ZOA Files Lawsuit Demanding Enforcement Of U.S. Law That

[ForestsBeatBushes]

"Jerusalem, Israel" Be Stamped On Passports Of U.S. Citizens Born In Jerusalem.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)'s Center for Law and Justice has filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. on behalf of an American couple living in Israel, contending that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the State Department are violating federal law by refusing to recognize their infant son's birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel. At present, a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem has only the word "Jerusalem," with no country listed, stamped on his passport as his or her place of birth.

In 2002, Congress passed a statute providing that United States citizens born in Jerusalem can choose to have "Israel" listed as their country of birth on their passports, registrations of birth, and other documents. President Bush signed the statute into law on September 30, 2002. The language of the statute is clear and mandates that the Secretary of State must make the listing on request. State Department officials have refused to comply with the law, citing U.S. policy concerns about the still-to-be-negotiated status of Jerusalem.

<snip>

Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the Director of ZOA's Center for Law and Justice, noted, "If President Bush had a basis to veto the legislation on foreign policy grounds, he should have done so. Instead, he signed it into law. The goals of this lawsuit affirm the principles of our Constitution -- that Congress makes the law, and that our President and the executive branch of our government are bound to uphold and enforce it."


http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2003/20031030a.htm

[GabysPoppy]

1. However herein lies the problem

"The goals of this lawsuit affirm the principles of our Constitution -- that Congress makes the law, and that our President and the executive branch of our government are bound to uphold and enforce it."

I tend to think that * will not be breaking precedent with this particular suit.

[RuB]

2. It used to sicken me listening to people say how reasonable Powell was,

Powell couldn't tie the shoes of Clark. Powell is a pathetic yes man, an embarassment, a rightwing hack, a panderer. I am sickened by those who refuse to stand up for what is right just so they don't offend a race of people.

{edit spelling}

[tinnypriv]

3. Just add a dubya before it

Everybody wins.

[Darranar]

4. Any perspective...

on this aside from this clearly biased source?

[IndianaGreen]

6. What nationality are Israeli-Americans?

Answer: They are both! As Israelis, Dan and Jocelyn Odenheimer can get an Israeli passport for their son. The problem arises when the Odenheimers, this time acting as American citizens, want to blackmail the United States into accepting their view that there are no Palestinian claims on any part of Jerusalem. This is the same view that is shared by many Americans that have emigrated to Israel for the express purpose of moving into settlements in the Occupied Territories.

[drdon326]

8. Indy...

I guess the mirror broke.

[IndianaGreen]

9. There must be compromise on land if you want peace in the ME

and Jerusalem is no exception: A Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine, and as an open city, with no exclusive claims by anyone.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Not just THEIR view

It is the view of CONGRESS, that Jerusalemn is part of Israel. It is the job ot State to follow that.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Your paid-for AIPAC Congress did not put an enforcement feature

in the law. It was nothing more than PR, totally unenforceable, and a violation of the Separation of Powers. Good luck finding a court that will order this, or any future President of the United States, to place Israeli interests ahead of American interests.

I will point out that the American Embassy in Israel remains in Tel Aviv, despite the "infamous Jerusalem provisions":

SEC. 214. 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.

(b) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSULATE IN JERUSALEM- None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be expended for the operation of a United States consulate or diplomatic facility in Jerusalem unless such consulate or diplomatic facility is under the supervision of the United States Ambassador to Israel.

(c) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PUBLICATIONS- None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be available for the publication of any official government document which lists countries and their capital cities unless the publication identifies Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

(d) RECORD OF PLACE OF BIRTH AS ISRAEL FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES- For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.

http://www.peacenow.org/nia/leg/10042002.html

Jerusalem: Provisions of Foreign Relations Authorization act of 2003 HR 1646
October 1, 2002

The USA has maintained its embassy in Tel Aviv and has not recognized any part of Jerusalem as a part of the Israel. For example, Americans who are born anywhere in Jerusalem cannot register their country of birth as Israel. US Jewish groups and Christian sympathizers have lobbied the government to change this policy, resulting in two acts of congress that have had no practical effect. President Bush maintains that these acts are advisory only, inasmuch as the executive branch, and not congress, determines policy. A previous act of Congress, enacted in 1995, called for removal of the Embassy in Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, an act that would be tantamount to US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That act also referred to united Jerusalem, which would be a denial of Arab claims in Jerusalem. In practice, the act was ignored. Presidents Clinton and Bush routinely issued waivers every 6 months, as permitted by the bill, stating that moving of the embassy was not currently in the best interests of the United States.

In 2002, Congress passed HR 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, and President Bush signed it into law. Section 214 again makes specific provisions regarding Jerusalem, but in this case there is no waiver.

The act caused a storm of protest in Arab capitals, and President Bush and the State Department issued statements indicating that they will ignore the act and consider it "advisory" claiming that it interfered with his ability to conduct foreign policy as directed by the US constitution. These statements are appended below.

The constitution provides for separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. The Executive branch sets policy, but all funding allocations are in the hands of congress. Thus, the President is commander in chief of the armed forces, for example, but cannot spend money except as allocated by congress.

http://www.mideastweb.org/jeruembassy2002.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Congress

Is paid for by a lot of interests, not just AIPAC. It's our system and every group, including some pro-Palestinian groups gives money.

You touched on the reason why State needs to go along with this in your last sentence. Congress allocates money. If State does what IT wants, they don't get money.

[rini]

53. That sir

is ridiculous! Read the Constitution, then read the congressional record.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Clinton Vetoes Bill on Jerusalem as Israel's Capital (1999)

It is not surprising that the people suing the State Department are the opponents of peace in the Middle East, and they succeeded in getting the idiot Bush to sign a bill that had previously been vetoed by President Clinton. Here is a 1999 article on the Clinton veto:

Clinton Vetoes Bill Strengthening U.S. Position on Jerusalem as Israel's Capital
(November 1999)

The president vetoed the fiscal year 2000 Commerce-Justice-State spending bill, which funds the U.S. contribution to the United Nations and international peacekeeping operations, among other things.

Though the president vetoed the bill largely for reasons concerning domestic spending issues, he did comment in his veto message on the two "Jerusalem provisions" in the bill, inserted by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC). One provision would require that official U.S. government documents refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, while the other would require the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem to report to the Embassy in Tel Aviv, rather than directly to the State Department in Washington.

In his veto message, the president wrote that the "bill includes a number of provisions regarding the conduct of foreign affairs that raise serious constitutional concerns. Provisions concerning Jerusalem are objectionable on constitutional, foreign policy, and operational grounds. The actions called for by these provisions would prejudice the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations, which have recently begun and which the parties are committed to concluding within a year."

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/clintveto.html

[rini]

52. What biased source

the US Constitution that clearly states Congress makes the laws, and the executive branch upholds them? Of course you have now made it abundantly clear that IYO, Israel has no capital unless the PA specifically designates it.

[Darranar]

58. No...

the ZOA!

This case has yet to have been decided in court. Did the State Department actually break the law? Or are these people asking for more than the law forces?

It doesn't really matter, anyway.

[Aidoneus]

5. of tip-top importance

to be sure..

[Darranar]

7. Of course it is!

It's proof that despite billions of dollars in aid to Israel, the US still hates Israel, despises its citizens, and strongly condemns all of Israel's heroic actions to defend themselves because the US and the world are full of anti-semites!

[ForestsBeatBushes]

10. And One More Time.

"In 2002, Congress passed a statute providing that United States citizens born in Jerusalem can choose to have "Israel" listed as their country of birth on their passports, registrations of birth, and other documents. President Bush signed the statute into law on September 30, 2002. The language of the statute is clear and mandates that the Secretary of State must make the listing on request. State Department officials have refused to comply with the law, citing U.S. policy concerns about the still-to-be-negotiated status of Jerusalem."

[Darranar]

11. And that has to do with anything because...?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

17. Because that's what this thread is about...?

[Darranar]

19. But how does that make the event important?

Since that is what we were discussing...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

21. If you wish to give the event no importance,

perhaps you should simply pay no attention to this thread.

Better yet, why not 'alert' it as not being important so the Moderators can decide whether or not to delete the thread altogether?

[Darranar]

23. It broke no rule...

It won't be locked or deleted. There is no reason for it to be.

[rini]

54. Because

it has been mandated by Congress?

[IndianaGreen]

12. The Odenheimers want the birthplace listed as "Jerusalem, Israel"

not just plain "Israel," as the law that you quoted states.

[drdon326]

14. And where were you born??

Indianapolis, MONTANA ??

[IndianaGreen]

15. The Odenheimers are not victims of some bureaucratic snafu

They have contrived this issue in order to advance their own political agenda, which as it happens, it is also the agenda of Tom DeLay as it is that of ZOA: no compromise on land!

They should not be trying to blackmail the United States as the Cuban-Americans do in Miami.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

48. Oh.

In 2002, Congress passed a statute providing that United States citizens born in Jerusalem can choose to have "Israel" listed as their country of birth on their passports, registrations of birth, and other documents. President Bush signed the statute into law on September 30, 2002. The language of the statute is clear and mandates that the Secretary of State must make the listing on request. State Department officials have refused to comply with the law, citing U.S. policy concerns about the still-to-be-negotiated status of Jerusalem.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

16. Well, not really.

They do want the birthplace listed as "Jerusalem, Israel", but it's not just plain "Jerusalem" rather than not just plain "Israel.

You will note the law stating that was the appropriate way for passports to be completed was passed by the Congress in 2002.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Cheer up, Tom DeLay is the keynote speaker for ZOA

http://www.zoa.org/event22.htm

[ForestsBeatBushes]

18. What? McCarthy Tactics? Here? On I/P?

(refers to 'guilt by association')

[IndianaGreen]

20. I don't see ZOA inviting any of the Democratic candidates

or Bill Clinton.

ZOA opposes the Roadmap to peace, as they made clear here:

February 27, 2003

New Poll: Americans Oppose
Palestinian Arab State, 71%-13%

ZOA To Bush: "Peaceful, Democratic Palestine" Not Based
On Reality; A Palestinian Arab State Will Be A Terrorist State

NEW YORK- The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) disagrees with President Bush's statement that a Palestinian Arab state can be a "peaceful and democratic" state that will coexist with Israel. The Palestinian Arabs' ongoing terrorist war against Israel and their culture of anti-Jewish hatred and violence demonstrates that a Palestinian Arab state will inevitably be a terrorist state.

The Palestinian Arabs have consistently violated the conditions that President Bush spelled out last year: they have not disarmed, dismantled, or outlawed terrorist groups; they have not arrested or extradited terrorists; they have not halted their anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and anti-America incitement; they have not replaced their terrorist leadership; they have not embraced democracy and human rights.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: "It is surprising that President Bush has declared his support for a 'road map' that will create a Palestinian Arab state in the very near future when the Palestinian Arabs h ave ruthlessly violated all the conditions he himself said had to be met before he would support the creation of such a state. Creating a Palestinian Arab state would, in effect, reward terrorism. President Bush promised to end terrorist states, not create new ones."

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/20030227b.htm

[ForestsBeatBushes]

22. I don't either, but once again, the subject has been

morphed into the source.

The subject is whether or not the United States State Department will follow the law as passed by congress or not.

[Darranar]

24. But did they ever break the law?

I want to see what other sources say about this before I judge.

[rini]

55. Who, Congress?

[Darranar]

59. No, the State Department!

[IndianaGreen]

25. And the issue is whether the Odenheimers, with the help of ZOA

are trying to force the United States into taking their ideologically preferred positions on the Middle East conflict at the expense of the long term American interests in the region.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

49. Oh.

In 2002, Congress passed a statute providing that United States citizens born in Jerusalem can choose to have "Israel" listed as their country of birth on their passports, registrations of birth, and other documents. President Bush signed the statute into law on September 30, 2002. The language of the statute is clear and mandates that the Secretary of State must make the listing on request. State Department officials have refused to comply with the law, citing U.S. policy concerns about the still-to-be-negotiated status of Jerusalem

[IndianaGreen]

26. ZOA has even attacked Paul Wolfowitz for supporting land for peace!

October 31, 2003

He Also Equated Israel & Terrorists

ZOA Criticizes Bush Aide For Supporting Plan
To Push Israel Back To The 1967 Borders

NEW YORK- The Zionist Organization of America has criticized Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for publicly praising a plan that would push Israel back to the indefensible pre-1967 borders and tear Jerusalem in half.

The Jerusalem Post reported (Oct. 31, 2003) that in an October 30 speech at Georgetown University, praised a plan being promoted by Israeli leftwing activists, known as the "Geneva Understandings," which requires Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders and would turn half of Jerusalem --including Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount-- into the capitol of a Palestinian Arab state. Wolfowitz said the points in the Geneva Plan "look very much like" the Bush administration's Road Map plan.

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Oct. 31, 2003), Wolfowitz said the Geneva plan "is the plan that best reflects the road map." He also said President Bush "is ready to pressure Israel" on issues such as Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria-Gaza.

To make matters worse, Wolfowitz repeatedly seemed to equate Israel and Palestinian Arab terrorists, by implying that Israel's counter-terror actions were comparable to Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks. He said, according to the Post: "The bombings and the violent response to the bombings in the last several months have certainly been a big setback, and we've got to get it back on track."

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2003/20031031b.htm

[Darranar]

27. That is rather like...

calling Colin Powell a "dove" and screaming about Israel's colin cancer.

[IndianaGreen]

28. I decided to post that as a separate thread

It is the latest press release by ZOA, and it boggles the mind that they would find that the architect of PNAC war against Iraq to be too moderate for their tastes.

Clearly groups like ZOA are opposed to returning any of the lands captured in the 1967 June war, as they state here:

The ZOA is also disappointed by President Bush's statement that "As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end." The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza have never been an obstacle to peace; it is the Palestinian Arabs' war to destroy Israel that is the obstacle to peace.

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/20030227b.htm

Which brings to mind the real purpose behind this contrived incident involving ZOA and the Odenheimers.

[The Magistrate]

29. If It Is The Law, Sir, It Ought To Be Followed

The matter is of monumental un-importance. The listing of a birth-place as "Jerusalem, Israel" is meaningless beyond the information contained. A portion of Jerusalem has always been a part of Israel, after all.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Separation of powers may play a role in here, Magistrate

Congress cannot tie the President's hands in foreign affairs with such a law, particularly when it may conflict with the Oslo accords and the Roadmap to Peace. I would like to read the actual text of what may well be a toothless law passed by a pandering Congress.

[The Magistrate]

32. That Would Be A Point For Adjudication, My Friend

The matter does, indeed, strike me as a colossal waste of time.

[IndianaGreen]

33. The Infamous Jerusalem Provisions

The Infamous Jerusalem Provisions

<snip>

Once the substance of the Conference report was known, there was speculation that the President would deal with the Jerusalem provisions by issuing a "signing statement" in which he asserted that the provisions were unconstitutional and therefore not binding. The White House has long argued that Congressional efforts to dictate U.S. policies on Jerusalem are unconstitutional, since it is the President's prerogative to direct U.S. foreign policy.

This is essentially what the President eventually did. On September 30th, he issued a "signing statement" in which he explained that "U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed" and saying that the Jerusalem provisions "would, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the president's constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer further explained the President's position during the Oct. 1st White House press conference, stating that

"...as the President made clear last night in the signing statement that was issued, as he signed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Section 214 of the act deals with Jerusalem, and it does so in a way that we deem, the administration deems unconstitutional. The opinion of the administration, and we will act on this, is that the language passed by the Congress impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. And the President made that perfectly plain. And so our -- the status of Jerusalem under current law will remain unchanged."
Fleischer added that this means "recognizing that the U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed, because we view what Congress passes advisory, not mandatory."

http://www.peacenow.org/nia/leg/10042002.html

[The Magistrate]

34. The Wretch Ought To Have Vetoed The Thing, My Friend

If he disagreed with it.

That is what a leader would have done.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Well, Bush is no leader

I don't think there is disagreement there.

[bemildred]

31. Indeed Sir.

Let them have their passport.
It means nothing.

[IndianaGreen]

35. The status of Jerusalem must be settled between Israel and Palestinians

The couple, who live in the Israeli town of Beit Shemesh, have instructed lawyers in Washington to take legal action against US Secretary of State Colin Powell, claiming the State Department is violating the Foreign Relations Authorisation Act of 30 September, 2002.

<snip>

"If Jerusalem is in Israel, which the Congress has clearly stated, then there's no reason why the document shouldn't say that - I don't think it's a matter of foreign policy."

White House officials have said the provisions relating to Jerusalem conflict with foreign policy and the president has the right to overrule them.

The law also called for the US to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but this has not happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3117182.stm

[The Magistrate]

36. This Does Not Affect the Status Of Jerusalem One Whit, My Friend

[bemildred]

38. I hope you don't think I'm defending these morons, IG.

I just agree with the Magistrate, this is trumped up stupidity,
and the less time wasted on it the better. The fact that these
loons think it is a big deal does not make it a big deal. These
things are done for the purpose of making a fuss, and where there
is nothing at stake, the best response is to ignore it. As you point
out: "The status of Jerusalem must be settled between Israel and
Palestinians", there are plenty of old passports around with funny
entries in them.

[IndianaGreen]

39. They are morons, an Israeli version of the Paula Jones case

A case that survived by virtue of the rightwing organizations behind it.

No, I never thought you were defending the Odenheimers. I think the law is unenforceable because it threads on the separation of powers.

[bemildred]

40. I rather agree.

Although it seems the laws are often applied selectively these days.

[rini]

56. I take it you are not a parent,

[IndianaGreen]

41. There is another lawsuit: The Zivotofsky case

Well, it is obvious that this is the latest cause célèbre by the rightwing, using Israeli-Americans as pawns in their efforts to make permanent the lands captured in the 1967 wars.

There is another lawsuit: The Zivotofsky case.

Child Without A Country
New Yorker in Israel suing State Department over Jerusalem passport listing.
Adam Dickter

Staff Writer

Precisely where 1-year-old Menachem Zivotofsky was born seems unlikely to be a matter that could impact U.S. Mideast policy or the peace process.

But Menachem’s father, Ari, is hoping to use the baby’s American passport to shift the way the State Department views Jerusalem and revise its longstanding ambiguity about the city’s status.

The passport, issued in December 2002 at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, lists Jerusalem as Menachem’s place of birth with no reference to a country. Officials refused a request by his mother, Naomi, to add Israel.

Ari Zivotofsky believes the stamp violates a law passed by Congress in 2002 requiring the State Department to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“This is a fight that has been going on for years,” said Zivotofsky, a Brooklyn native who grew up in West Hempstead, L.I., and has lived in Israel with his wife and three children since 1999. Menachem is the first in the family to be born there.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8448

On edit:

Elaborating on a point made by Violet_Crumble in another thread, why don't the Israelis grant citizenship to all Palestinians born in the Occupied Territories. This would bolster their argument that the whole of Jerusalem is in Israel, wouldn't it? Or are there other reasons why Israel does not want to have that many Israelis of Palestinian descent voting in their elections and perhaps electing a Prime Minister?

[rini]

57. VC

might have added, "why doesn't the PA make the settlers citizens of Palestine as soon as it becomes a country?"

[IndianaGreen]

45. Bush Says U.S. Policy on Jerusalem Has Not Changed

01 October 2002

Bush Says U.S. Policy on Jerusalem Has Not Changed
(President’s Statement on Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Year 2003) (300)

President Bush on September 30 signed the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, and then issued a statement in
which he said the act contained provisions that "impermissibly
interfere with the constitutional functions of the presidency in
foreign affairs, including provisions that purport to establish
foreign policy that are of significant concern."

Noting that the section calling for U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as
Israel’s capital interferes with his constitutional authority, the
President said he would consider such provisions to be "advisory,"
rather than "mandatory."

"U.S. policy on Jerusalem has not changed," the President said.

U.S. policy regards Jerusalem as a permanent status issue, which must
be negotiated by the Israelis and Palestinians.

Following is the excerpt on Jerusalem from President Bush’s September
30 statement.

(begin excerpt)

I have today signed into law H.R. 1646, the "Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003." This Act authorizes
appropriations, and provides important new authorities, for diplomatic
and related activities of the U.S. Government. Many provisions in the
Act will strengthen our ability to advance American interests around
the globe, including nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
and to meet our international commitments, including those to the
United Nations. Regrettably, the Act contains a number of provisions
that impermissibly interfere with the constitutional functions of the
presidency in foreign affairs, including provisions that purport to
establish foreign policy that are of significant concern.

. . . .

Section 214, concerning Jerusalem, impermissibly interferes with the
President’s constitutional authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign
affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Moreover, the
purported direction in section 214 would, if construed as mandatory
rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the President’s
constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United
States, speak for the Nation in international affairs, and determine
the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states. U.S. policy
regarding Jerusalem has not changed.

(end excerpt)


http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2002/october/100204.html

[IndianaGreen]

46. This is what the UN thought about Jerusalem back in 1949

International Regime for the Jerusalem Area and Protection of the Holy Places - Resolution of the General Assembly, December 9, 1949

1. To restate, therefore, its intention that Jerusalem should be placed under a permanent international regime, which should envisage appropriate guarantees for the protection of the Holy Places, both within and outside Jerusalem and to confirm specifically the following provisions of General Assembly resolution 181 (11) The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations; (2) The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority . . . ; and (3) The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern., Shu'fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B)(2) ;

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad175.htm

[ForestsBeatBushes]

50. Wasn't that before the Arabs attacked Israel

or was that after.

In any event, In 2002, Congress passed a statute providing that United States citizens born in Jerusalem can choose to have "Israel" listed as their country of birth on their passports, registrations of birth, and other documents. President Bush signed the statute into law on September 30, 2002. The language of the statute is clear and mandates that the Secretary of State must make the listing on request. State Department officials have refused to comply with the law, citing U.S. policy concerns about the still-to-be-negotiated status of Jerusalem

[IndianaGreen]

47. The British view on East Jerusalem

The Occupied Territories

Status

The Occupied Territories comprise the West Bank (of the River Jordan), the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Israel occupied these in the 1967 war. Israeli civil law was immediately extended to East Jerusalem, the area of which was expanded from 6 sq.km. to 72 sq.km. by unilaterally extending the municipal boundaries into the West Bank. Israel has claimed Jerusalem as its "eternal and undivided" capital since then. Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980.

The British Government, like other EU partners, does not recognise the annexation of East Jerusalem. We consider these territories to be under occupation and that Israel is obliged to administer them under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits forcible deportations, detention without trial, destruction of property, denial of access to food, health and education, and settlement by the occupying power of its own civilians in occupied territory.

Israel refuses to acknowledge the Convention's de jure application to any of the Occupied Territories. Israel has, however, said it will comply de facto with the Convention's humanitarian provisions in administering the West Bank and Gaza (but the applicable provisions have never been specified).

http://www.britishconsulate.org/chancery/wbg.htm

[ForestsBeatBushes]

51. Oh. So that reminds me of our own Revolutionary War.

In any event, In 2002, Congress passed a statute providing that United States citizens born in Jerusalem can choose to have "Israel" listed as their country of birth on their passports, registrations of birth, and other documents. President Bush signed the statute into law on September 30, 2002. The language of the statute is clear and mandates that the Secretary of State must make the listing on request. State Department officials have refused to comply with the law, citing U.S. policy concerns about the still-to-be-negotiated status of Jerusalem.