S-15528. 

4 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 28071.020

Senator Dole also explained that the presidential waiver was added to the bill "despite having 

the votes to prevail" without the waiver. This was simply done in the spirit of addressing any 

administration concerns. 12 

My (Morton Klein's) personal discussions about the Jerusalem Embassy Act with its authors and 

many other members of Congress in 1995 and since then, likewise indicated that the Jerusalem 

Embassy Act's waiver provision was not intended to be used to repeatedly delay the move for 

two decades past the stated deadline of 1999. I also observed, based on these conversations, 

that there were more than sufficient votes for the Jerusalem Embassy Act to pass without the 

last-minute insertion of the waiver provision. 

(c) Additional U.S. Legal Commitments to Move the American Embassy to Jerusalem 

Congress has reiterated its commitment to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. Section 214 of 

the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2003, provided: 

"UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO JERUSALEM AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL. 

(a) CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF POLICY- The Congress maintains its commitment to 

relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and urges the President, 

pursuant to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45; 109 Stat. 398), to 

immediately begin the process of relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to 

Jerusalem." 13 

The U.S. obligation to move the embassy is further buttressed by pre-existing U.S. 

commitments to the Jewish homeland in the area encompassing Jerusalem, contained in 

additional U.S. law and binding international agreements to which the United States is a party. 

The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) signed into law by then-President Warren Harding, approved 

the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine. 14 Palestine was a geographical area 

encompassing Jerusalem. (Palestine was never a country.) 

The 1924 Anglo-American Convention (Treaty) confirmed the League of Nations Mandate, 

designating the area that is now Israel including Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria (and the area of 

present-day Jordan) as a "sacred trust" for reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The 

12 Statement of Senator Bob Dole, Oct. 24, 1995, supra, p. S-15531-15532. 

13 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2003, H.R. 1646, 107th Cong. (2001) (Sept. 30, 2002), 

§ 214, at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107 /hr1646/text. 

14 "Joint Resolution Favoring the Establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish 

People" (Lodge-Fish Resolution), H. J. Res. 73, 67th Cong., Pub. Res. 67-73, Sept. 21, 1922, 42 

Stat. 1012 (enacted), at http:/ /legisworks.org/congress/67/pubres-73.pdf. 

5 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 28071.021

Convention was ratified by the U.S. President and Senate in 1925, making it a binding U.S. 

treaty obligation. 15 

UN Charter Article 8016 (the "Jewish people's clause), adopted in 1945, to which the United 

States is a party, preserved intact all rights granted to Jews under the league of Nations' 

Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate's expiration in 1948. As legal scholar Howard 

Grief has explained, Article 80 prevents the UN from transferring rights over any part of 

Palestine to any non-Jewish entity, such as the Palestinian Authority or a "Palestinian state." 17 

(d) There is No Lawful Impairment to the Embassy Move 

Further, there is no U.S. law or binding international law that impairs Israel's right to Jerusalem, 

or that impairs her right to maintain her capital in Jerusalem. The 1947 UN "Partition 

Resolution" was a mere non-binding recommendation (and subject to a vote by Jerusalem's 

residents as to Jerusalem's status after ten years). 18 The recommendation was rejected by the 

Arabs, and thus did not become an internationally binding agreement or treaty. 

The 1949 ceasefire lines (also known as the "1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines" or the "Green 

Line" or "pre-1967 lines") were non-binding. The lines merely marked approximately where the 

fighting stopped in 1949 after six Arab nations invaded Israel, and Jordan illegally seized the 

eastern portion of Jerusalem- containing the Old City, Jewish Quarter, Judaism's holiest sites, 

and Jewish cultural and academic institutions. The eastern portion of Jerusalem is the 

Jerusalem of the Bible and history. Israel and her neighbors specifically agreed that these lines 

were "without prejudice to an ultimate political settlement between the parties." 19 

15 "Convention Between the United States and Great Britain in Respect to Rights in Palestine," 

(Anglo-American Convention of 1924), Signed Dec. 3, 1924, Ratified advised by U.S. Senate Feb. 

20, 1925, ratified by U.S. President, Mar. 2, 1925, ratified by Great Britain, Mar. 18, 1925, 

ratifications exchanged at london, Dec. 3, 1925; proclaimed Dec. 5, 1925, at 

http://www.alliedpowersholocaust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1924-Anglo-AmericanConvention.pdf. 

16 Charter of the United Nations, Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System, Article 80, at 

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html 

17 "Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a 'Palestinian State'," by Howard Grief, Algemeiner, 

Sept. 22, 2011, at https://www.algemeiner.com/2011/09/22/artide-80-and-the-unrecognition-of-a-"palestinian-state" I 18 UN General Assembly Res. 181, Nov. 29, 1947, at 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicv/peace/guide/pages/un%20general%20assembly%20r 

esolution%20181.aspx 

19 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, Apr. 3, 1949, Articles 11.2, Vl.8 and Vl.9, at 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/vearbook1/pages/israeljordan%20armistice%20agreement.aspx 

6 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 28071.022

The western portions of Israel continued to be under Israeli control throughout Jordan's illegal 

occupation of eastern Jerusalem (1949-1967). Jerusalem served as Israel's capital from 1950 

onwards. 

After Israel recaptured the eastern portion of Jerusalem during the defensive Six-Day War in 

1967,20 Israeli sovereignty was restored to a unified Jerusalem. The Levy Commission 

(appointed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and headed by esteemed former Israel 

Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy) concluded that when Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem 

and Judea/Samaria: 

"the original/ega/ status of the territory was restored, namely, a territory designated as 

a national home for the Jewish people, who had a "right of possession" to it during 

Jordanian rule while they were absent from the territory for several years due to a war 

imposed on them, and have now returned to it." 21 

UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted after the 1967 Six Day War, called for Israel to 

have "recognized and secure" borders, and did not call for Israel to surrender "all" lands 

captured in 1967. 22 The secure borders that Israel is entitled to necessarily include Jerusalem. 

Then-U.S. President Lyndon Johnson stated shortly after the adoption of Resolution 242: 

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that 

will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation 

of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace:m 

Israel has arguably more than complied with Res. 242 by returning the Sinai to Egypt pursuant 

to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. 

20 Jordan attacked Israel in June 1967, even though Israel implored Jordan not to attack, saying: 

"we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should 

Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might." "Message from Prime Minister 

Eshkol to King Hussein," 5 June 1967, at 

http:ljwww.mfa.gov.ii/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/16%20Message 

%20from%20Prime%20Minister%20Eshkol%20to%20King%20Huss.aspx. 

21 "The Levy Commission Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria," 

Jerusalem, June 21, 2012, Tammuz 1, 5772, translated into English by Regavim, 2014, at 

http:ljwww.regavim.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Levv-Commission-Report-on-theLegai-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria2.pdf 

22 UN Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967, at 

http://mfa.gov.ii/MFA/Foreign Policy /Peace/Guide/Pages/UN%20Security%20Councii%20Resol 

ution%20242.aspx 

23 "Lyndon Johnson Administration: Speech on 'A Just and Dignified Peace'," Sept. 10, 1968, 

Jewish Virtual Library, at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-johnson-speech-onldguo-a-just-and-dignified-peace-rdguo-september-1968 

7 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 28071.023

Further, the 19941sraei-Jordan Peace Treaty recognized the Jordan River (not the "green line") 

as the international boundary between Jordan and Israel. 24 Thus, Jerusalem is on the Israeli 

side of the agreed-to border. The Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty merely respects Jordan's "special 

role .. . in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem.'' 25 

The Oslo Accords (1993-1995), signed by the PLO and Israel, do not grant any rights to 

Jerusalem to the PLO- and never spoke of a Palestinian Arab state. In Prime Minister Rabin's 

last speech to the Knesset, he explained that the contemplated "permanent solution" with the 

PLO would involve establishing a Palestinian Arab entity that was "less than a State" that 

governed the lives of Palestinian Arabs, and no giveaway of any part of united Jerusalem. "First 

and foremost," Jerusalem would remain united under Israeli sovereignty. 26 

Further, the United Nations does not have the power to make or interpret international law, or 

to render Israel's sovereignty over unified Jerusalem "illegal," via UN Security Resolution 2334 

24 Treaty of Peace Between The State Of Israel And The Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan, 26 Oct 

1994, Article 3 and Annex I, available at 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/israeljordan%20peace%20treaty.aspx (Article 3) and 

http://www.mfa.gov.ii/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Peace/Guide/Pages/lsraeiJordan%20Peace%20Treaty%20Annex%201.aspx (Annex I) 

25 /d., Article 9.2 

26 Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin: Ratification of the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement, The 

Knesset, October 5, 1995, Israel Ministry of Public Affairs Archive, at 

http:ljmfa.gov.ii/MFA/MFA-Archive/1995/Pages/PM%20Rabin%20in%20Knesset-

%20Ratification%20of%201nterim%20Agree.aspx Rabin's statement contemplated that the 

ultimate result of "Oslo process" negotiations, saying: "We view the permanent solution in the 

framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was 

under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home 

to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like 

this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the 

Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent 

solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 

4 June 1967 lines . ... [W]e envision and want in the permanent solution: A. First and foremost, 

united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of 

Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, 

Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, 

according to the customs of their faiths . ... " 

8 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 28071.024

(2016) 27 or other UN resolutions which sought to delegitimize Israel's reunification of 

Jerusalem. 28 

(e) Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem comports with the commitments and policies 

of the major U.S. political parties, top elected officials and the American public's views 

The major U.S. political party platforms and statements are committed to moving the U.S. 

embassy to Jerusalem, or at the very least, having Jerusalem remain as a united city and the 

capital of Israel. No major U.S. party platform calls for the division of Jerusalem, or for 

Jerusalem to be recognized as the capital of any state other than Israel. 

The 2016 Republican Party platform clearly called for the U.S. Embassy to be moved to 

Jerusalem, stating: 

"We recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and 

call for the American embassy to be moved there in fulfillment af U.S. Jaw. 29 

Likewise, then candidate Trump declared in March 2016: 

"We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, 

Jerusa/em." 30 

27 See "Leading lnt'l Legal Scholar Kontorovich Emphasizes at lOA Event: US Embassy Should 

Move to Jerusalem," ZOA News Release, Jan. 23, 2017, at https://zoa.org/2017 /01/10350197-

leading-intl-legal-scholar-kontorovich-emphasizes-at-zoa-event-us-embassy-should-move-tojerusalem/ Professor Kontorovich will be testifying on the same panel today. 

28 These include UN General Assembly ("GA") Res. 2253 (1967); UNGA Res. 2254 (1967); UN 

Security Council ("SC") Res. 252 (1968); UNSC Res. 267 (1969); and UNSC Res. 478 (1980). 

Professor Malvina Halberstam explains that: "Notwithstanding these and other resolutions by 

the General Assembly and Security Council, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem would not 

via/ate international/ow. The UN Charter does not give the General Assembly the authority to 

adopt binding resolutions. Its resolutions are recommendations which States are free to accept 

or reject. The Security Council does have the authority to adopt resolutions that are legally 

binding. However, only resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding. None 

of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII, and are, therefore, not binding." "Moving 

the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem: An Analysis and Discussion of U.S., Israeli and 

International Law," by Prof. Malvina Halberstam, Esq., Israel Nat' I News, reprinted on ZOA 

website, May 23, 2017, at https:l/zoa.org/2017 /05/10363858-jewish-prayer-on-har-habayitwhats-the-status-guo-and-should-it-be-changed/ 

29 2016 Republican Party Platform, p. 47, at https://prod-cdnstatic.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT 12 FINAL[1]-ben 1468872234.pdf 

30 "Donald Trump's Speech to A/PAC" transcript, Time Mag., Mar. 21, 2016, at 

http:l/time.com/4267058/donald-trump-aipac-speech-transcript/ 

9 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 28071.025

The Trump campaign's policy platform also unconditionally reaffirmed: 

"The U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish 

state and Mr. Trump's Administration will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem." 31 

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform confirmed that Jerusalem should remain Israel's capital 

and undivided, stating: 

"While Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations, it should remain the capital of 

Israel, an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. " 32 

last month, the Senate Democratic Minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer renewed a call for 

the American embassy to be moved to Jerusalem saying: 

"As someone who strongly believes that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel, I am 

calling for the U.S. Embassy in Israel to be relocated to Jerusalem. Moving the embassy 

as soon as possible would appropriately commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of 

Jerusalem's reunification and show the world that the U.S. definitively acknowledges 

Jerusalem as Israel's capital." 33 

The American public overwhelmingly supports Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. In 

the 2014 Mclaughlin & Associates poll, in response to the question, "Do you believe that 

Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel?," a clear majority of 55% of Americans 

replied that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel, as opposed to a mere 13% 

who believe it should not. 34 That is over a 4 to 1 ratio in favor of Jerusalem remaining as 

Israel's undivided capital. 

31 "Joint Statement from Jason Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman, Co-Chairmen of the Israel 

Advisory Committee to Donald J. Trump,"- Compendium of Positions Confirmed with Donald 

Trump, Medium, Nov. 2, 2016, at https:/ /medium.com/@jgreenblatt/joint-statement-fromjason-dov-greenblatt-and-david-friedman-co-chairmen-of-the-israel-advisory-edc1ec50b7a8. 

32 2016 Democratic Party Platform, at 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/2016 DNC Platform.pdf 

33 "Schumer Renews Call for Embassy Move After Trump Puts Idea on Hold," JTA, Oct. 10, 2017, 

at https:/ /www .jta.org/2017 /10/10/news-opinion/politics/schumer-renews-call-for-embassymove-after-trump-says-give-peace-bid-a-chance 

34 Mclaughlin & Associates: "ZOA Release Of New Poll: Americans Show Overwhelming Support For 

Israeli Positions- Oppose Obama's Positions," Jan. 28, 2014, at 

http://mclaughlinonline.com/2014/01/28/new-poll-americans-show-overwhelming-support-for-israelipositions-oppose-obamas-positions/ 

10 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 28071.026

In mid-May, sixty top Christian leaders sent a letter to the president, organized by American 

Christian Leaders for Israel (ACLI), urging the president to end the waivers and move the 

American embassy to Jerusalem. 35 

2. Moving the U.S. Embassy acknowledges reality (and will be more convenient for U.S. 

Government personnel): 

Relocating the American embassy to Jerusalem would acknowledge the reality that Jerusalem is 

and has been the reconstituted State of Israel's capital and seat of government for almost 70 

years. 

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 found that the U.S. has already de facto recognized 

Jerusalem as Israel's capital, saying: "The United States conducts official meetings and other 

business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of lsrael.'' 36 

It is not surprising that official U.S. government business is regularly conducted in Jerusalem, 

and that relocating the embassy will be far more convenient and practical for U.S. embassy 

personnel: As the Jerusalem Embassy Act found: "The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's 

President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and 

social and cultural institutions:m Twenty-three out of Israel's twenty-six ministries, plus most 

other national government offices are all located in Jerusalem.38 

35 See, e.g., "Trump's Evangelical Supporters Disappointed About Israel Embassy Decision," by 

Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service, National Catholic Reporter, Jun 1, 2017, at 

https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/trumps-evangelical-supporters-disappointed-aboutisrael-embassy-decision 

36 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, supra,§ 2.(16). 

37 ld., § 2.(3). 

38 Israel's government ministries are listed by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/state/government/pages/israel%20government%20mi 

nistries.aspx. The ministries' and government offices' addresses are listed at: 

http://www.mfa.gov.ii/MFA/Aboutlsraei/State/Government/Pages/Addresses-

%20Telephone%20and%20Fax%20Numbers%20of%20Government.aspx Israel's ministries 

located in Jerusalem include the: Ministry of Communications; Ministry of Construction and 

Housing; Ministry of Culture and Sport; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Energy and Water 

Resources; Ministry of Environmental Protection; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Immigrant Absorption; Ministry of Industry, Trade and 

Labor; Ministry of Intelligence Affairs; Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Justice; Ministry for 

Pensioners' Affairs; Ministry of Diaspora Affairs; Ministry of Public Security; Ministry of 

Religious Services; Ministry of Science and Technology; Ministry of Social Affairs; Ministry of 

Strategic Affairs; Ministry of Tourism; and Ministry of Transport, National Infrastructures and 

Road Safety. Additional Israeli government institutions located in Jerusalem include the: Bank 

of Israel; Central Bureau of Statistics; Chief Rabbinate of Israel; Civil Service Commission; 

11 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 28071.027

3. Jerusalem is the Jewish People's Eternal Historic, Religious and Spiritual Capital. Bv 

Contrast, Jerusalem was Largely Ignored by Islam 

Relocating the embassy to Jerusalem also acknowledges the reality that Jerusalem is and has 

been the Jewish people's historic and spiritual capital for over 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the 

capital of historic Jewish kingdoms; the site of Judaism's holiest sites; and central to Jewish 

prayer, including the famous Psalm "If I forget you, oh Jerusalem, let me forget my own right 

hand" 39; the conclusion of every Passover Seder and the Judaism's holiest day of the year, Yom 

Kippur, with "Next year in Jerusalem!"; and daily prayers for Jerusalem. 

The Jerusalem Embassy Act confirms that: 

"(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism . .. and is also considered a 

holy city by the members of other religious faiths . ... 

[and] 

(17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish 

presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry."40 

Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish nation under King David and other Jewish kings, for 

hundreds of years. 

By contrast, Jerusalem was never the capital of any other nation. After the Arab conquest of 

Israel in 716 CE, the Arabs made Ramla their capital- not Jerusalem. Jerusalem has moreover 

never been a Palestinian Arab capital; indeed, there has never been a Palestinian Arab state. 

Jerusalem is also the Jewish people's holiest city. Jerusalem's Old City (in the eastern portion of 

Jerusalem, the real Jerusalem) contains the millennia old Jewish Quarter and Judaism's holiest 

site, the Temple Mount where the First and Second Jewish Temples stood, long before the birth 

of Islam. And eastern Jerusalem also contains the world's oldest and largest (3,000 years-old) 

Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. (Eastern Jerusalem is the real Jerusalem throughout 

Biblical and human history; Western Jerusalem was built in recent years.) 

Council for Higher Education; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Israel Broadcasting 

Authority; Israel Land Administration; Israel Police; Knesset; Knesset Members' Offices; Law 

Courts; National Authority of Religious Services; National Insurance Institute; Office of the Chief 

Scientist; Postal Authority; Prime Minister's Office; and State Comptroller and Public 

Complaints Commissioner/Ombudsman. 

39 Psalm 137, verse 5, at http://www.chabad.org/library/bible cdo/aid/16358/jewish/Chapter137.htm 

40 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 199S, supra,§ 2.(14) and (17). 

12 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 28071.028

Jerusalem is spoken of with reverence almost 700 times in the Torah, the Jewish holy books. 

Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran- not even once. 

Throughout the millennia, Jews always pray for Jerusalem 20 times each day, remember 

Jerusalem in holiday and wedding ceremonies, and pray facing Jerusalem. By contrast, Muslims 

pray facing Mecca. There are no Muslim prayers for Jerusalem. 

Muslims make their pilgrimages to Mecca; while Jewish pilgrimages are to Jerusalem. One of 

the five pillars of Islam (the five obligatory fundamental Muslim practices) is the "Hajj" 

pilgrimage to the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The Torah commands the Jewish people to 

make pilgrimages to the Temple in Jerusalem three times each year, on Judaism's three 

pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot). 

Jews have lived in Jerusalem throughout the millennia. Since at least the mid-1800s, the 

majority of the people living in Jerusalem were Jews. Theodore Herzl wrote in his diary about 

his arrival in Jerusalem on the evening of October 31, 1898: "The streets were alive with Jews 

sauntering in the moonlight." The 1907 prestigious Baedekers' Travel Guide reported that at 

that time, Jerusalem had 40,000 Jews; 13,000 Christians and 7,000 Muslims. 

Passover celebrates the Jewish people's freedom from slavery in Egypt, and return to Israel. 

Matzah eaten at Passover seders symbolizes the poor, broken unleavened bread that Jews ate 

while escaping from Egypt, to return to Israel. Jews sing at the end of every Passover seder: 

"Next year in Jerusalem" and "Rebuild the [Jewish] Temple in Jerusalem speedily in our days." 

Hanukkah celebrates the Jewish Maccabees' successful battles to free Israel from the Selucids 

(Syrian-Greeks) and overcome internal traitors ("Hellenists") who adopted the Greek's ways; 

followed by the Maccabees' rededication of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (The word 

Hanukkah means "rededication.").41 

In an attempt to create an Islamic religious connection to Jerusalem, Muslims point to Koran 

and hadith passages referring to Muhammad's dream (not an actual event) of journeying to 

heaven on his steed Buraq from the Sacred Mosque in Saudi Arabia to the "farthest mosque." 

However, the "farthest mosque" could not possibly have meant Jerusalem because the Koran 

refers to Palestine as the "nearest" place, and Jerusalem was a central crossroads in the Middle 

East- not a "farthest" place. Moreover, Jerusalem's eventual "AI Aqsa Mosque" was built 

long after the Koran and the Hadith were written. The mosque was named "AI Aqsa" after the 

fact, to create a myth about the location of Mohammed's dream. During Mohammed's day, 

Jerusalem was ruled by Byzantine Christians, and a Byzantine Christian church stood on the 

Temple Mount. 

41 "The Story of Chanukah," Chabad, at 

http:Uwww.chabad.org/holidays/chanukah/article cdo/aid/102978/jewish/The-Storv-of-Chanukah.htm 

13 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 28071.029

So little did Jerusalem mean to the Muslim Ottomans that, during the First World War, they 

abandoned it to the British without a fight and even contemplated entirely destroying the city 

before leaving it. 

In 1948, six Arab nations invaded Israel, and Jordan captured and illegally occupied the eastern 

portion of Jerusalem for 19 years (1948-1967). During Jordan's illegal occupation, Jordan 

demolished 58 centuries-old Jewish synagogues, killed or expelled the Jews, pillaged 

tombstones of the 3,000-years-old Mount of Olives Jewish cemetery to line latrines, denied 

Jews access to their holiest religious sites, and harshly discriminated against Christians and 

churches. Jordan prohibited Christian churches and communities from buying land or opening 

new schools, required Christian schools to teach the Koran, and refused to allow Christian 

holidays. 

Under Jordanian Arab Muslim rule, Jerusalem became a small isolated town. Arabs abandoned 

Jerusalem and moved to Amman. 

Significantly, neither the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)'s original National Charter 

(drafted in 1964, during Jordanian Muslim rule) 42, nor the PLO's 1968 National Charter.43 nor 

the Fatah (Arafat's terrorist group) Constitution~ even mention Jerusalem, let alone call for its 

establishment as a Palestinian Arab capital! 

During Jordan's 19-year illegal occupation of Jerusalem, Jordan also kept its capital in Amman, 

built Jordan's first university in Amman, as well as the King's numerous residences and their 

main mosque, and made its Friday prayer radio broadcasts from Amman- not from Jerusalem. 

From 1948 to 1967, Amman's population increased to five times its previous size, while 

Jerusalem's population did not increase at all. Arab leaders did not even bother visiting 

Jerusalem (with the brief exception of King Hussein). Jordan allowed eastern Jerusalem to fall 

into disrepair-to become a slum, with virtually no water or plumbing or electricity. This is of 

course not how an Islamic nation would treat a city that was really holy to Islam. 

Tellingly, in the not-so-distant past, Muslims recognized the Temple Mount as the site of the 

biblical Jewish temples. Thus, the Jerusalem Muslim Supreme Council's publication, 'A Brief 

Guide to the Haram AI-Sharif (1925 edition, page 4)45, states about Jerusalem's Temple Mount 

that: "Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, 

42 Palestine Liberation Organization Original National Charter (1964), Jewish Virtual Library, at 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-original-palestine-national-charter-1964 

43 The Palestinian National Charter, 1968, Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library, at 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th century/plocov.asp 

44 Fatah Constitution, as of August 25, 2007, CAMERA, at 

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x context=7&x issue=68&x article=1704 

45 "A Brief Guide to AI-Haram AI-Sharif," Jerusalem, Published by the Supreme Moslem Council, 

1925, at http://www.bibleplaces.com/guide.pdf' 

14 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 28071.030

according to the universal belief, on which 'David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered 

burnt offerings and peace offerings."' (The quotation is from 2 Samuel 24:2S.) 

The same Muslim publication notes on page 16: "In the west wall of the chamber, a door opens 

into a staircase descending to Solomon's stables. This is a vast subterranean chamber . .. It 

dates probably as far back as the construction of Soloman's Temple. According to Josephus, it 

was in existence and was used as a place of refuge by the Jews at the time of the conquest of 

Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 A.D." (After 19S4, all such references to the biblical Temples 

were excised from this publication.) 

Mideast scholar Prof. Francis Peters of NYU said that Muslims have always regarded Jerusalem 

"with careless indifference." There has never even been an important place of Muslim learning 

built or established there. 

However, Leon Uris, famed author of "Exodus" wrote, "Jerusalem has known only two periods 

of true greatness and these have been separated by 2000 years. Greatness has only happened 

under Jewish rule . .. Jews have remained constant in their Jove throughout the centuries. It is 

the longest and deepest Jove affair in the history of the world." 

4. The Embassy Relocation Will Enhance U.S. Security: 

The embassy relocation will also strengthen American security and enhance worldwide respect 

for America by demonstrating that the United States can be counted on to keep her 

commitments to her allies. The move will demonstrate that America does not allow American 

policy to be determined by radicallslamist terrorist threats. Succumbing to such Isla mist 

threats begets more threats and more violence, especially in the Middle East, where strength 

and maintaining one's honor are the coin of the realm. Concessions to the Palestinian Arabs 

have consistently led to more violence. Thus, if we want to reduce violence in Israel and 

throughout the Middle East, moving our embassy is the correct path. 

We can also couple moving the embassy with additional policies to reduce violence, such as 

tough legislation to stop the Palestinian Authority (PA)'s unconscionable "pay to slay" payments 

to terrorists to murder Jews and Americans, and pushing for the removal of Hamas and Fatah 

social media pages inciting the murder of innocent Jews and Christians. 

5. The Embassy Move Will Help -And Not Harm Any Peace Prospects 

Relocating the American embassy to Jerusalem will not harm a peace process. Rather, as thencandidate Trump correctly explained: 

"[W]hen the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace really rise and rises 

exponentially. That's what will happen when Donald Trump is president of the United 

15 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 28071.031

States. We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish 

people, Jerusalem." 46 

Among other things, moving the embassy will help peace prospects by diminishing the fantasy 

that Jerusalem is on the chopping block. 

Indeed, Israel's government has reportedly argued to the U.S. administration that relocating 

the embassy would "force the Arabs and Palestinians to wake up from a long-harbored fantasy 

that they could disassociate Israel and the Jewish people from Jerusalem." 47 

Even though the embassy has not been moved since Israel's re-establishment, the prospects for 

the peace are dimmer than they were in 1995. That is because the impediments to peace have 

nothing to do with the location of the U.S. embassy. The impediments to peace are the 

Palestinian Authority's incitement of violence and hatred against Jews and others; payments to 

terrorists to murder Jews and Americans; and unwillingness to recognize a Jewish state in any 

shape of form. 

Further, failing to move the American embassy propagates the Arab propaganda myth that 

peace would result if Israel agreed to divide Jerusalem. Dividing Jerusalem was previously tried 

and failed. There was no peace when Jordan illegally occupation of the eastern portion of 

Jerusalem for 19 years (1948-1967); Jordanian snipers regularly shot Israelis walking to school 

or work. 

The argument that moving the embassy could interfere with a peace process was properly 

rejected when the Jerusalem Embassy Act was enacted twenty-two years ago, and deserves no 

credence today. As then-Senator Bid en stated during the Congressional hearings in 1995: 

"[T]he only way there will be peace in the Middle East is for the Arabs to know there is 

no division between the United States and Israel--none, zero, none . ... As the Israelis 

and Palestinians begin the final status negotiations . . . it should be clear to all that the 

United States stands squarely behind Israel, our close friend and ally. Moving the U.S. 

Embassy to Jerusalem will send the right signal, not a destructive signal. To do less 

would be to play into the hands of those who will try their hardest to deny Israel the full 

attributes of statehood." 48 

46 "Donald Trump's Speech to A/PAC" transcript, Time Mag., Mar. 21, 2016, at 

http:l/time.com/4267058/donald-trump-aipac-speech-transcript/ 

47 "White House Announces 'Postponement' Of Jerusalem Embassy Move," by Michael Wilner & 

Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, June 1, 2017, at http:ljwww.jpost.com/lsraei-News/Trumpreneges-on-campaign-pledge-signs-waiver-to-maintain-U5-embassy-in-Tei-Aviv-494445 

48 Statement of Senator Joe Biden, Cong. Record Vol. 141, No. 165, Oct. 24, 1995 (Senate), p. 

S-15527, at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-10-24/htmi/CREC-1995-10-24-ptlPg515522.htm 

16 
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 28071.032

Senator Dole, who introduced the Jerusalem Embassy Act along with Senators Moynihan, Kyl, 

Inouye, and 61 other colleagues, likewise explained that 

"This legislation is not about the peace process, it is about recognizing Israel's capital. 

Israel's capital is not on the table in the peace process, and moving the United States 

Embassy to Jerusalem does nothing to prejudge the outcome of any future 

negotiations." 49 

Then-Senator Carl levin (D-MI), a Jerusalem Embassy Act co-sponsor, also noted: 

"It will not help the peace process for there to be any ambiguity about where Israel's 

capital is. Our action today will help to eliminate any such ambiguity and to make it 

clear to all concerned that this country is finally going to do in Israel what we have done 

in every single country in the world, which is to place our Embassy in the capital city." 50 

Significantly, then-Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin, the far leftwing architect of the 

Oslo accord peace process- who was dedicated to the peace process and in an ideal position to 

know what would harm such a process- clearly explained that moving the embassy should 

occur "the earlier the better," and that this would not hurt the peace process, noting: 

"Israel is the only nation in the world that doesn't have a recognized capital and I am not 

prepared to accept that if Israel has a recognized capital this will affect the 

negotiations." 51 

It is now twenty-four years after the Oslo accords- and the prospect of achieving real peace 

with the Palestinian Authority is dimmer than ever, and likely non-existent. Recent events bear 

this out: The Palestinian Authority first lied to President Trump and then vehemently rejected 

President Trump's reasonable demands to end the PA's unconscionable "pay to slay" 

paymentsY The PA continues to preach hatred and violence against Jews and Christians in 

49 Statement of Senator Robert Dole, Cong. Record, Vol. 141, No. 165, Oct. 24, 1995 (Senate), 

pp. S15522-S15535, at https://www .gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-10-24/htmi/CREC-1995-10-

24-ptl-PgS15522.htm 

50 Statement of Senator Carl levin, Cong. Record, Vol. 141, No. 165, Oct. 24, 1995 (Senate), p. 

S-15534, at https:f/www .gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-10-24/htmi/CREC-1995-10-24-ptlPgS15522.htm 

51 Yossi Beilin on Legislation to Move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, Press conference 

with Israeli journalists, Oct. 12, 1995, reprinted in Cong. Record Vol. 141, No. 165, Oct. 24, 1995 

(Senate), pp. S15522-S15535, at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-10-24/htmi!CREC1995-10-24-ptl-PgS15522.htm, pp. S 11528, S 15531. 52 See "P.A's Abbas Lies to Trump that P.A. Teaches 'Culture of Peace'- But PA Pays Salaries to 

Terrorists," ZOA News Release, May 8, 2017, https://zoa.org/2017 /05/10362016-p-as-abbasmonstrous-lie-to-trump-p-a-instills-culture-of-peace-while-paying-salaries-to-terrorists/; "PMW 

Special Report: The PA's Billion Dollar Fraud: The PA's Claim That It No Longer Pays Salaries To 

17 
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 28071.033

schools, government controlled mosques and via all forms of media.53 It is impossible to 

achieve peace with a Palestinian Arab entity that pays terrorists and teaches its school children 

to kill innocent Jews and Americans. The Palestinian Authority's maps, school atlases, official 

stationary and ruling party Fatah's emblem all show "Palestine" covering all of Israel. The PA 

continues to glorify Jew-killing terrorists by naming schools, streets, sports teams, children's 

camps and athletic teams after the terrorists. 

Further, the PA entered into a reconciliation pact with designated foreign terrorist organization 

Hamas, which permits both Hamas or Fatah (the PA's governing political party) to continue 

terror. 54 And the PAis now demanding that the British government renounce and apologize for 

the Balfour Decfaration. 55 As Jerusalem Post senior editor Caroline Glick succinctly put it, the 

Palestinian Arabs "have nat moved an inch in a hundred years." 56 

In light of the long and ongoing history of Palestinian-Arab rejectionist "resistance" to peace, 

aren't the 69 years that have passed since Jerusalem became modern Israel's capital long 

enough to wait before we recognize this reality and move our embassy to Jerusalem? 

6. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Will End the Discrimination Against the Only 

Jewish State in the World. 

Terrorist Prisoners Is False," Palestinian Media Watch, April27, 2017, at 

http://palwatch.org/STORAGE/special%20reports/PMW%20report.%20PA%20biflion%20doffar 

%20fraud.%20270416.pdf; "ZOA: PA's Abbas Lied to Sec'y Tillerson- They Still Pay Arabs to 

Murder Jews," ZOA News Release, June 15,2017 (with citations), at 

https :Uzoa .org/2017/06/1 03663 7 3-zoa-pas-a bbas-1 ied-to-secy-ti lie rson-they-still-pay-arabs-tomurder-jews/ 

53 See, e.g., "Palestinian Elementary School Curriculum 2016-17: Radicalization and Revival of 

the PLO Program," by Eldad J. Pardo, Hebrew University, April2017, at http://www.impactse.org/wp-content/uploads/PA-Curriculum-2017 -Revised .pdf. (Hebrew University study 

reproducing page after page of the vicious anti-Semitic, anti-Israel statements found in PA 

textbooks at every grade level and for every subject, teaching "a strategy of violence and 

pressure ... Children are expendable ... [S]ystematic hatred of all things Jewish/Israeli ... 

Palestinian students vow to "saturate the 'generous' land" with their blood. Each student 

recites: 'I vow I shall sacrifice my blood ... will remove/eliminate the usurper from my country, 

and will annihilate the remnants of the foreigners.' There is apparently no restriction on violence 

until the lost Israeli is out of Palestine." Even math problems in the PA's math textbooks are 

based on numbers of "martyrs" to teach Arab children to "martyr" themselves to kill Jews.) 

54 "Fatah Seeks 'True Partnership' with Homos; Neither Will Give Up Violence," by Ita mar 

Marcus & Nan Jacques Zilberdik, PMW, Oct. 24, 2017 (quoting Fatah Central Committee 

officials Jibril Rajoub and Azzam AI-Ahmad) at 

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc id=24054 

55 "Column One: Balfour's Greatest of Gifts," by Caroline B. Glick, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27,2017, 

at http:Uwww.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-Balfours-greatest-of-gifts-508602 

56 /d. 

18 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 28071.034

The U.S. embassy is in the capital of every other nation with which the U.S. has diplomatic 

relations. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 criticized this disparity, stating: "The United 

States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our 

democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of lsrael." 57 

Relocating the embassy will end the anomaly that Israel is the only country in the world in 

which the U.S. embassy is not located in the host nation's capital. The move will thus send a 

valuable message that Jews and the sole Jewish state are not second-class citizens- a message 

that will help combat anti-Semitism, and strengthen our bond with our key ally Israel. This will 

carry out the policy announced by then-candidate Trump in March 2016: "When I become 

president, the days of treating Israel/ike a second-class citizen will end on day one." 58 

The equitable concept that Jews and Israel should be accorded the same rights as other people 

and nations was also expressed long before President Trump's statement. In 1819, our nation's 

second president, John Adams (1797-1801), wrote letters to American-Jewish diplomat 

Mordecai Manuel Noah, stating: 

"I wish your nation may be admitted to all the privileges of citizens in every part of the 

world. This country (America) has done much; I wish it may do more and annul every 

narrow idea in religion, government, and commerce." 

and 

"I really wish the Jews again in Judea, an independent nation ... " 59 

In 1984, Democratic then-Congressman (and ranking Democrat on the Europe and Middle East 

Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee) Tom Lantos (D-CA) pointed out that our 

embassy is located in the capital city of 135 out of 136 countries with whom the U.S. maintains 

diplomatic relations (today the number of countries is closer to 200), and that the Jewish state 

57 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, supra,§ 2.(15). 

58 "Donald Trump's Speech to A/PAC' transcript, Time Mag., Mar. 21, 2016, at 

http:l/time.com/4267058/donald-trump-aipac-speech-transcript/ 

59 "John Adams Spoke as a Friend of Zionism and a Foe of Slavery," A. H. Sakier, New York Times 

letters, Dec. 20, 1986 (quoting republication of Adams' letters in "A Century of U.S. Aliya," pub. 

Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel, 1961). See also "The Selected Writings of 

Mordecai Noah," edited by Michael Schuldiner and Daniel J. Kleinfeld, Discourse on the 

Restoration of the Jews, Greenwood Press, 1999, p. 127, at 

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=Rp7F78jM9kcC&pg=PA127&1pg=PA127&dg=john+adams+l 

+wish+your+nation+may+be+admitted+to+all+the+privileges+of+citizens+in+every+part+of+th 

e+world.&source=bl&ots=tlm7ajAX7h&sig=W3D15qub8SzdRAmtbg1jx7GeW2s&hl=en&sa=X&v 

ed=OahUKEwilp4a75aHXAhXDfRoKHfYIAAcQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=john%20adams%201%20 

wish%20vour%20nation%20may%20be%20admitted%20to%20all%20the%20privileqes%20of% 

20citizens%20in%20every%20part%20of%20the%20world.&f=false 

19 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 28071.035

of Israel is the only exception, and described the bipartisan Congressional support for moving 

our embassy to Jerusalem. Congressman Lantos stated 

"The time has come for us to take a clear and unequivocal stand on the issue of equal 

treatment. The time has come for us to abandon the discriminatory double standard we 

hove observed toward Israel and locate our embassy in Israel's capital-- Jerusalem." 60 

Sadly, over three more decades have passed since those words were written, and still Israel is 

being accorded discriminatory treatment. 

Congressman Lantos also noted that the U.S. has located its embassy in a foreign nation's 

capital even where there was no formal recognition of that capital. Congressman Lantos 

explained that even though the United States did not recognize East Germany's claim to East 

Berlin, the U.S. nevertheless located the U.S. embassy for East Germany in East Berlin. Rep. 

Lantos commented: 

"If we are broadminded enough to enunciate and observe this rational principle for 

dealing with a communist dictatorship, should we not follow that same rational principle 

in dealing with a democratically?" 61 

A decade later, during the Congressional hearings for the Jerusalem Embassy Act, then-Senator 

Charles Robb (D-VA) expressed concern over the unequal treatment accorded to Israel, saying: 

"Among the 184 countries we maintain diplomatic relations with, Israel is the single 

exception to the rule of locating the United States chancery in the designated capital of 

each foreign nation. We have a responsibility to respect the decisions of where all 

countries locate their seat of government, and Israel should not be viewed in a different 

light."62 

By ending this disparity, and relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the U.S. will send a 

valuable message that Jews and the sole Jewish state are not second-class citizens. That 

message will help combat anti-Semitism, and strengthen our bond with our key ally Israel. 

Relocating the embassy will thus carry out the policy announced by then-candidate Trump in 

March 2016: "When I become president, the days of treating Israel/ike a second-class citizen 

will end on day one." 63 

60 "Embassies in Capital Cities," by Rep. Tom Lantos (D) of California is the. Christian Science 

Monitor, June 20, 1984, at https:Uwww.csmonitor.com/1984/0620/062011.html 

61 /d. 

62 Statement of Senator Charles Robb, Cong. Record, Vol. 141, No. 165, Oct. 24, 1995 (Senate), 

p. S-15523, at https:Uwww .gpo.gov /fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-10-24/htmi/CREC-1995-10-24-ptlPgS15522.htm 

63 "Donald Trump's Speech to A/PAC' transcript, Time Mag., Mar. 21, 2016, at 

http:Utime.com/4267058/donald-trump-aipac-speech-transcript/ 

20 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 28071.036

7. Relocating the U.S. Embassy Will Protect Religious Freedom: 

Relocating the U.S. Embassy will also protect the cherished American value and universal 

human right of international religious freedom -a Trump Administration foreign policy priority 

which was the subject of a hearing in this Committee just last month. 64 

Only under Israeli sovereignty are persons of all faiths been guaranteed- both in practice as 

well as by law- religious freedom and access to their holy sites and places of worship in 

Jerusalem. 

By contrast, when Jordan captured and illegally occupied the eastern portion of Jerusalem from 

1948-1967, Jordan demolished 58 centuries-old Jewish synagogues; killed or expelled the Jews 

in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; pillaged tombstones of the world's oldest (3000 years old) 

Jewish cemetery to line roads and latrines. 65 Jordan set up barbed wire fences and machine 

gun nests through the heart of Jerusalem to completely deny Jews access to the holiest Jewish 

sites including the Temple Mount, and to almost always deny Israeli Christians access to their 

holy sites in the Old City as well. 

And as former Congressman Tom Lantos explained: 

"[D]uring 19 years of Jordanian rule, Jews were denied access to the Western Wall, their 

holiest of shrines. The area around it was allowed to deteriorate into a slum. Even 

Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel were not allowed to visit any of their holy places 

while Jordan controlled East Jerusalem."66 

Jordan did all this in violation of the Israeli-Jordan armistice agreement, which required Jordan 

to provide Israelis with free access to their religious holy sites and to the Mount of Olives 

cemetery. 67 

64 "Review of the U.S. Government's Role in Protecting International Religious Freedom," 

Subcommittee on National Security, Hearing date: Oct. 11, 201710:00 AM, 2154 Rayburn, at 

https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/review-u-s-governments-role-protecting-internationalreligious-freedom/ 

65 "Jordanian Desecration of Mount of Olives Cemetery Described," JTA, JulyS, 1967, at 

https:Uwww .jta.org/1967/07 /05/archive/jordanian-desecration-of-mount-of-olives-cemeterydescribed 

66 "Embassies in Capital Cities," by Tom Lantos, Christian Science Monitor, June 20, 1984, at 

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0620/062011.html 

67 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, Apr. 3, 1949 (available at 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocumentstvearbook1/pages/israeljordan%20armistice%20agreement.aspx), Article Vlll.2, required Jordan to provide "resumption 

of the normal functioning of the cultural and humanitarian institutions on Mount Scopus and 

21 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 28071.037

During the same period, Jordan also harshly discriminated against Christians and churches in 

eastern Jerusalem. Jordan undertook to lslamize the Christian quarter in the Old City of 

Jerusalem; prohibited Christian churches and communities from buying land and houses; 

required Christian schools to teach the Koran, refused to allow Christian holidays; ordered the 

compulsory closure of schools on Muslim holidays; and authorized mosques to be built near 

churches, thus preventing any possibility of enlargement. 68 

The Jerusalem Embassy Act's findings succinctly confirm this history of Jordan's denial of 

religious access, and Israel's respect for and protect of the rights of all faiths, as follows: 

"(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well 

as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by 

Jordan. 

(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day 

War. 

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of 

all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city. 

(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a 

unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected." 69 

If the eastern portion of Jerusalem was surrendered to a Palestinian Arab state, religious 

repression would reign as it did under Jordan's illegal occupation. PA President Mahmoud 

Abbas openly states that "in a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single 

Israeli, civilian or soldier, on our land."70 Jews would be cut off from their holiest places, 

including the Western Wall- which are located in the old city of Jerusalem. 

Jewish sites in PA-controlled territory have already become virtually inaccessible to Jews. 

Palestinian Arabs (and PA police) have thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails, committed arson, 

free access thereto; [and] free access to the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the 

cemetery on the Mount of Olives." 

68 "The Beleaguered Christians of the Palestinian-Controlled Areas," by David Raab, Jerusalem 

Center for Public Affairs (citing Yehoshua Porath, The Palestinian Arab National Movement, 

1929-1939: From Riots to Rebellion, London, 1977, p. 109, cited in Bat Ye'or, Islam and 

Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 

2002, pp. 160-161), at http:Uwww.jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm . 

69 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, supra,§ 2.{5)-(8). 

70 "Abbas Wants 'Not a Single Israeli' in Future Palestinian State," by Noah Browning, Reuters, 

July 30, 2013, at http:Uwww.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-abbas/abbas-wants-nota-single-israeli-in-future-palestinian-state-idUSBRE96T00920130730 

22 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 28071.038

and murdered worshipers and Israeli soldiers protecting worshipers at Joseph's Tomb, the 

burial place of the Jewish patriarch Joseph, which is in PA-controlled territory. 71 

If a Palestinian Arab state controlled portions of Jerusalem, Christians would suffer the same 

discrimination that they are subjected to in areas currently under Palestinian Authority control. 

The PA has shown contempt for and desecrated Christian churches, statues, crosses and 

cemeteries; cut phone lines to monasteries; aired loudly amplified Muslim sermons during 

Christian services; broken into convents; harassed and arrested Christian converts; extorted 

money and confiscated land and property of Christians. 72 

Perhaps the importance and attachment to the Jewish people of the Jewish holy places in the 

Old City of Jerusalem and the pain of being cut off from them - can best be conveyed through 

the story of one man: 

David Naeh73 is an 81-year-old Jewish man and lifelong Jerusalemite, who was born in 

Jerusalem in 1936. Prior to 1948, David and his father went to the Western Wall to pray, and 

David's father's business a small shop- was located near the Old City entrance. When Jordan 

conquered the area, David's father was forced to abandon his business, and David and his 

father could no longer pray at the Western Wall. During those next 19 years of illegal Jordanian 

occupation (1948-1967), David and his father and others would walk to Mount Zion, the highest 

point they could find, where one could perhaps see the top-most tips of the trees above the 

Western Wall- and say "there it is, there's the Kotel!"- even though the Western Wall could 

not really be seen from there- and pray facing there. Returning to the Western Wall in 1967 

after the nineteen long years of separation felt extraordinary. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing to review the important issue of 

implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. 

CONTACT: Morton A. Klein, National President 

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) 

Tel: 212 481-1500 

71 See "I OF Soldier Injured in Skirmish near Joseph's Tomb," Times of Israel, Sept. 21, 2015, at 

https:Uwww.timesofisrael.com/idf-soldier-hurt-in-skirmish-near-josephs-tomb/; "Arson at 

Joseph's Tomb," The Atlantic, Oct. 16, 2015, at 

https://www.theatlantic.com(international/archive/2015/10/josephs-tomb-nablus-fire-israelpalestinians/410914/; "Israeli Killed by Palestinian Police in Joseph's Tomb Officially Recognized 

as Terror Victim," Haaretz, May 26, 2011, at https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israelikilled-by-palestinian-pol ice-i n-joseph-s-tomb-officially-recognized -as-terror-victim-1. 364254 

72 "The Beleaguered Christians of the Palestinian-Controlled Areas," supra. 

73 Mr. Naeh was interviewed by ZOA in Jerusalem on Oct. 30, 2017. 

23 
49 

Mr. DESANTIS. All right. Thank you, Mort Klein. 

The chair notes the presence of our colleague, the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows. And I ask unanimous consent 

that he be allowed to fully participate in today’s hearing. 

Without objection, it’s so—— 

Mr. WELCH. Hold on now. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I don’t think he would want a recorded vote on 

that. 

The chair now recognizes Dr.Koplow for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL KOPLOW 

Mr. KOPLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 

and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear before 

you to discuss the important issue of moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. 

As the title of this hearing aptly notes, there are both challenges 

and opportunities in moving the Embassy from its current location 

in Tel Aviv that make this issue particularly thorny. The basic calculus at hand is to balance issues of fundamental fairness against 

potential harm to American security and diplomatic priorities and 

U.S allies in the region. 

Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem would rectify the historic 

wrong of locating the American Embassy in a city that is not 

Israel’s declared capital. Israel’s controlling rights to the modern 

city of Jerusalem are not today in dispute. Yet Israel is the only 

country whose capital is unrecognized. The presence of foreign embassies in Tel Aviv fuels the fear among Israelis that the full legitimacy of their state will never be acknowledged. Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem supports the basic notion of fairness, and maintaining the Embassy in Tel Aviv to remain in line with the rest of 

the international community is not sufficient reason to do so. There 

should be no ambiguity about Israel’s true capital. 

Nevertheless, there are potentially damaging national security 

implications if the Embassy is moved to Jerusalem. It is for these 

reasons that every President, including most recently President 

Trump, has declined to move the Embassy since the Jerusalem 

Embassy Act of 1995 was passed, and they should be weighed seriously. 

There are three primary national security considerations for 

keeping the Embassy in Tel Aviv. The first is to prevent unnecessary violence. Jerusalem is possibly the most sensitive geopolitical 

site in the world and sudden moves there often lead to chaos that 

damages Israel’s security in fundamental ways. 

The most deadly violence committed by Palestinians against 

Israelis, including the First and Second Intifadas, and the 1996 

Western War Tunnel riots are often sparked by fears, irrespective 

of whether they are unfounded, about a change in Jerusalem’s status quo. 

There is no definitive way of knowing whether moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem will result in riots or violence, but the 

danger of mass demonstrations protesting the Embassy move in 

Israel, the West Bank, and Muslim majority countries around the 

world will be high. This could affect not only the safety and security of Israelis but also the safety and security of American EmbasVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28071.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

sies and diplomatic personnel around the world. While extremists 

should not be granted a role as spoilers, the U.S. should do what 

it can to avoid unnecessary risks and harm to its own property and 

personnel. 

The second reason is to safeguard the interests of other regional 

allies. Jordan and Egypt, in particular, are sensitive to issues surrounding Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel specifically recognizes its special and 

historic role in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. 

Moving the Embassy risks unrest in these countries and will 

make it more difficult for their governments to cooperate with the 

United States on other regional issues. Moving the Embassy will 

also put further strain on the peace treaties that Israel has with 

Jordan and Egypt, which are constantly subject to pressure due to 

their unpopularity with the Jordanian and Egyptian publics. 

Finally, moving the Embassy now will damage any Israel Palestinian peace initiative that the Trump administration is planning 

to unveil, along with harming any future efforts in this arena by 

this administration or any successive ones. Moving the Embassy at 

the beginning of a renewed peace process rather than as the culmination of a successful round of negotiations will make a twostate solution, which has been longstanding American policy and is 

the stated policy of the Israeli Government, harder to achieve. It 

will sow Palestinian distrust of the United States as an honest 

broker and may lead the Palestinians to refuse to negotiate if they 

view one of the core final status issues as already being prejudged. 

Moving the Embassy should be done in the context of a successful negotiating process, in keeping with decades of American policy 

precedents, and should not be done in the aftermath of a failed or 

stalled negotiation. In this instance, what is fair policy is not the 

same as what is prudent policy. Any change in the Embassy status 

must be comprehensively weighed against the grave and unintended consequences that may occur should the Embassy be relocated to Jerusalem at this point in time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Koplow follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 28071.039

November 8, 2017 

ISRAEL 

POLICY 

FORUM 

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on National Security of the House Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

"Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: 

Challenges and Opportunities" 

Prepared Statement 

Michael J. Koplow, Policy Director 

Israel Policy Forum 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the important issue of moving the 

American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. As the title of this hearing aptly notes, there are both 

challenges and opportunities in moving the embassy from its current location in Tel Aviv that 

make this issue particularly thorny. The basic challenge as I see it in this case is to balance issues 

of fundamental fairness against potential harm to the Trump Administration's diplomatic 

priorities and American allies in the region. 

As the Members of this Committee know well, the jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 was intended to 

rectify the historic wrong of locating the American Embassy in a city that is not Israel's declared 

capital. Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital following the state's establishment and its victory 

in the War of Independence, and Israel's control and rights to West Jerusalem are not today in 

dispute. Indeed, the Armistice Agreements signed in 1949 between Israel and jordan, Egypt, Syria, 

and Lebanon that established the Green Line placed the Jewish neighborhoods of West jerusalem 

in Israeli territory, explicitly recognizing Israel's claim to the modern city of Jerusalem. There is no 

legal impediment to acknowledging West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. 

The historical reason for the embassy being located in Tel Aviv is because the international 

community views the overall status of Jerusalem as being subject to negotiations between Israel 

and the Palestinians. This is not an issue in which the United States is an outlier in any way- while 

there were a small number of primarily Latin American countries that located their embassies in 

jerusalem in the past, there have been no embassies in jerusalem for over a decade. The fact that 

the United States has maintained this policy for more than half a century should not be sufficient 

reason to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv, nor should the United States shy away from moving the 

embassy simply to remain in line with the rest of the international community. 

IsraelPolicyForum.org 1 TwoStateSecurity.org I @lsrae1Policy4m 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 28071.040

The argument for moving the embassy to Jerusalem relies on a basic notion of fairness. Israel is 

the only UN member state whose capital- determined by its own democratically elected and 

sovereign government- is not accepted by the rest of the international community. Despite the 

fact that Jerusalem does indeed represent a complex problem whose ultimate settlement must be 

resolved through negotiations, this is a red herring. Israel's capital is in the section of Jerusalem 

that was built by Jewish residents of Palestine and has not been disputed since the cessation of 

hostilities in 1949.1ts status is not disputed, and even the PLO accepts West Jerusalem to be part 

of Israel in the context of negotiations. West Jerusalem is also not the part of the city that is viewed 

by the United Nations as corpus separatum and being more appropriately placed under a special 

international regime. Many view the refusal to locate the American embassy in West Jerusalem as 

evidence that the issue is acceptance of Israel in any borders rather than a stand against Israel's 

application of its law to East Jerusalem or presence in the West Bank, fueling a fear among Israelis 

that the legitimacy of their state will never be fully recognized. 

Furthermore, keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv does not constitute a purely neutral move. Israelis 

rightly feel that it signals an unwillingness to accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the 

jewish people, the return to which was the object of centuries of Jewish longing. An American 

embassy in West Jerusalem does not prejudice the status of the Old City or negate the eminently 

reasonable desire of Palestinians to have their future capital in East Jerusalem. Keeping the 

embassy in Tel Aviv grants a hecklers' veto to those whose real problem is with any Israeli 

presence in Jerusalem and who aim to deny the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. 

In addition, the American Embassy's location in Tel Aviv twinned with the location of the 

American Consulate General in jerusalem creates a blatant double standard. The consulate serves 

as an independent mission outside of the authority of the embassy, and is a de facto mission to the 

Palestinian Authority in the absence of an embassy in Ram allah. Thus, American diplomats who 

oversee U.S.-Israel relations are located in Tel Aviv in an effort not to prejudice any permanent 

status negotiations over Jerusalem, yet American diplomats who maintain the relationship with 

the Palestinian Authority work out of a mission in Jerusalem. 

Israel's government institutions are primarily located in jerusalem. It is inconceivable that any 

permanent status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will not recognize Jerusalem as 

the capital of Israel. Maintaining the legal fiction that Israel's capital is disputed not only can be 

seen as grave disrespect to a critical American ally, but it also perpetuates an unreasonable notion 

among Palestinians and wider Arab publics that Israel's claim to Jerusalem is illegitimate and that 

the jewish connection to jerusalem is concocted. Moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem 

would send a powerful message about history, justice, and the value of supporting allies. 

Nevertheless, despite the strong considerations that recommend relocating the Embassy, doing so 

would not be cost-free. The Jerusalem Embassy Act, while demonstrating Congress's recognition 

of the power in righting this historical wrong, recognized that moving the American Embassy from 

Tel Aviv to jerusalem could have potentially damaging national security implications. As a result, 

Congress gave the president the authority to suspend for six months the budgetary cuts to the 

State Department that would automatically occur if the Embassy was not relocated to Jerusalem if 

doing so was necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States, and to 

continue that suspension for an indefinite number of six month periods if national security 

interests warranted it. Since the jerusalem Embassy Act was passed and enacted, every president 

2 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 28071.041

has declined to move the Embassy and has consistently invoked his power to suspend these 

appropriations cuts, including most recently President Trump. There are three primary national 

security considerations that favor keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv: preventing violence in Israel 

and the West Bank and the targeting of American diplomatic facilities, safeguarding the interests 

of Sunni Arab regional allies, and maintaining conditions for the Trump Administration or any 

future administrations to successfully advance an initiative on the Israeli-Palestinian peace 

process. 

The status of jerusalem has always been the thorniest of the core issues at the heart of the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Changes in the city's status quo -most prominently and most recently 

manifested in conflict over the Temple Mount this past july -lead to outbreaks of violence that can 

spin out of control and be difficult to manage, fundamentally putting Israel's security at risk. There 

is no definitive way of knowing whether moving the American Embassy to jerusalem will result in 

chaos, riots, and violence. It is likely, however, that doing so will lead to unrest given the 

explosiveness of the issue, whether this takes place in jerusalem, other spots in Israel, the West 

Bank, Muslim-majority countries, or at American embassies around the world. Moving the 

Embassy will be perceived as recognizing Israel's claim to jerusalem at the expense of Palestinian 

claims to the city, and public rhetoric is certain to reflect this and tend toward incitement to 

violence and "defending ai-Quds." Palestinian and Muslim populations are unlikely to respect the 

distinction between establishing the American Embassy in West jerusalem and leaving the status 

of East jerusalem subjectto negotiations. This could affect not only stability and order in 

jerusalem, but also the safety and security of American embassies and diplomatic personnel 

around the world. As noted above, moving the Embassy to jerusalem would constitute a powerful 

symbol, but doing so must be weighed against the possibility that it will result in the loss of 

American, Israeli, and Palestinian lives. The danger of mass demonstrations throughout 

Muslim-majority countries protesting the Embassy move will be high. No decision to move the 

Embassy should be made before conducting a thorough assessment of the risks involved, which 

countries and locations are most likely to be affected, and the likelihood of the loss of life and 

property damage. jerusalem is possibly the most sensitive geopolitical location on the globe, and 

moving the American Embassy outside of the context of a negotiated deal will have concrete 

security consequences. 

Moving the Embassy to jerusalem may also have a profound affect on American allies in the 

region. jordan and Egypt in particular have restive populations that are sensitive to issues 

surrounding jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and jordan's peace treaty with Israel 

specifically recognizes its special and historic role in jerusalem. Moving the Embassy risks unrest 

in these countries that will also make it more difficult for their governments to cooperate with the 

United States on other regional issues. It will also create a significant political problem for the 

Jordanian monarchy, which is one of the United States' most- if not the absolute most- reliable 

Arab allies in the region and which has a majority Palestinian population. The need to maintain a 

united front against Iranian regional hegemony, continuing to prosecute the fight against ISIS 

forces and ISIS offshoots such as the terrorist group in the Sinai Peninsula, and staunching the 

flow of refugees from Syria in jordan in particular are all American priorities that will become 

more difficult to maintain should there be a backlash from relocating the Embassy to jerusalem. 

Doing so may also put further strain on the peace treaties that Israel has with jordan and Egypt, 

which are constantly subject to pressure due to their unpopularity with the Jordanian and 

Egyptian publics. 

3 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 28071.042

Finally, moving the Embassy at this time will fatally damage any Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative 

that the Trump Administration is planning to unveil before it has a chance to get off the ground. It 

may also fatally damage any future efforts by this administration and any successive ones, putting 

a two-state solution permanently out of reach. President Trump has repeatedly stated his desire to 

broker a deal between the two parties, and moving the Embassy at the beginning of a renewed 

peace process rather than as the culmination of a successful round of negotiations will make this 

goal harder to achieve. It will sow distrust on the Palestinian side of the United States as an honest 

broker, and may lead the Palestinians to refuse to negotiate if they view one of the core final status 

issues as already being prejudged. None of this is to suggest that the United States may not have an 

interest in making clear that it recognizes jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but rather to point out 

that doing so will have consequences that adversely affect one of President Trump's foreign policy 

priorities. Moving the Embassy should be done in the context of a successful negotiating process in 

keeping with decades of American policy precedents, and should not be done in the aftermath of a 

failed or stalled negotiation. The location of the American Embassy should be a variable that helps 

the peace process rather than harms it. 

If the Embassy is indeed moved to jerusalem, it must be done in a way that not only corrects the 

currently reigning historical injustice but also preserves and promotes the two-state solution, 

which is a critical and long-standing foreign policy and national security interest of the United 

States. This can only be achieved if the United States makes clear that an American Embassy in 

West jerusalem does not mean that it recognizes Israeli sovereignty the entirety of the city and 

that moving the Embassy does not prevent the establishment of a future Palestinian capital in 

jerusalem. If the United States were to relocate its Embassy to jerusalem while simultaneously 

declaring that any embassy to the future state of Palestine- pending the successful outcome of 

permanent status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians - will be located in East 

jerusalem, this would be the only way to both legitimize Israel's rightful claims in jerusalem and 

maintain a viable two-state solution in the future. 

Alternatively, the United States could adopt the same policy that was recently adopted by Russia 

and that was welcomed by the Israeli government, which is to recognize West jerusalem as Israel's 

capital but keep the Embassy in Tel Aviv until a permanent status agreement between Israel and 

the Palestinians has been signed. This policy option grants Israel the recognition in its capital that 

it deserves without prejudging the sovereignty of the disputed portion of the city, and it may also 

avoid the likeliest trigger for violence, which would be the relocation of the Embassy itself. 

In sum, the decision to relocate the American Embassy to jerusalem cannot be judged solely on the 

issue of fairness. While there are valid arguments on both sides, a decision to move the Embassy 

will not be cost-free, and the timing at the moment raises particularly thorny challenges. In this 

instance, what is fair and just may not be the same as what is wise. Any change in the Embassy's 

status must be carefully and comprehensively weighed against the grave and unintended 

consequences that may occur should the Embassy be relocated to jerusalem. 

4 
55 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Professor Kontorovich for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE KONTOROVICH 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lynch, 

members of the committee, thank you for having me at the hearing 

today. 

My written testimony deals with issues involving the status of 

the corpus separatum, the structure of waivers under the act, but 

I’m going to forego those issues in my comments right now and 

focus on the objections to moving the Embassy because it seems, 

in a kind of diplomatic version of Augustine’s prayer, everybody 

agrees that the Embassy should be moved, just not yet. And so I’m 

going to focus on those ‘‘not yets,’’ ‘‘not right nows.’’ 

The arguments focus on certain practical concerns, whose existence or realism can’t really be proven while the waiver is issued, 

and so they are, in a sense, unfalsifiable. But one interesting thing 

about the arguments for not moving the Embassy, security arguments essentially, is that they have not changed in the 20-some 

years since the act’s passage, despite the radical change in the security and political, geopolitical, situation in the region. In a sense, 

they are entirely unresponsive and invariant to political development. 

They can be summarized like this: Don’t move the Embassy until 

the Palestinians, and maybe the Jordanians and the Egyptians, say 

it’s okay. Don’t move the Embassy until they agree. This holds 

American policy, this holds a statute subject to veto and waiver by 

third countries. In no geopolitical conflict, in no geopolitical dispute 

do we give parties, do we give neighbors, a waiver on where the 

U.S. Embassy should be. That is to say, maybe Pakistan and India 

would like the U.S. Embassies to those countries to be somewhere 

else, but we don’t ask them. 

Now, it’s not surprising that supporters of the Palestinians come 

and couch their arguments in national security terms, that is to 

say, implied threats of violence. Under the terms of the statute, the 

only reason for not implementing it is national security. The only 

permissible waiver is national security. 

Not surprisingly, we commonly hear national security threats 

from the Jordanians and the Palestinians, that they’re in a sense 

shoehorning their foreign policy and political concerns into this justification. It’s not surprising that such threats continue to be made 

because the Palestinian Authority finds that such threats work. 

They continue to keep the U.S. Embassy from being moved. This 

means that waiving the act based on such threats, in fact, invites 

further threats. Waiver creates its own predicate. 

I should point out that the security arguments have been significantly undermined by recent developments in the region. The security arguments were first made when the act was passed over 20 

years ago, and they continue to be recited as if nothing has 

changed. 

One, the Sunni States, in particular Saudi Arabia, are—as of 

now—literally at war with Iran. They cannot afford a rift with the 

United States. The notion that Saudi Arabia would endanger 

itself—it just shot down yesterday an Iranian-provided missile with 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

a Patriot missile battery—the notion that it would endanger the air 

security of Riyadh over the Embassy issue is preposterous. The notion that Jordan would expose itself to ISIS threat because of the 

Jerusalem Embassy issue is preposterous. 

So there has been a fundamental realignment in the Arab world. 

Twenty years ago, when people said that the Arab street is going 

to explode, that meant one thing. Now, I would point out, the Arab 

street has already exploded, principally internally. We need not 

fear riots against the U.S. in Damascus. The U.S. no longer has 

diplomatic representation there. Benghazi happened, not because of 

the Jerusalem Embassy. In other words, the people committed to 

keeping America out of the MiddleEast already, they are fully 

incentivized. U.S. Embassies in the area are constantly under 

threat. There was a threat this year to the Embassy in Cairo. Indeed, in 1998, two U.S. Embassies in Africa were blown up, in Tanzania and Kenya. 

The response of the United States was not to cut and run and 

say: Wow, there are people who threaten violence to our presence 

here; we might as well leave. 

The response by Congress was to appropriate nearly $1 billion 

for embassy security and, of the executive, to hunt down the perpetrators and ensure that they come to justice. That’s the American 

response. 

There is no other situation in which threats to embassies, especially to a major ally, are a reason for not having diplomatic representation in a country’s capital. 

In particular, this has a very bad consequence for the peace process because it puts Israel in a special unique category where its existence, its sovereignty over its capital, is only provisionally recognized. It’s recognized with a question mark. Israel is a country in 

a class of one. That undermines the peace process. 

Moreover, the Palestinians base their claims to a state to the 

Jordanian and Egyptian conquest of areas of the British mandate 

in 1949. Large parts of Jerusalem, including potential locations for 

the Embassy, are not in those areas illegally conquered by Jordan 

and Egypt, and the Palestinians have no conceivable claim to them. 

Waiting for a—tying this to the peace process makes the Palestinians’ eyes bigger than their plate and gives them an appetite for 

that which they could not potentially have and fundamentally undermines the peace process. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kontorovich follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 28071.043

Prof. Kontorovich jerusalem Embassy testimony 

U.S. Policy on Israel Held Hostage by Threats and 

Outdated Arguments 

Prepared written testimony of" 

Prof. Eugene Kontorovich 

Northwestern University School of Law; 

Kohelet Policy Forum 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight & 

Government Reform, National Security Subcommittee hearing: 

"Moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem: Challenges and 

Opportunities" 

November 8, 2017 

1 
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 28071.044

Prof. Kontorovich jerusalem Embassy testimony 

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and honorable members of the 

Subcommittee, I am honored to be invited to testify before you today about implementing 

the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which will take full effect on Dec. 2, absent a presidential 

waiver issued prior to that date. I am a professor at Northwestern University Pritzker 

School of Law, where I teach constitutional and international law. I am also the head of 

the international law department at the Kohelet Policy Forum, a Jerusalem think-tank. I 

have written dozens of scholarly articles on various aspects of U.S. foreign relations law 

and the Arab-Israeli conflict, which have been published in leading law reviews and peerreviewed journals. My scholarship has been frequently cited in leading foreign relations 

cases in federal courts, and I have testified repeatedly before Congress, as well as the 

European Parliament. I also co-wrote an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Zivotoftky 

v. Kerry, the Jerusalem passport case. 

My testimony today will explain the reasons behind the U.S. embassy's current location, 

and explain the structure of the Embassy Act. It will show that the Embassy's location 

outside of Jerusalem undermines U.S. foreign policy and helps isolate Israel. It will then 

consider the oft-repeated national security arguments in favor of delaying the Act's 

implementation. These arguments have not aged well since they were first rehearsed 

upon the law's passage 22 years ago. Moreover, they reward threats of violence, and 

allow U.S. policy to be held hostage by terrorists and aspiring terrorists. 

1. What a waiver really means 

I will begin by discussing the structure of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, and how it 

operates. Jerusalem is the only world capital whose status is denied recognition by the 

United States. To remedy that, in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, 

which mandates moving the U.S. Embassy to a "unified" Jerusalem. The implementation 

of the law has been held in abeyance due to semiannual presidential waivers for "national 

security" reasons. 

Crucially, the law already requires the embassy to Israel to be moved to that country's 

capital, Jerusalem. It is important to stress that the waiver available to the president under 

the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 19951 does not waive the obligation to move the embassy. 

That policy has been fully adopted by Congress in the Act (sec. 3(a)(3)) and is not 

waivable. 

Congress, having total power over the spending of taxpayer dollars, does not have to pay 

for an embassy in Tel Aviv, regardless of the Executive branch's foreign policy 

preferences. Thus, the Act's enforcement mechanism is to suspend half of the 

appropriated funds for the State Department's "Acquisition and Maintenance of 

1 Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, Pub.L. 104-45, Nov 8, 1995, 109 Stat. 398. 

2 
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 28071.045

Prof. Kontorovich jerusalem Embassy testimony 

Buildings Abroad" until the law's terms are complied with. The waiver provision simply 

allows the president to waive the financial penalty for renewable six-month periods. The 

waiver does not change the underlying substantive obligation of having the embassy in 

Jerusalem as a condition for ongoing State Department funding. 

Moreover, the law says nothing about "moving" the embassy. Rather, the requirement is 

to "officially open" an embassy, which can be done with a mere declaration upgrading 

the status of one of the existing consular facilities in the city. It does not require the 

physical relocation of the facility in Tel Aviv or any ofits functions. 

Under the structure of the Act, once a six-month waiver expires, the full force of the 

Act's funding provisions take effect beginning the subsequent fiscal year (sec. 3(b)). 

Once a waiver period expires without a waiver being issued, no further waivers are 

possible. It is important to stress that literally nothing need be done to implement the Act 

-the president must simply refrain from signing a waiver. Such an action need not be 

interpreted as any kind of statement about or change in U.S. policy, a fact that gives the 

Executive significant diplomatic cover. That is because U.S. policy is already established 

by the Act. And that law does not allow for any waiver based on foreign policy concerns. 

Any arguments for further waivers based on concerns about the (apparently moribund) 

Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the reactions of Arab states, and similar concerns are 

entirely illegitimate and cannot be considered. The Act only allows the president to issue 

a waiver when it is "necessary" to protect national security. 

2. What the Embassy's Status Means 

It is important to understand the reasons for the Embassy's current location outside 

Jerusalem, and its implications for U.S foreign policy. The current situation results in an 

American foreign policy stance that is both dangerous to Israel, discrediting to the U.S., 

and fundamentally incoherent. The U.S. embassy was never established in Jerusalem, 

because the U.S., upon Israel's creation, refused to recognize any part of the city as under 

Israeli sovereignty. This policy was originally due to the United Nations General 

Assembly's 1947 proposal, in Resolution 181, to partition Mandatory Palestine into three 

non-continuous Jewish sectors and four non-contiguous Arab sectors, each of which 

would become a separate country. In this arrangement, the greater Jerusalem area would 

be a "corpus separatum," an internationalized city under no sovereignty. The General 

Assembly's proposal had no legal force and was unworkable, and in any case completely 

rejected by the Arab states, who opposed a Jewish state within any borders. Thus, the 

proposed treatment of Jerusalem by Res. 181 should have been absolutely irrelevant in 

1948, and it is nothing but a historical footnote today. 2 

2 Abraham Bell & Eugene Kontorovich, Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders of lsrael, 58 Ariz. 

L, Rev. 633, 677-78 (2016). 

3 
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 28071.046

Prof. Kontorovich jerusalem Embassy testimony 

In no other respect does the U.S. give any deference to Res. 181 's proposed borders- it 

does not doubt Israeli sovereignty over the Tel Aviv neighborhood of Jaffa although it 

would have fallen under Arab sovereignty under the proposed partition plan. Even more 

absurdly, the deference to Jerusalem's corpus separatum status only operates against 

Israel. The borders of the proposed international city exceeded those of the city today, 

and in particular included significant parts of Bethlehem, so as to incorporate Christian 

holy sites. Yet the U.S. treats Bethlehem as part of the territory administered by the 

Palestinian Authority, instead of treating it as a sui generis entity as it does the Israelicontrolled parts of the corpus separatum. The insistence on maintaining the policy legacy 

of a hypothetical corpus separatum when it comes to Israel but not the Palestinians locks 

in a deeply anti-Israel bias in America's regional diplomacy. The refusal to locate the 

embassy in Jerusalem is both anachronistic and incoherent. 

What is worse, by giving deference to pre-1948 border proposals, the Embassy's current 

location casts a permanent question mark on the U.S.'s acceptance of the State oflsrael. 

It suggests- contrary to U.S. policy- that Israel's legitimate borders are somehow 

related to those proposed by U.N. G.A. Res. 181. 

All this does concrete harm. By refusing to even give force to Israel's sovereignty within 

the 1949 Armistice lines, any U.S. brokering of a peace process loses all credibility. 

Moreover, this encourages Arab maximalism by implying that Israel is a uniquely 

probationary state, and suggesting they have some say in territory that was never under 

Arab control. The current arrangement requires the maintenance of a silly charade where 

U.S. officials must commute through the country's most difficult traffic to interact with 

the Israeli government, while being meticulously careful to not mention what country that 

government sits in. All this is deeply discrediting to U.S. diplomacy. America can hardly 

reassure Israel about its security concerns in any peace deal when it allows itself to be 

held hostage by threats of violence. Finally, it must be noted that the U.S. failure to 

implement the Embassy Act has done absolutely nothing to moderate the Palestinians' 

resistance to a negotiated diplomatic solution. 

3. National security waiver and discredited predictions 

The central argument against moving the embassy is that it would lead to violence, and in 

particular to attacks against American targets. As explained above, these are the only 

permissible arguments for waiver under the Act. But the basis of those warnings has been 

undermined by the massive changes in the region since 1995.1n 1995, the Middle East 

was controlled by stable Arab autocracies that sought to suppress anti-U.S. actions, while 

at the same time being highly critical of U.S. support for Israel. Today, the Sunni Arab 

4 
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 28071.047

Prof. Kontorovich jerusalem Embassy testimony 

states have found common cause with Israel and the U.S., and the specter ofjihadist 

violence is no longer a threat, but a reality. 

While the Palestinian issue was once at the forefront of Arab politics, today Israel's 

neighbors are preoccupied with a nuclear Iran and radical Islamic groups. For the Sunni 

Arab states, the Trump administration's harder line against Iran is far more important 

than Jerusalem. Indeed, with Saudi Arabia now under direct attack by Iranian-backed 

Shiite forces, the Sunni states have every reason to suppress any anti-American efforts. 

To be sure, implementation of the law could in principle serve as a pretext for attacks by 

groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. But these groups have already declared war against the 

U.S., and are fully motivated to carry out attacks to the extent of their capacity. The 

despicable attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the silly pretexts offered for it, 

serve as a powerful reminder of this point. While any attacks carried out after a waiver is 

not issued may be "dedicated" to the issue, this does not mean the expiration of a waiver 

will increase the capacity or determination of America's enemies. The U.S. cannot be 

threatened by what is already happening. 

Invoking hypothetical threats as a reason for distorting U.S. foreign policy towards a key 

ally is itself deeply inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy and basic prudence. U.S. 

embassies in the Middle East routinely face concrete and specific threats. 3 Indeed, in 

1998, Islamic terrorists blew up the U.S. embassies in Dar El Salaam, Tanzania, and 

Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks were said to be a response to various aspects of U.S. 

foreign policy. 4 But America did not respond by rethinking those policies, or by 

withdrawing its embassies from those cities. Instead, the Executive undertook to hunt 

down and punish the perpetrators, while Congress appropriated extraordinary amounts 

for improved security at diplomatic facilities around the world. 5 

Arguing that the U.S. not carry out its policy with regards to its closest ally in the Middle 

East amounts to an argument for treating Israel differently, and thus implicitly validates 

those who deny Israel's full status among the nations of the world. 

Indeed, recent events have shown how hollow threats of retaliation in the wake of 

changing policies on Jerusalem are. In April of this year, Russia suddenly announced that 

it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 6 This made Russia the first and only 

country in the world to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli in any way- a major development. 

3 For one of many examples, see Michael Edison Hayden, US Embassy in Egypt warns of 'potential threat' 

from terrorist organization, ABC News, (May 24, 2017), available at. 4 Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: AI Qaeda and the Road to 9111. (New York: Knopf20I6). 5 Susan Epstein, Diplomatic and Embassy Security Funding Before and After the Benghazi Attacks, 

Congressional Research Service Report (Sept. IO, 20I4) 

State Department Fact Sheet, Funding for Embassy Security (Aug. 4, I999), available at https://I997-

200 I .state.gov/regions/africa/fs _ anniv _ funding.html. 6 Russian Foreign Ministry, Statement regarding Palestinian-Israeli settlement (April6, 20I7), available at 

http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign _policy /news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02B w/content/id/27 I 7 I 82. 

5 
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 28071.048

Prof. Kontorovich jerusalem Embassy testimony 

It was an extraordinary change in policy for the Kremlin, which had always been a 

steadfast backer of the Palestinians. 

Prior to Moscow's recognition announcement, experts would have predicted that such a 

unilateral recognition would provoke anger and violence from at least the Palestinians. 

Note what happened next: No explosions of anger at the Arab world. No end to Russia's 

diplomatic role in the Middle East. No terror attacks against Russian targets. Indeed, 

Moscow's dramatic Jerusalem reversal has largely been ignored by the foreign-policy 

establishment because it disproves their predictions of mayhem. 7 

Once the President fails to issue a waiver, the Palestinian Authority would have every 

incentive to downplay the significance of the move- as they did with Moscow's 

recognition- because to do otherwise would be to concede a fundamental diplomatic 

defeat. The Abbas government is unlikely to want to do that. 

4. Conclusion 

It is not surprising that the Palestinian Authority threatens dire consequences if the U.S. 

moves its Israeli embassy. It has found that such threats work. This means that waiving 

the Act based on such threats in fact invites further threats: the waiver creates its own 

predicate. The national security arguments for waiver in effect allow U.S. foreign policy 

to be taken hostage by terrorists, or anyone willing to make threats. America's stance on 

such an important issue cannot be dictated by terror. Instead, the U.S. should make clear 

that if the PA allows any action against Israel or the U.S. in response to a non-waiver, the 

U.S. will close PA offices in Washington. 

Finally, I would recommend that the U.S. Embassy ultimately be moved to the site of the 

current U.S. Consulate in the Arnon Hanetziv neighborhood. Only this can give full 

effect to Congress's policy of moving the Embassy in a "unified" Jerusalem. This 

location is in what was a demilitarized zone under the 1949 Armistice Lines. The 

Palestinian claim to those areas of Mandatory Palestine conquered in an aggressive war 

by Jordan and Egypt do not apply to this area. However, it would signal that the U.S. 

does not regard these Armistice lines as creating no-go zones for Jews or Israelis. 

Moving the Embassy to this location could catalyze the peace process by showing the 

Palestinians that there is a cost to their repeated refusal of Israel's offers of statehood, 

which the U.S. has supported. The Palestinians have been offered an independent state in 

the peace negotiations in 2000 and 2001, and Netanyahu was reportedly prepared to make 

far-reaching concessions in 2014. Each time, the Palestinians said no. Never has there 

7 Eugene Kontorovich, Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. Why Can't the U.S.? (May 14, 

2017). 

6 
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 28071.049

Prof. Kontorovich jerusalem Embassy testimony 

been a national independence movement that has refused an independence offer on the 

grounds that it does not include all the territory the movement seeks. Imagine if the 

United States refused to accept peace with Britain because it did not give the newly 

independent colonies the northern border they sought. Yet the Palestinian rejection of 

successive proposals carries no negative consequences for them - it just raises the 

expectations from Israel in the next round. 

One of the main reasons for the failure to reach a peace deal is the unspoken assumption 

that protracted and repeated Palestinian rejectionism costs them nothing diplomatically, 

while creating constraints for Israel. Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, and in particular 

to the current major consular facility, would break this deadlock and open the doors to 

progress. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address these issues, and I welcome your 

questions. 

7 
64 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Ambassador Gold, sometimes in America, people will say: Yeah, 

yeah, yeah, we want to move the Embassy, but the Israelis really 

don’t want the Embassy in Jerusalem. 

I’ve been to Israel recently. Left, right, center, they all said to 

move it. Is that accurate that Israel would welcome it? Not that 

Israel is dictating what President Trump does, but would it be welcome in Israel. 

Mr. GOLD. A, I believe it would be welcome. B, this sounds like 

Act II of something we went through earlier in the year called the 

Taylor Force Act, where people were saying Israel doesn’t really 

want it. Really? Is that true? Somebody went to Tel Aviv and had 

coffee in a coffee shop and came back as an expert on Israel? 

So let me reassure you: Our Prime Ministers have all sought, if 

we’re asked, that the U.S. Embassy be moved. Yitzhak Rabin, who 

was the father of the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s, spoke about 

Jerusalem remaining united under the sovereignty of Israel. And 

our public opinion polls indicate support for that. That is not the 

same as the Embassy, but it’s all part of the same complex. Support for Jerusalem, the U.S. position in Jerusalem is at an all-time 

high. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s no 

Knesset located in Tel Aviv. The Prime Minister’s residence is not 

there. Your Supreme Court, it’s all in Jerusalem, the seat of your 

government, all the major players. The people that we would want 

to be dealing with are in Jerusalem. 

Mr. GOLD. In December 1949, at the end of the first Arab-Israeli 

war, much of the world community advised Prime Minister David 

Ben-Gurion: Don’t move—don’t move—your capital to Jerusalem. 

And, of course, he gave some of the lines, which I shared with 

you earlier, that Resolution 181 has no moral force, and he declared that Israel was moving its Embassy to Jerusalem—moving 

its capital to Jerusalem. The Knesset was moved to Jerusalem as 

a result of his decision back then in 1949. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Israel, one of the remarkable things is just the archaeological wonders. I mean, you know, our country is just a blip 

on the map compared to the thousands of years of history. But how 

was that treated under the Arab occupation between 1949 and 

1967, some of the destruction? 

Mr. GOLD. Well, actually, since we weren’t engaging in archaeology in a territory which Jordan claimed and their archaeological 

investigations were not particularly advanced, it wasn’t affected. 

However, I will tell you this: Under our understandings with Jordan, we have said that the administration of the Muslim shrines 

on the Temple Mount are in the hands of the Waqf, which is a kind 

of endowment for religious institutions in Jordan. The Waqf has 

been completely irresponsible with respect to the areas under its 

jurisdiction. So, for example, when the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement, the branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Israel, 

engaged in illegal construction activities under the Al-Aqsa Mosque 

and then the Al-Aqsa compound, they removed hundreds of tons of 

archaeological rubble from the Temple Mount and threw it in a 

dump site outside, in the outskirts of Jerusalem. Since then, Israeli 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

archaeologists have gone through that rumble and found precious 

items that have been saved. So I doubt, given that record, that 

these archaeological sites would be well taken care of if the management for East Jerusalem changed. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Ambassador Bolton, the point was made by Professor Kontorovich that the Gulf States, these Arab states, they are 

worried about Iran; they have a President now in America who believes Iran is a threat, who thinks the nuclear deal was a bad deal. 

Are they all of a sudden not going to work with us and Israel simply because we move our Embassy to Jerusalem? 

Mr. BOLTON. No, I think it would have no material effect at all 

either on the broader geostrategic in the Middle East or on the 

Middle East peace process involving Israel or really on anything 

significant. You know, there’s a lot of rhetoric in public in diplomatic matters that suits the political needs of the people who are 

uttering the words, when behind the scenes you’re hearing something completely different, which is, ‘‘We understand.’’ 

The issue for me is, what’s in the best interest of the United 

States? How are our interests best served? How can our diplomats 

be most effective? And I think the argument there is incontestable. 

What hurts us is when we give in to unfounded pressure and intimidation because it says something about the United States that 

we won’t do what’s purely common sense. It’s harmful to us. It’s 

harmful to Israel. It’s harmful to the stability in the region. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Professor Kontorovich, the statement that was 

issued and entered into the record by Ambassador Kurtzer compared U.S. posture towards Jerusalem with Russia annexation of 

Crimea, that if we think Crimea was wrong, how could we possibly 

want our Embassy in Jerusalem. Do you think those two things are 

parallel to one other? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. I think there’s a lot to learn from our reaction 

to Crimea that’s relevant to Jerusalem, but it goes exactly in the 

opposite direction of what Ambassador Kurtzer suggests, and I 

would refer you to my article and commentary on Crimea and 

Israel’s borders. 

The reason America did not recognize Russia’s seizure of Crimea 

is not because the people there are not Russian or they don’t want 

to be part of Russia. It was because it was part of the Ukrainian 

Soviet Socialist Republic until Ukrainian’s independence. And 

under international law, when a new country is created, its borders 

are the borders of the last top-level administrative unit in that 

area. So, when Ukraine is created, Crimea is within its borders, 

even though how that came to be was not necessarily fair, democratic, or reflecting self-representation. We go by that doctrine. We 

say Crimea belongs to Ukraine. 

When Israel became a country, the last top-level administrative 

unit was the British mount—Mandate for Palestine. There was no 

corpus separatum. There was no West Bank. And thus the presumptive borders of Israel upon its birthday include all of Jerusalem, not to mention Judea and Samaria, and thus Jordan’s invasion would be like Russia’s invasion of Crimea, and it would have 

been an act that we can give no recognition to. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member, 

Mr. Lynch. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr.Koplow, the United States is currently relying on the cooperation of our Arab allies, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, in cooperation to really stabilize the security interests in the region, including for Israel. 

Jordan, we’ve had unequivocal support from King Abdullah 

against ISIS. He said: We will root them—there’s a quote here, he’s 

quoted, ‘‘a relentless war against ISIS,’’ and ‘‘hit them in their own 

ground.’’ He’s been in unequivocal support of our efforts there. I 

hearken back to, in Egypt, when the Morsy regime came in after 

Qadhafi’s—Mubarak’s removal, they actually were considering abrogating the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement that was negotiated between Anwar el-Sadat and Menachem Begin, for which 

they received the Nobel Peace Prize. Now with al-Sisi’s regime in 

there, they have lived up to the letter of the law and secured the 

situation on Israel’s southern border with respect to Gaza. 

In deciding if we should move the U.S. Embassy now, should the 

U.S. at least consider and engage these neighbors in terms of what 

that move would present to, you know, the monarchy in Jordan or 

al-Sisi’s government in Egypt. 

Mr. KOPLOW. I think that absolutely the U.S. needs to consider 

the opinions of these other allies. 

Israel, of course, is our most stalwart and reliable ally in the region, but we do have our Arab allies as well with whom we work 

on a number of things. Take Jordan, in particular. Right now, Jordan is a vital partner of the United States in counterterrorism operations. It’s a vital partner in the fight against ISIS. Jordan contributes troops in support to the U.S.-led coalition forces fighting 

ISIS. 

Jordan also has an enormous refugee problem, as we’ve noted 

from Syria. And staunching the flow of refugees is in American interest as well. And, of course, it is within Jordan’s interest to continue these things, but there are ways in which they cooperate with 

the United States now that may be more difficult should we move 

the Embassy. 

We, this year, conducted the largest ever military exercises with 

the Jordanian Army than we ever had. That is the type of thing 

that public pressure can be brought to bear and have those cut off. 

And I would note that there are recent examples in Jordan and in 

other countries around the region where domestic politics, because 

of public pressure, indeed trumps national security interests. 

For instance, in the Israeli-Palestinians here, the Palestinian Authority in July stopped cooperating with Israel on security coordination, which is the biggest factor in preventing terrorism in 

Israeli cities, and security coordination certainly helps the PA in 

keeping the PA in power. That security coordination was not restored until only a few weeks ago. Now, that’s something that it 

was in the PA’s security interest to maintain, but public pressure 

over Israeli-Palestinian issues prevented it from happening. 

With Jordan as well, currently there is no Israeli Ambassador in 

Jordan. She was recalled due to an incident in the Israeli Embassy 

in Jordan. The Jordanian Government certainly has an obvious interest in continuing to cooperate with Israel on national security 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

grounds, but again, public pressure can sometimes lead to consequences that are not good for either country. 

And so, in Jordan, in particular, I think it’s something to worry 

about, and with Egypt as well. Of course, Egypt is a partner 

against ISIS in Sinai and elsewhere, but it’s also important to note 

that, in the last 2 months, Egypt has taken on a much larger role 

in keeping things quiet in Gaza than they have before. Again, public pressure is brought to bear on these countries, even though they 

are not democracies. There are still audience costs that affect these 

things. And I think that if the United States moves the Embassy, 

it is going to put much of this cooperation at risk. And as I noted 

in my testimony, it’s something that we should absolutely consider 

when weighing the balance of interests here. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

The members of this committee probably are in the Middle East, 

including very frequently to Israel, but to some of these neighboring countries on a frequent basis. The cooperation of Egypt in 

Gaza—I’ve only been into Gaza a couple of times—but such a proximate threat, Egypt’s military cooperation is extremely, extremely 

important. The concerns raised by King Abdullah in Jordan 

about—you know, sometimes I think we take for granted that 

we’ve got a friendly administration there in Jordan. 

And is there, I mean, think about it: If we had a hostile government in Jordan, what would that mean? Is King Abdullah’s concerns about his monarchy, his government being tipped over by the 

street, some of the more—not insurgent—but more radical elements of the population there, is that legitimate, or do you think 

it’s overstated? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Certainly, I don’t think anyone can predict whether 

it will happen, but I think that, to the extent that King Abdullah 

and the Jordanian Government expressed these concerns, we 

should certainly take them seriously. Jordan is a country that is 

majority Palestinian. Some estimates have it as large as 70 percent 

Palestinian. They are very sensitive to issues within the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, and these types of issues really, as I noted, 

create lots of pressure on the King of Jordan to either cease cooperating with Israel or to cut back cooperation with the United States. 

And Jordan, in particular, is sensitive to issues in Jerusalem, as 

I noted, given its historical role there and given the role that the 

Israeli Peace Treaty grants to Jordan over holy places in Jerusalem. 

And, really, any sudden moves, when it comes to Jerusalem, impact Jordan in a real way. As you noted, Jordan is as reliable an 

Arab ally as we have in the region. They are vital for our security 

on a number of fronts. I think that even risking the danger of the 

Jordanian Government being replaced or something happening to 

King Abdullah really would impact American national security interests in a fundamental way in the Middle East. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Comer for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

Ambassador Bolton, the Trump administration has clearly stated 

that it intends to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and, quote, 

‘‘the question is not if that move happens, but only when,’’ end 

quote. 

Ambassador Bolton, when is the appropriate time to make this 

move and why? 

Mr. BOLTON. Well, I think the appropriate time to make the announcement is today. And let me just say, in respect of the comments that have been made about the strategic implications of a 

move, as I said in my prepared statement, I think we should take 

very seriously the concerns of countries like Jordan and Egypt. But 

I don’t think that means they have a veto. I think it means we do 

what diplomats do. We consult with them in advance. We explain 

our reasons. We work with them to facilitate their ability to explain to their own citizens why it’s happening. 

And let’s be realistic; the construction of a new embassy is not 

something that happens in 24 hours. First, you have to announce 

it. Then you have to break the ground. I suppose you have to design the Embassy first. You have to build it. You have to dedicate 

it. You have to—this is going to take place over years. And so 

there’s a long period of time involved. And if the decision to go forward floor by floor of the Embassy varied with the temperature of 

the Middle East peace process, this building could take forever to 

build. 

I think it’s very important that we understand that the country 

in the world most sensitive to the regime in Jordan, most aware 

of the implications for security, is Israel. And it defies credulity to 

think that Israel would advocate a step that could cause King 

Abdullah to be overthrown and a terrorist regime to take power 

there. They’re not going to do it, and neither are we. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Ambassador. With the stalled peace 

process and deteriorating security situation in the Middle East, 

what do you think the U.S. could do to best support Israel and 

stand by our ally? Obviously, you touched on moving the embassy, 

but what are some other things? 

Mr. BOLTON. Well, beyond the embassy, I think the greatest 

threat to peace and security in the Middle East remains the Iranian nuclear weapons program, which has not paused, has not 

slowed down, has been camouflaged by the Iran nuclear deal. I 

have disagreed with the administration on the handling of that 

deal. I would break it immediately and establish a new reality. 

But I think specifically in terms of Gaza and the West Bank, I 

really think that the United States is taking advantage of a potential for a reopening of the peace process. I think it’s significant that 

the Trump administration is moving at the beginning of its term, 

not at the end as happens so often in the past. And I don’t know 

whether the chances for success are any better or any worse. But 

when it comes to the embassy issue, the administration’s effort is 

going to have its ups and downs, like all peace processes. And if 

you said after a step forward in the peace process, well, we don’t 

want to risk that by moving the embassy, or at a downturn in the 

peace process, well, we don’t want to tank it entirely by moving the 

embassy, this is how not now becomes not ever. And I think that’s 

a mistake. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

I think when the United States acts in a realistic way, recognizing a reality in a particular region, it enhances our credibility, 

it demonstrates that we are prepared to act on the basis of reality. 

That makes our efforts I think more likely to succeed, not less likely. 

Mr. COMER. Right. One of my colleagues had mentioned that 

when they were in Israel everyone that they had talked to, or the 

majority of the people in Israel supported moving the embassy. 

When I was in Israel this summer, that was my impression too, 

speaking to a vast array of Israelis there in Jerusalem and Tel 

Aviv. Getting back to the embassy, opponents of moving the embassy, opponents here in Congress, have cautioned that it could 

hinder the peace process. Do you believe peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, do you think that that would 

impede that in any way? And why or why not? 

Mr. BOLTON. No, I don’t think it would affect the overall Middle 

East peace process. I think the embassy move has been given a 

symbolic significance well in excess of its practical effects. If you 

believe, and some do, that the United States is fundamentally biased against the Arab side, that it’s so much in the tank for Israel 

that we can’t be an honest broker, and they cite the billions of dollars of military and economic assistance we have given to Israel 

since Camp David—and quite properly, in my view—they look at 

the world historical events that have affected the Middle East since 

the 1967 war at least, what possible effect can moving the embassy 

have in comparison to all of that? I mean this has taken a pebble 

and made it into a mountain. 

And the way to break through that, and I do think it is scholasticism, as I said in my testimony, is to move forward with actually 

relocating the embassy, acknowledging the reality that Jerusalem 

is the capital of Israel. It’s going to be in an area west of the green 

line that nobody except a proponent of eradicating Israel entirely 

would ever say would be in a Palestinian state. So putting it in a 

place that nobody’s disputing cannot affect either final status or 

the broader peace process. 

Mr. COMER. Well thank you, Ambassador. My time is up. I just 

want to conclude by saying I look forward to working with the 

Trump administration as we change directions with our policy towards Israel, and hopefully strengthen the support that we have 

with our greatest ally in that region. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and for calling this hearing. And I thank all of the witnesses for your testimony. I think all of us here are strong supporters of Israel, even 

if we have some disagreements about particular issues, including 

the wisdom of moving the capital. And I think all of us here supported the very significant 10-year aid package to Israel. Ambassador Gold, you mentioned that President Trump made a commitment to move the capital and as you—pardon me? 

Mr. GOLD. The embassy. 

Mr. WELCH. The embassy. Thank you. And as you know, around 

the time of his inauguration, I think at his inauguration, King 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

Abdullah came here. And my understanding from press reports is 

that he personally requested the President not to do that. Was 

President Trump wrong in accommodating the request of King 

Abdullah? 

Mr. GOLD. Well, I can’t say what King Abdullah said to President 

Trump because I wasn’t there and I don’t know. 

Mr. WELCH. No, let’s be serious here. We know that King 

Abdullah was opposed to moving the embassy. 

Mr. GOLD. Look, let’s say he was. You have to decide on the basis 

of your own interests. How much would moving the embassy have 

an effect on your—— 

Mr. WELCH. My question is was President Trump wrong in accommodating that request in not moving the embassy to Jerusalem, as he promised to do during the campaign? 

Mr. GOLD. What I am saying is this: Whether you have a President who is a Republican or a Democrat—— 

Mr. WELCH. This is a specific question, Ambassador. 

Mr. GOLD. Okay. 

Mr. WELCH. I am asking about was President Trump wrong in 

that decision? 

Mr. GOLD. My view, and I can only speak for myself, is that we 

hail the decision of an American President to move the embassy to 

Jerusalem. We are not going to second-guess the timing. That’s an 

American interest. 

Mr. WELCH. So President Trump was not wrong? 

Mr. GOLD. I am not going to second-guess the tactics, the timing 

of moving it. He gave his word in principle that he is going to move 

the embassy. And I believe that he is going to do it. 

Mr. WELCH. I am going to interrupt. I just want to say something. I think President Trump is showing great energy in the Middle East and with Israel. I think what Mr. Greenblatt is doing and 

what Mr. Kushner are doing is good. Now, would you agree that 

King Abdullah is a very important and loyal ally of the United 

States? 

Mr. GOLD. I believe King Abdullah is a loyal ally of the U.S., and 

he is an important partner to the State of Israel, and we have a 

peace treaty with Jordan as well. 

Mr. WELCH. My understanding is that there is significant 

progress in the relationships between Israel and many of the Sunni 

Arab states, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt. Is that your view as 

well? 

Mr. GOLD. I fully agree with that view. I think what is happening in the Middle East—— 

Mr. WELCH. I don’t have a lot of time. So is it in the interests 

of the United States and Israel to maintain solid relationships with 

those Sunni Arab states? 

Mr. GOLD. It is in the interests of the U.S. and Israel, in my 

judgment, to build on those relations and encourage them. And if 

you may give me one more sentence on that issue, the principal 

factor affecting the Sunni Arab world is what you do with Iran. 

That is—— 

Mr. WELCH. So you would agree with Ambassador—I take it you 

would agree with Ambassador Bolton that we should rip up that 

Iran nuclear deal? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

Mr. GOLD. No, I think you should upgrade it. I think you should 

take out the flaws and come up with a better agreement. 

Mr. WELCH. I only have a little time. Ambassador Bolton, I just 

want to ask you a question. Is it your view that at the present time 

the holy sites in Jerusalem are secure with the Israeli security system? 

Mr. BOLTON. Well, I think they are as secure as they can be 

under the circumstances. 

Mr. WELCH. Would they be more secure—— 

Mr. BOLTON. I would like to answer your question to Ambassador 

Gold. I think the President was wrong in accepting the recommendation of King Abdullah, if that’s what he said, and if that’s 

what the President did. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. I appreciate your candor. 

Mr. BOLTON. I couldn’t wait. 

Mr. WELCH. Let me ask you this. There is a question on the holy 

sites. And all of us want them to be secure. Will they be more secure, in your view, if the embassy is moved to Jerusalem? 

Mr. BOLTON. It will have absolutely no effect on the security of 

the holy sites. 

Mr. WELCH. Ambassador Gold? 

Mr. GOLD. I said in my testimony that you should encourage the 

common values that we have. 

Mr. WELCH. No, the question is will the security of the holy sites 

be enhanced if the embassy is moved to Jerusalem? 

Mr. GOLD. If anyone thinks that Israel may under certain circumstances or pressures withdraw from the core of Jerusalem and 

withdraw from the holy sites, you will have an explosion of violence, not reduced violence. 

Mr. WELCH. I see my time is up, but my questions are not answered. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes Mr. Hice for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it can be reasonably and effectively argued that the Obama administration undermined actually Israel’s claim to Jerusalem by allowing the U.N. 

Resolution 2334, which specifically stated that the establishment 

by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 

1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity. That’s bothersome to me personally. 

Ambassador Bolton, let me ask you this. What was the impact 

of the Obama administration’s decision to allow the U.N. Security 

Council to pass that resolution? 

Mr. BOLTON. I think it was very destructive. I think it was utterly uncalled for. I think it was profoundly wrong. And I hope that 

the Trump administration will bend every effort to find a way, as 

much as it can practicably be done, to reverse that resolution. I 

think the right position was that articulated by President George 

W. Bush, which is that Israel is entitled to live behind boundaries 

that provide for peace and security. And the notion that the 1967 

lines have any—which are really the 1949 armistice lines—have 

any binding juridical effect is completely wrong. And indeed, the 

armistice agreements of 1949 all expressly say that these are armiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28071.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

stice lines with no political value. We can argue that for a long 

time. But let me just say I think it was gravely damaging to American interests for President Obama to allow that resolution to be 

adopted. 

Mr. HICE. I agree with you. Would you say that that resolution 

was consistent with past U.S. policy? 

Mr. BOLTON. No, past U.S. policy, I think under Presidents Republican and Democratic alike, would have called for the veto of 

that resolution. 

Mr. HICE. So what motivated the change? 

Mr. BOLTON. I think President Obama had demonstrated over 8 

years that he thought Israel was responsible for much of the instability in the Middle East. Much as I think that he believed the 

United States and its views in the previous administration on Iran 

and other issues had caused instability. I think that motivated his 

decision. And I think he was 180 degrees in the wrong direction. 

Mr. HICE. So it was an anti-Israel policy? 

Mr. BOLTON. I don’t know any other way to characterize it. 

Mr. HICE. I don’t either. Would moving the embassy to Jerusalem help rectify that problem? 

Mr. BOLTON. I don’t really think it would change the fundamental reality of the resolution. Indeed, the thrust of my argument 

here is that moving the embassy is simply a practical, efficient decision for the United States to make in the interests of greater effectiveness for its own diplomacy. The only politicization in this 

issue comes from those who say that somehow they can affect a decision that is properly made by the United States and Israel where 

our embassy goes. That’s the politicization. That’s the interference. 

That’s what should be unacceptable to the United States. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Klein, let me ask you, in light 

of this resolution that we are discussing, which quite frankly I totally agree is blatantly against Israel, can you discuss with the 

committee how the U.N.’s action impacted Israel? 

Mr. KLEIN. Well, this resolution was completely absurd in that 

it stated that the Jewish section of Jerusalem is occupied Arab territory, the Western Wall and the Temple Mount, Judaism’s two 

holiest sites, is occupied Arab territory. It had no practical impact 

on Israel because in Israel everyone realizes it’s absurd. And even 

throughout the world most people realized that’s absurd. It really 

only sent a message of astonishing, really breathtaking hostility 

that President Obama’s administration had towards the Jewish 

State of Israel. 

Mr. HICE. And the entire U.N. I mean it seems there is a blatant 

anti-Israel sentiment in the U.N. across the board that needs to be 

addressed. What can the United States do to help prevent and 

change this anti—Israel sentiment? 

Mr. KLEIN. Well, Ambassador Haley is beginning to do that by 

calling them out on their irrational and absurd positions against 

Israel when they ignore truly evil and horrific regimes throughout 

the world. And I think one thing that can be done, and there is legislation moving in that direction, is to make it clear to the U.N. 

that America will stop apportioning its share of funding of the U.N. 

if they do not change this outrageous resolution. I think if that 

happened, that resolution would be changed immediately. As opVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28071.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

posed to the embassy not being moved immediately, that resolution 

would be changed immediately. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you for the recommendation. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. And the chair now 

recognizes Mr. Jordan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. Ambassador Bolton, how 

many countries are there in the world? 

Mr. BOLTON. We have diplomatic recognition with over 190. 

There are 193 members of the U.N. There are—— 

Mr. JORDAN. One hundred ninety-three countries. My guess is we 

are the United States of America, we are the biggest, strongest 

country on the planet. My guess is we have embassies in just about 

every one, maybe not Iran and North Korea and a handful. 

Mr. BOLTON. A few we don’t recognize. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yeah, a few we don’t recognize, right? So 180-some 

countries we have got an embassy in those countries. Is that right? 

Mr. BOLTON. That’s correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. And in all those countries the embassy is in the 

capital or the seat of government except for one. Is that right? 

Mr. BOLTON. Well, the only exception—the answer to that is yes, 

basically. The only exception to that is occasionally a country 

moves its capital city. 

Mr. JORDAN. So it takes you a while to relocate. 

Mr. BOLTON. I looked this up to be sure. For many years our embassy in Belize was in Belize City even though the capital was in 

Belmopan. But I see 10 years ago we finally moved our embassy. 

So we may be down to Israel alone. 

Mr. JORDAN. So 188 countries that we recognize we have an embassy, every single one we put the embassy in the capital or the 

seat of government. 

Mr. BOLTON. There must be something to that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Except one. Now Israel, became a country in 1948. 

Is that right? 

Mr. BOLTON. Pardon me? 

Mr. JORDAN. Israel became a country, it became a state in 1948? 

Mr. BOLTON. We were the first country to recognize its independence. 

Mr. JORDAN. Exactly. My next question, and who was the first 

head of state to recognize the Nation of Israel? 

Mr. BOLTON. Harry Truman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Harry Truman, President of the United States of 

America. And then just a few years ago—well, I guess more than 

a few years ago—1995, we passed an act Jerusalem Embassy Act, 

that almost every single Member of Congress voted for. Is that 

right? 

Mr. BOLTON. That’s correct. Overwhelmingly. 

Mr. JORDAN. I think it was a voice vote in the House, but in the 

Senate it was like 93 to 5, right? 

Mr. BOLTON. Something like that. 

Mr. JORDAN. And for this act to take effect and for the embassy 

to go to Jerusalem—this is amazing—Congress doesn’t have to do 

anything, something we are actually pretty darn good at, right? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

And frankly the President. Doesn’t have to do anything. Is that 

right? 

Mr. BOLTON. That’s correct. And it was a sign Congress was willing to pay for it too, which is also interesting. 

Mr. JORDAN. So we don’t have to do anything, the President 

doesn’t have to do anything. Everyone has spoken. The President 

campaigned on this. The American people elected him, as this was 

a central issue of his campaign, we do it everywhere else except 

one country, which, oh, just happens to be one of our best friends 

in the entire world. Is that right? 

Mr. BOLTON. That’s correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. This is what gets me. It is like this is real simple 

to me. This is about remembering your friends. This is about loyalty. This is about recognizing the fact that there is one country in 

the world who stands with us every single time. They happen to 

be the one country where we get our Judeo-Christian value system 

from, the State of Israel, and yet they are the one nation where we 

won’t put the embassy where it’s supposed to be. 

And particularly now when you think about what we went 

through the last 8 years with the previous administration, and 

more importantly what happened the last few months of that administration at the United Nations. This is the right time to do this 

thing. And that’s why the President recognized it, campaigned on 

it, and one of the reasons I would say the American people elected 

him. Would you agree, Ambassador Bolton? 

Mr. BOLTON. I think that’s entirely true. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. So let’s just get it done. Let’s just get it done. Right? 

Mr. BOLTON. I am entirely persuaded. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. I kind of thought you would be. That’s 

why I asked the questions of you. I think actually most of the panel 

is. I want to thank the chairman. He has worked hard on this. I 

want to thank all our witnesses who came here. Most importantly, 

I want to thank the President of the United States, who had the 

courage who said this was the right thing to do, the time is now, 

particularly in light of what we went through the last 8 years. 

Let’s get this done. Let’s get it done as quickly as possible. I understand there is some practical concerns. You have all outlined 

them. Ambassador Gold outlined them. That’s fine. But let’s get 

this done. It is the right thing to do, and when it comes—you got 

to remember who your friends are, who share your common set of 

values, the values that I think make the world a better place. Let’s 

recognize all that and get this thing done. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields the rest of his time to the 

chairman. Mort Klein, the significance of Jerusalem obviously I 

think is self-evident to the Jewish people. But in America, you are 

involved in politics, you know folks from Jewish activists, the 

Christian activists. This city matters to people here in America, 

does it not? 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes. As a matter of fact, the most recent polls show 

that Americans support moving the embassy to Jerusalem and 

keeping it an undivided city by over 4 to 1. So it’s really overwhelming. And by the way, even the liberal ministers, I just wanted to add like Yossi Beilin, extreme left wing ministers, said the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

embassy must be moved immediately. So that is really the consensus in Israel overwhelmingly. 

But yes, in America the overwhelming majority of people support 

this move and have supported it for 22 years, since it’s been—if I 

may say, the fundamental premise of why there is a debate is that 

the Arabs claim that Jerusalem is holy to Muslims. That’s the 

premise. If it was not holy to Muslims, if they said they want to 

move it, that Haifa was holy to them, nobody would even talk. But 

this is a fundamental falsehood. The majority of people living in Jerusalem since the mid-1800s have been Jews, second largest number of people, Christians. The Muslims are the third since the mid1800s. And the Arabs say, well, our Koran says that Muhammad 

went from Jerusalem to heaven. But what does it really say? It 

says Muhammad had a dream—not an occurrence, a dream—that 

on his winged horse he flew from the sacred mosque to the furthest 

mosque. The evidence makes it clear that this claim that the furthest mosque in Jerusalem can’t be. 

When Palestine is mentioned in the Koran, it’s referred to as the 

closest land, not the furthest land. So Jerusalem, which is in Palestine, cannot be the furthest mosque when Palestine is the closest 

land. And listen to this. One more thing. Palestine then had not 

yet been conquered by the Muslims. There wasn’t a single mosque 

in Palestine when the Koran was written. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired, and the 

chair now recognizes Ms. Foxx for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all 

of our witnesses here today. It is a very enlightening presentation. 

And I want to say I want to associate myself with the comments 

of some of my colleagues. That way I don’t have to repeat the comments of my colleagues. 

Ambassador Gold, the first thing I want to say is I think you do 

a wonderful job when you present the many different cases that 

you present when I occasionally have a chance to see you in the 

media. But I want to follow up on your verbal testimony. You mentioned the topic of Israel’s ability to preserve the integrity of the 

status quo of the holy land sites. I find this interesting given that 

detractors of moving the embassy claim that it would be inflammatory and inciting. 

Can you expand on the ability of Israel to prove as a stabilizing 

force for religious exercise and speech and ward off religious incitement? Do you think Israel’s sovereignty with respect to Jerusalem 

would be a positive influence on religious pluralism throughout the 

region? 

Mr. GOLD. First of all, Israel views itself as sovereign in Jerusalem today. That’s the situation. Now, in terms of protecting stability and security in that area, just go on the major holidays to 

the area of the Temple Mount, come on Ramadan and see how 

many tens of thousands of Muslims are praying near the Al Aqsa 

Mosque because they can’t even get into the Al Aqsa Mosque because it’s so full. Come on the time of Christmas to the Church of 

the Holy Sepulchre and see all the Christians who stream in for 

Christian holidays in the Old City. And then come to the Western 

Wall and see on the Jewish holidays, particularly the pilgrimage 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

festivals like Passover, Shavuot, and others, come to the Old City 

and pray at the Western Wall. 

Jerusalem works. It operates well. And changing or expressing 

uncertainty of any kind about Israel’s position only feeds radical 

elements who want to argue that the Jewish people have no connection with Jerusalem, or feeds all kinds of other baseless theories. 

Last but not least, I want to make this point, because it is an 

I think a current point that is very important. There is a sheik 

named Ra’ad Salah who heads the northern branch of the Islamic 

Movement, which is basically part of the Muslim Brotherhood. He 

used to come to Jerusalem a lot. He has been running around 

Israel and the region saying Israel is undermining the foundations 

of the Al Aqsa Mosque. And this heats up the whole region, this 

lie. And by the way, he has faced prosecution in the Israeli legal 

system. But one of the things we have to do is expose this lie, because frankly, the only one who ever threatened the foundations of 

any of the Muslim shrines has been him when he led groups to dig 

out tons of archeological areas near the Al Aqsa Mosque and created all kinds of problems which I don’t have time to go into. 

Israel is taking care of the holy sites, it has been taking care of 

the holy sites, and will continue to take care of them. And if you 

don’t have a responsible power to protect the holy sites, you are 

setting up a recipe for the next regional conflict. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much, Ambassador. And again, I want 

to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. And thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for the time. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentlelady yields back. The chair notes the 

presence of our colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. 

I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to fully participate in 

today’s hearing. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the timing. 

You know, Ambassador Bolton, when you opened up you dispelled 

some of the myths with regard to the basis for not moving the embassy. And I guess one of them that concerns me the most was the 

second point about the fragility of the peace negotiations going on 

in the Mideast and how this may disrupt it. What impact did the 

U.N. Resolution 2334 have on the impact of the peace process in 

the Mideast? 

Mr. BOLTON. Well, I think it was decidedly negative because it 

gave the false impression that the Palestinians and their supporters could win in the halls of the United Nations what they 

failed to win at the negotiating table. 

Mr. ROSS. And we turned a blind eye to that with an abstention. 

Mr. BOLTON. It was a catastrophic decision by the Obama administration. 

Mr. ROSS. Would you agree that any successful peace negotiation 

has to have the United States at the table? 

Mr. BOLTON. Anybody who doesn’t understand that doesn’t understand reality. 

Mr. ROSS. And if we are going to negotiate, should we not negotiate from a position of strength? I mean if you are going to negoVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28071.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

tiate to win, I would suggest that that would be the way we would 

go about doing this. 

And then we allow tacit approval of the U.N. Resolution 2334, 

which shows our weakness to our greatest ally. And then we get 

resistance for moving an embassy because it’s going to disrupt the 

peace process. The anomaly there is just illogical. Not that what we 

do here has any basis in logic or reason. 

But I guess my second point is that, and Ambassador Gold, you 

talked about this, about the sanctity of the holy sites. Who better 

than the Israeli people, who have been the protectorate of these 

holy sites, to allow them to continue to do so? And would it not, 

again in accordance with logic and reason, dictate that the move 

of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would give even a higher sense of security and a higher sense of clearance to allow for an 

even greater preservation of these sites? 

Mr. GOLD. And I want to remind you between 1948 and 1967, 

when we lost the Old City, our holy sites were attacked. We have 

photographs. Actually, I was going to put them up, and I don’t 

know what happened to our audiovisual, we had holy sites that 

came under attack, medieval synagogues blown up by shells of the 

invading armies that came in at that time. That’s not something 

Israel did, that’s something our neighbors did when they moved 

into Jerusalem. So our proven record in protecting holy sites is 

open for everyone to see. 

Mr. ROSS. And in fact not only open for everyone to see, but open 

for everyone to see regardless of ethnicity, religious background, 

nationalism, anything. I guess my point is that here we are arguing over what I think are baseless arguments to not move the embassy, and yet we stand again in abeyance with the peace process 

that if we are going to deal with a peace process, it would seem 

to me that if the U.S. is going to be a partner to succeed in a Mideast peace that we should then show some strength. 

And that greatest sense of strength, now be it deliberate—I don’t 

mind waiting 6 months or a year to make sure that it’s the right 

move and we make sure that we have reached out to our allies— 

that it would seem to me that our best position in order to effectuate a peace, if peace is sought by the Palestinians, that moving 

the embassy in and of itself would be a step in the right direction. 

Would you all agree with me? 

Mr. BOLTON. I think that’s certainly correct. And I think it goes 

to what I believe is the fundamental misconception about the potential impact of an embassy move, which assumes in part that the 

United States today is in equipoise between the Palestinians and 

the State of Israel, when in fact if you look at the imbalance in economic assistance, billions and billions to Israel compared to a relatively smaller amount through the U.N. and directly, nobody can 

believe that we are in equipoise on that. 

So the issue is not in the abstract would some people disagree 

with us to move the embassy, but what is the aggregate delta, 

what is the real change in the strategic reality in the region? And 

the answer is the change is de minimis. 

Mr. ROSS. I agree with you. 

Mr. GOLD. Let me just make one point. 

Mr. ROSS. Ambassador Gold. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

Mr. GOLD. When you are involved in negotiations, one of the 

strategies to make negotiations work is to get the parties into what 

I would call the box of realism. If people have wild-eyed fantasies 

that they can achieve goals that there isn’t a chance in hell of 

reaching, you are never going to go forward. You move the embassy, you create a box of realism for our neighbors. Israel’s not 

going to give up Jerusalem. Somebody better digest that. It’s going 

to be the capital—it has been the capital of Israel and will remain 

the capital of Israel. Your moving the embassy reinforces that box 

of realism and brings us just that much closer to a negotiated solution. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. I realize my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks. I am going to go down a little bit different path here. Anyone can answer this. Right now of course the 

United States maintains a diplomatic representative to the Palestinians. And that is in West Jerusalem. 

Is there any doubt, if you are familiar with where that diplomatic representative is, is there any doubt, does anybody dispute 

the fact, except the most extreme elements, that that diplomatic 

representation is in Israel? 

Mr. BOLTON. Well, the location of the building is in West Jerusalem, but in actual fact, and this has been true for over a quarter 

of a century, even longer, that consulate has been perceived at the 

State Department as the de facto embassy to the Palestinian State. 

And that’s a problem in and of itself. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Right. Just to compare the two as far as, you 

know, what we’re dealing with here. Could you compare the idea 

that as a practical matter the Palestinian representative or embassy is in Israel, but we can’t put the Israeli Embassy, the American Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem? 

Mr. BOLTON. I think there is actually a consulate facility in—east 

of the green line that does things like provide visas for Palestinians. But honestly, this goes to a larger point that I don’t think any 

of us perhaps covered except in the prepared testimony about 

rationalizing what our view is on a potential outcome of the peace 

process to begin with, and whether we think a two-state solution 

is still viable. I am not sure you can solve that all at once. And 

that’s why the question of whether we should relocate our embassy 

into indisputably sovereign Israeli territory in West Jerusalem is 

actually the easiest part of it and the first thing we can do. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I really loved Ambassador Gold’s comments, because he hit the nail on the head. You know, I think we move the 

embassy, it would put some realism into some discussions over 

there. I will bring up another matter, though. Since we are talking 

about where the Israeli Embassy is, we just spent a second here 

on where as a practical matter the American Embassy to the Palestinians is. 

Do you think it would introduce a dose of reality if we moved 

that embassy or representative, whatever you want to call it, to 

Ramallah, rather than put it in Jerusalem? Does that also, the fact 

that that building is in Jerusalem, does that also kind of encourage 

this lack of common sense or lack of reality in the region? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

Mr. BOLTON. I think others will want to comment on this, but I 

think we need to revisit the entire concept of having a kind of permanent de facto embassy to a Palestinian state that doesn’t exist 

yet. I mean that person, at least the last time I was in the State 

Department, the consul general in Jerusalem is instructed not to 

have contact with officials of the Government of Israel, that their 

job is to talk to the Palestinians. That’s one reason why the consulate there has the authority, which a few other consulates do, to 

send cables back to Washington without the approval of the Ambassador in Israel, the country in which it’s located. 

And I just think this has been in aid of perpetuating the myth 

that if you think about it hard enough, a Palestinian state will appear out of nowhere. I think that’s a mistake from the U.S. point 

of view. It’s not realistic. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Ambassador Gold, you care to comment? 

Mr. GOLD. If we take some of the principles that Ambassador 

Bolton has put forward about where embassies are located, you 

know, I think he is right, we don’t—Ambassador Bolton is correct, 

we don’t have yet a political solution to the Palestinian side. 

We don’t know where Palestinian self-governing institutions will 

be located. And it would make sense that in the future any embassy would be located near those institutions. You know, sometimes there are Palestinians and Jordanians who speak about a 

federation or confederation. 

Does that mean that the U.S. Embassy in Amman should be involved? Who knows? But we are not yet at a political solution. So 

it’s a little premature to start saying where the U.S. Embassy representing U.S. interests to the Palestinians should precisely be. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. On the status quo, just to reiterate what 

you said, in the status quo as long as the U.S. Embassy is not in 

Jerusalem, it kind of implies that that could become a permanent 

state of affairs. And as long as what is operating as the de facto 

American Embassy to Palestine is in Jerusalem, it also kind of 

leaves the idea out there that that could be a permanent state of 

affairs. Correct? 

Mr. GOLD. So I think what you are implying, and I think it is 

true, it gives a net effect that the Palestinians have a leg up on 

the claim in Jerusalem, which is not fair, which needs to be remedied. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Correct. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DESANTIS. We have one of our strongest allies, only democracy in the Mideast, and yet we act like Jerusalem’s not their capital, Tel Aviv. But then you have Palestinian Arabs who have rejected states, have gone to war with Israel for years and years, and 

we have something in Jerusalem for them. I mean it really is maddening. Good questions. 

The chair now recognizes Mark Meadows for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

leadership on this issue. Obviously, as being members of the Republican Conference, there is always a very willing partner on behalf of the gentleman from Florida on issues that are pro-Jewish 

and pro-Israel, and I thank you for your leadership. Ambassador 

Bolton, let me come to you. Would you suggest that there are a 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
80 

number of people in the State Department that are vehemently opposed to moving the embassy to Jerusalem? 

Mr. BOLTON. Absolutely. And look, this is a problem at the State 

Department. I wrote about it in my book that I wrote after I was 

at the U.N., that there are elements in the Department who are 

excellent civil servants who follow the direction of new Presidents. 

There are others who think they should run American foreign policy. And they have been running this issue for as long as anyone 

can remember. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So to your knowledge were any of those people at 

the State Department elected on November 8th? 

Mr. BOLTON. No, strangely, and they are not mentioned in the 

Constitution either. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And to your knowledge, when the President ran 

on this particular issue, do you believe that there were a number 

of people who felt like there was a reset in terms of our relationship with the Jewish community, and finally the United States of 

America? 

Mr. BOLTON. Yes. And I think it’s a campaign promise that a lot 

of people paid a lot of attention to. I think it’s very important. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So would you characterize this as a campaign 

promise that if the President failed to follow through on that would 

be a major disappointment to the Jewish community? 

Mr. BOLTON. Well, I will just speak as a Lutheran, it would be 

a major disappointment to me. 

Mr. MEADOWS. As an Evangelical, it will be a major disappointment to me. And I can tell you that it is something that not only 

have we brought up with the President directly, I can tell you that 

he understands the commitment that he has made on this particular issue. 

Dr. Koplow, I am going to come to you. There is always one 

skunk at the party. And so as we look at this, obviously you don’t 

believe that we should be moving the embassy to Jerusalem. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KOPLOW. I believe that national security considerations at 

this time dictate that we should probably leave it in Tel Aviv at 

least for another 6 months. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So what has changed over the last 20 

years in terms of our national security interests? I mean because 

we continue to debate this over and over. Do you know who Erekat 

is? 

Mr. KOPLOW. I am sorry? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you know who Erekat is? Or Erekat? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Oh, Saeb Erekat, of course 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you know who he is. So how long has he had 

his job? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Certainly as long as I can remember. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. Well, the closest thing to eternal life here 

is an eternal job of being able to negotiate a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So since he has not been successful in 

over 21 years, and the embassy has not been in Jerusalem, how 

could moving the embassy to Jerusalem have affected his track 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

record? I mean so if we move it do you think he will be any less 

successful? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Do I think Erekat will be any less successful? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. 

Mr. KOPLOW. I can’t imagine that he personally will be less successful. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree. So from a national security standpoint, 

is the Knesset fairly secure? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I have been there. It’s very secure. So are you 

saying that we couldn’t secure our embassy in Jerusalem? Is that 

what you are saying or you are just saying that geopolitically it 

makes national security less viable? 

Mr. KOPLOW. I have no doubt that we would be able to secure 

our embassy in Jerusalem the same way that we secure our embassy in Tel Aviv. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree. So what empirical data do you have that 

would suggest that this would create a national security incident? 

Because you were just talking, because I find your logic fascinating, 

you were just talking about how the Palestinians were pushing 

back against the security agreement, and yet the embassy is in Tel 

Aviv. So why would—I mean there is something to the logic that 

doesn’t seem to mesh. 

Mr. KOPLOW. I think that there are a number of issues regarding 

Jerusalem that affect national security both for us and for Israel. 

The embassy is one of them. It’s not the only one. But in general, 

as I note in my testimony, things that occur in Jerusalem tend to 

be the spark for—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying the very presence of a building 

in Jerusalem is going to create a national security issue? 

Mr. KOPLOW. I think it very well may. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. And you don’t have any empirical data to 

support that. That’s just your feeling being a doctor from Georgetown in political science, right? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Based on the fact that other violent incidents in 

Israel are generally sparked by changes in Jerusalem, I think that 

one can assume that this is—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Could you possibly be wrong? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Ambassador Bolton. 

Mr. BOLTON. Just one quick point. On this question of physical 

security for American diplomats, I think anybody, probably many 

people on the committee, have been to Tel Aviv. You have seen our 

embassy. I can only imagine the heartburn that it causes in what 

we call OBO at the State Department, the Overseas Building Operations Bureau, the Diplomatic Security Bureau. It’s very close to a 

main street. In contemporary terms, we would never build an embassy like that again. 

Obviously, building a new embassy in Jerusalem would give us 

ample opportunity to include the most advanced security techniques that we could. And I think our personnel would be safer in 

a new facility than in the embassy that they currently occupy in 

Tel Aviv. And we don’t need to be reminded of the risks to our people overseas. None of us want to see those risks continued. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
82 

So from that perspective, which involves American lives right on 

the front end, I think every consideration argues for moving the 

bulk of our personnel to Jerusalem. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I agree. December 1st is a critical date because we have another waiver. It would be a great message that 

this President could send on the 50th anniversary of reunification 

that we go ahead and finally move the embassy to the eternal capital of Israel, Jerusalem. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to pick up where 

my colleague from North Carolina left off. Dr. Koplow, and I will 

not describe you as anything other than a member of the party 

here, but since you seem to have concerns, let me run through a 

couple of quick questions. Do you know where the Ambassador 

spends most of—U.S. Ambassador to Israel spends most of his time 

while he is in Israel? 

Mr. KOPLOW. In the past, ambassadors have spent their time in 

Tel Aviv. And having met with Ambassador Friedman a few weeks 

ago, it was down in Tel Aviv. 

Mr. ISSA. It’s interesting, because I always see them at the King 

David, because as long as the Knesset is in session that’s where 

they live, right? 

Mr. KOPLOW. In the past they have not lived in the King David 

every time the Knesset is in session, but I believe the State Department keeps a residence in the King David for the ambassador’s 

use. 

Mr. ISSA. Exactly. The State Department keeps a residence for 

the Ambassador at the King David, and has for decades. Ambassador Gold, would you confirm that from your experience, that if 

you want to meet the Ambassador in Jerusalem that’s pretty much 

the digs he has to meet you at, isn’t it? 

Mr. GOLD. There has been an American facility in one of Jerusalem’s hotels. 

Mr. ISSA. So, I stay at the King David by choice, so we will just 

leave it as my favorite hotel in the city, Colony being a second. 

Now, having said that, the security at the King David is pretty 

good for a hotel. Ambassador Bolton, does it begin to meet the setbacks of safety, security for embassy personnel and the Ambassador that are the minimum standards of today’s embassies? 

Mr. BOLTON. No. It doesn’t even come close. And I can tell from 

you my own personal experience when I was in New York, these 

security questions are extremely important. And we don’t need 

Benghazi to remind us of it. These are Americans who are doing 

their jobs for us, are at greater risk because of the travel necessity 

between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem now, because of the insecure facilities, and because of the lost opportunity of building more secure 

facilities in Jerusalem. 

Mr. ISSA. And Dr. Koplow, you have you been in the consulate, 

the full consulate that exists in East Jerusalem that services mostly Palestinians? 

Mr. KOPLOW. I have not. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
83 

Mr. ISSA. I have. It’s a very large facility. Actually it’s 

embassyesque in its setback and size. Have you been in the consul 

general’s compound, which is separate, in West Jerusalem? 

Mr. KOPLOW. No. 

Mr. ISSA. You know where the YMCA is over there? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. It’s a block and a half away. Now the interesting thing 

is the consul general does maintain a facility, and regularly mostly 

heads in and out of the West Bank, if you will. And I personally 

think it is a good location because it allows him a very safe location 

no matter what may be happening in the West Bank. But, in fact, 

they almost always on a daily basis go back and forth. 

What I find interesting is his facilities have significant setback 

considering it was once a private estate. The facility is permanent 

and has been expanded. The consulate that exists nearby is substantial and was built to modern standards. And yet today, as the 

Knesset meets in Jerusalem, the Ambassador stays in temporary 

rented facilities at some location in Jerusalem, and has no real 

proper place to conduct diplomatic business. 

So my question to you, Doctor, separate from the question of the 

term embassy for a moment, knowing that we have a facility for 

the consul general which is substantial, we have the actual consulate facility that does consular-type work, particularly, you know, 

visas and so on, is there any reason that we should not have proper 

safe facilities for the Ambassador when he or she is meeting—going 

in and out of meetings with the government, which is substantially 

normally located in Jerusalem, at least when the Knesset is in session? 

Mr. KOPLOW. I think that would be a question for the State Department to decide. I think in this case the security concerns aren’t 

about the facility itself. I think the security concerns are more 

about wider geopolitical security and the overall security situation 

in Jerusalem for Israelis. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So Congressman Juan Vargas, a former Jesuit 

priest, now a Congressman, and myself have a bill that calls on the 

State Department to build a permanent and substantial facility to 

house safely the Ambassador to Israel in or near Jerusalem for 

purposes of conducting the business of the American people before 

this Nation. Do you inherently have any problem with that portion, 

if you will, with that sub law? It doesn’t say embassy. Do you have 

a problem with putting our Ambassador in a safe location and in 

proximity to the Government of Israel? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Without having seen the bill, I am reluctant to—— 

Mr. ISSA. Just take my description and I will write it to match 

your agreement. 

Mr. KOPLOW. I would say certainly in general I support anywhere the Ambassador is that facility should be secure. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So if I can summarize, with the chairman’s indulgence, the one thing that this entire panel I think agrees, based 

on head shaking, is that the current Government of Israel, of the 

Israeli people, is located in Jerusalem. That that government regularly meets there. That the Ambassador—U.S. Ambassador has an 

obligation to regularly be there, and is there regularly. That that 

Ambassador is not currently in facilities that meet the Inman or 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
84 

other common standards of security, nor does it have the ability to 

host people in the way that ambassadors normally do at the embassy. 

That the embassy in Tel Aviv, sitting on—by the way, the other 

side of is sitting on the ocean. It’s beautiful but it’s also not 

protectable. That that facility is dated, and by definition doesn’t 

meet the standards. And so regardless of the President’s decision 

on the question of moving the embassy, we have a facility deficit, 

a security deficit that needs to be corrected, and the logical place 

to secure the Ambassador for most of the time is in a city where 

he currently does not have permanent U.S. facilities. I think that’s 

what I heard everyone shaking their head for. 

So as the President decides this question, he’s really deciding the 

question of safety of diplomats and security and our country’s ability to do business with the capital—I am sorry, with the Government of Israel. Is that one we can all agree on even though I—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ISSA. I know, but I am going for that long agreement, Chairman. Can I get a yes? 

Mr. DESANTIS. I gave you some indulgence. We got to go because 

I know Brian Mast has got to move on, so I want to recognize him 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MAST. Thank you, Chairman, for the invitation to join your 

committee today. This has been a much needed hearing. I am going 

to ask just some very self-evident questions because this is such a 

self-evident issue, at least in my opinion. 

So I will just start at the end down here. Mr. Kontorovich, you 

know, can you tell me, what is the capital of the United States of 

America? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. The Capital is Washington, D.C., of course. 

Mr. MAST. Certainly. And Dr. Koplow, in what U.S. city does 

Egypt maintain their embassy? 

Mr. KOPLOW. Washington, D.C. 

Mr. MAST. That’s exactly right. We maintain ours in Cairo. Mr. 

Klein, I am sure you know the city in which—the U.S. city in 

which Jordan maintains their embassy? 

Mr. KLEIN. It could have been in Jerusalem. They chose Amman. 

Mr. MAST. That’s where we maintain our embassy. They maintain their embassy here in Washington, D.C. Certainly Ambassador 

Gold, I am sure you know where Saudi Arabia here in the United 

States maintains their embassy. 

Mr. GOLD. They maintain their embassy in the center of American power and influence, the Capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. MAST. You better believe it. And we maintain ours in Riyadh. Ambassador Bolton, I am certain that you can say where 

Israel and 177 other nations maintain their embassies here in the 

United States of America. 

Mr. BOLTON. Turns out to be Washington. 

Mr. MAST. That’s exactly right. So I guess short of invasion, I 

really can’t think of a bigger slap in the face to any nation’s sovereignty, their right to self government, their legitimacy than not 

recognizing their capital or their center of government. I think that 

us not celebrating having an embassy in Jerusalem, having the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
85 

presence there, our diplomatic mission in Israel, having it there, I 

think it’s absolutely a slight to our greatest of allies every single 

day. 

So in that, you know, I am going to keep my remarks very brief 

and just say this. You know, we are the leader of the free world. 

That is an undisputed fact and rightly so. So we need to be calling 

on every person in this town, every person in this building to lead 

and establish our embassy in the center of freedom in the Middle 

East, and that is the true capital of Israel, Jerusalem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here, Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yield the balance of your time to me? 

Mr. MAST. Absolutely. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to thank the 

witnesses for your testimony. I think we have gotten a lot of very 

good information. I think it was presented very crisply. And I just 

come away from the hearing more convinced than ever that we 

need to follow this 1995 law. 

I would love to do it before the end of the year to coincide with 

the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem’s reunification during the SixDay War. But I think from a security perspective it makes sense. 

I think from the religious freedom perspective, the endorsement of 

Israeli stewardship over those religious sites is something that is 

very important both here, there, and I think throughout the world. 

And I think geopolitically, people will see that America is standing 

with a close ally. And that’s exactly what we need to be doing at 

this point in time. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

If there is no further business, without objection the National Security Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(87) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 28071.050

House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on National Security 

Hearing on 

"Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: Challenges and Opportunities" 

November 8, 2017 

****************************************** 

Statement submitted by 

Daniel C. Kurtzerl 

It would be a diplomatic mistake and detrimental to American interests for the 

United States to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem in the present posture of the 

Israeli-Palestinian dispute. During my four years as President George W. Bush's 

Ambassador to Israel- and indeed throughout three decades of government service 

devoted almost entirely to advancing the interests of the United States vis-a-vis Israel 

and the Palestinians- no topic was as sensitive as Jerusalem. 

Congress has long been attuned to the unique nature of this issue. In enacting the 

Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, Congress prudently included a waiver provision 

permitting the executive branch to defer implementation of an embassy move. For 22 

years, four presidents from both parties have exercised that waiver authority to avoid 

committing the United States to the consequences of such a unilateral change. 

Consistent with that longstanding judgment, the President should continue to waive 

implementation of the Act, while at the same time exerting sigrrificant effort to break the 

diplomatic stalemate in the peace process. 

Several important factors underpin this policy recommendation. 

First, it has long been United States policy to oppose unilateral actions by either 

party - or by third parties - that seek to change the status quo outside of the 

negotiations. If the United States were to engage in unilateral action on this central 

disputed issue, we would substantially undermine our ability to persuade the parties 

1 Daniel C. Kurtzer is the S. Daniel Abraham Professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton 

University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. During a 29-year career in the 

Foreign Service, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence 

and Research. He received his PhD from Columbia University and is the co-author and the editor of three 

books on the Arab-Israeli peace process. 
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 28071.051

themselves, or other third parties, to avoid doing so. For example, the United States has 

expended important diplomatic capital to oppose unilateral Palestinian efforts to secure 

full member status in international organizations in the absence of a political settlement. 

To date, many of these efforts have been successful. A unilateral move of our embassy 

to Jerusalem would cost the United States deeply in terms of credibility on such issues, 

and that cost would far outstrip any supposed benefits to both the United States and, I 

believe, Israel. 

Second, the extraordinarily close relationship between the United States and 

Israel-- which I was proud to help build during my government service-- is no secret, 

including to the Palestinians. Indeed this relationship is itself a critical pillar of U.S. 

foreign policy. However, our ability to be-- and be seen to be- the indispensable third 

party whose leadership and authority are vital to steward the parties to a negotiated 

resolution that is squarely within our own interests would be compromised by a 

decision to move our embassy to Jerusalem. We would be crossing a clear red line for 

the Palestinians and for many Arab and Muslim states, including those with whom we 

share friendship and regional security interests. The interests of the United States would 

not be advanced by crossing that line. 

To be sure, it is apparent to all observers that western Jerusalem is certain to be 

incorporated within the State of Israel de jure, as it already is de facto, in the context of a 

final status resolution. But the terms of that resolution, including the borders of 

Jerusalem have yet to be agreed. A move of our embassy to any location within 

Jerusalem would be seen to prejudice both the final status and the ultimate 

determination of the agreed borders. Israel unilaterally expanded the municipal 

boundaries of Jerusalem after the June 1967 war. Situating our embassy in Jerusalem 

before the parties themselves have agreed to such a step would be construed as 

functional acceptance on the part of the United States of Israel's decision to enlarge that 

municipal boundary. 

The United States has been a steadfast supporter of Israel through thick and thin 

for decades. But across those decades, the United States has also held firm to the 

principle that international boundaries are not to be modified by force or unilateral 

action. How can we articulate principled opposition to the action of others -- for 

example, Russia's annexation of Crimea - if we look the other way when our friends 

and allies do the same thing? 

It must also be noted how this decision, if undertaken, would increase the 

security threat to U.S. diplomats, citizens and facilities in many parts of the Muslim 

world. Certainly, such violence would be absolutely unjustified. And equally, United 

States policy should never be driven away from the correct outcome by threats of terror. 
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 28071.052

Here, though, the outcome is the wrong outcome -- one that would cause a serious 

setback in our interests for no discernible policy gain. 

In diplomacy, timing is often as important as substance. In my own experience, 

there was at least one possible moment when we might have made this embassy move 

successfully-in a way consistent with our stated policy, and attuned to the pitfalls 

noted above. In the weeks before the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accord, when I was on 

the Administration's "peace team," I proposed simultaneously moving our embassy to 

West Jerusalem and establishing a second mission in East Jerusalem to represent United 

States interests vis-a-vis the Palestinian Authority. I argued that the political 

breakthrough of Oslo provided an opportunity to achieve something of importance for 

both Israelis and Palestinians. To my regret, no action was taken. Since then, there has 

not been a similar fortuitous moment in which the United States could have undertaken 

a bold diplomatic move of benefit to both parties with respect to Jerusalem. When such 

a moment arises, I will be first in line to push for this move, but I see no plausible basis 

to conclude that the current political and diplomatic circumstances present anything 

like such a moment. 

Two important notes: the issue of where the United States embassy to Israel is 

located must not be confused with the question of the connection between the Jewish 

people and Jerusalem. The historical, religious and political connections between the 

Jews and Jerusalem are a matter of fact, not opinion. Palestinian leaders and others who 

have sought to deny this connection are simply wrong, and their arguments should be 

rejected categorically. But that is a different discussion than whether it advances U.S. 

interests to undertake a particular provocative diplomatic move at this time. As 

articulated above, it does not. 

The issue also should not be decided by the lawyers. There is a significant 

divergence of views regarding the legal status of Israel with respect to the territories it 

occupied as a result of the 1967 war. The debate over whether Israel's control of 

Jerusalem constitutes a "belligerent occupation" or some other status is important, but 

must not be dispositive with respect to what is clearly a policy (and political) decision. 

A final and personal note regarding the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. I 

recognize the strong sentiment within Congress that our embassy should be located in 

Jerusalem. In the context of a final status deal, I wholeheartedly endorse that move. In 

the meantime, though, the reality is that the Act has compromised the security of 

Americans by hindering the ability of those in the field to improve embassy security. 

During my tenure as Ambassador, I could not certify that our chancery building in Tel 

Aviv was secure. It sits between two busy streets, does not have adequate setback, and 

was not constructed to the standards now required for our diplomatic buildings. 

During the second Palestinian Intifada, a suicide bomber attacked a cafe just a few feet 
91 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 28071.053

north of the embassy, and another suicide bomber attempted an attack against a 

restaurant just a few feet south (this attack was prevented by our extraordinarily brave 

embassy security personnel). Yet we could not even consider a move to a more secure 

facility, because the Act prevented us from doing so other than by moving the embassy 

to Jerusalem. Thus, Congress's well-intentioned legislation has become a barrier to 

ensuring the security of American personnel. I urge Congress to take the appropriate 

steps to ensure that the Act does not continue to prevent moving the embassy 

temporarily to a more secure location until a peace agreement is reached and the 

embassy can be relocated permanently to Jerusalem. 

For all these reasons, therefore, I strongly recommend that the President continue 

to waive the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and that the U.S. Embassy 

not be relocated to Jerusalem until a final status agreement is reached between Israel 

and the Palestinians. I also recommend that the Congress permit the embassy to 

relocate to a more secure location until it can be moved to Jerusalem after a peace 

accord is reached. And I recommend equally strongly that the administration intensify 

its efforts to achieve a peace settlement to this longstanding dispute. 

I thank the Committee for permitting me to include this statement in the record.