U.S. Policy: Jerusalem's Final Status must Be Negotiated
Settlement Report | Vol. 4 No. 7 | February 1994- Jerusalem at a Glance
- Israel Builds Greater Jerusalem at the Site of the Eternal City
- To Our Readers
- "Greater" Jerusalem Absorbs West Bank Area
- U.S. Policy: Jerusalem's Final Status must Be Negotiated
- Rabin Builds on the Vision of a Permanent Jewish City
- Jerusalem's Borders Vanish
- Christian Views on Jerusalem
The United States has compiled a record of diplomatic pronouncements on
Jerusalem spanning almost half a century. During this time, U.S. policy
has evolved from adherence to the concept of an internationalized
Jerusalem, to acceptance if not recognition of Jerusalem's division, to
the current de facto acknowledgment of Israeli control of the entire
city and acceptance of a negotiated solution to final status.
The following statements describing U.S. policy as it has evolved over that period were drawn from U.S. Official Statements--The Status of Jerusalem, published by the Institute for Palestine Studies.
"We continue to support, within the framework of the United Nations, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the protection of the holy places in Palestine. . . ."
President Harry Truman, October 24, 1948
"The Government of the United States has adhered and continues to adhere to the policy that there should be a special international regime for Jerusalem which will not only provide protection for the holy places but which will be acceptable to Israel and Jordan as well as the world community. . . .
"The Government of the United States also wishes to convey that in view of its attitude on the Jerusalem question, it has no present intention of transferring the Ambassador of the United States and his staff to Jerusalem."
Aide-Memoire concerning the proposed move of the Israeli Foreign Ministry from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, July 9, 1952
[On June 28, 1967 Israel applied its laws and administration within the expanded boundaries of East Jerusalem.]
"The President [Lyndon B. Johnson] said on June 19 that in our view 'there . . . must be adequate recognition of the special interest of three great religions in the holy places of Jerusalem.' On this principle he assumes that before any unilateral action is taken on the status of Jerusalem there will be appropriate consultation with religious leaders and others who are deeply concerned. . . ."
White House statement, June 28, 1967
"The hasty administrative action taken today cannot be regarded as determining the future of the holy places or the status of Jerusalem in relation to them.
"The United States has never recognized such unilateral actions by any of the states in the area as governing the international status of Jerusalem.
"The policy of the United States will be governed by the President's statement of June 19 and the White House statement this morning.
"The views of the United States have been made clear repeatedly to representatives of all governments concerned."
Department of State statement, June 28, 1967
"With regard to the specific measures taken by the Government of Israel on 28 June, I wish to make it clear that the United States does not accept or recognize these measures as altering the status of Jerusalem. My Government does not recognize that the administrative measures taken by the Government of Israel on 28 June can be regarded as the last word on the matter, and we regret that they were taken. We insist that the measures taken cannot be considered as other than interim and provisional, and not as prejudging the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. . . .
"We believe that the most fruitful approach to a discussion of the future of Jerusalem lies in dealing with the entire problem as one aspect of the broader arrangements that must be made to restore a just and durable peace in the area."
U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. Arthur Goldberg, before United Nations General Assembly, Fifth Emergency Special Session, July 14, 1967
"The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in the city. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power.
Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.
"My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . ."
U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. Charles Yost, before United Nations Security Council, July 1, 1969
"We have made clear repeatedly in the past 2-1/2 years that we cannot accept unilateral actions by any party to decide the final status of the city. We believe its status can be determined only through the agreement of the parties concerned, which in practical terms means primarily the Governments of Israel and Jordan, taking into account the interests of other countries in the area and the international community. We do, however, support certain principles which we believe would provide an equitable framework for a Jerusalem settlement.
"Specifically, we believe Jerusalem should be a unified city within which there would no longer be restrictions on the movement of persons and goods. There should be open access to the unified city for persons of all faiths and nationalities. Arrangements for the administration of the unified city should take into account the interests of all its inhabitants and of the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian communities. And there should be roles for both Israel and Jordan in the civic, economic, and religious life of the city. . . ."
Secretary of State William Rogers, address to the 1969 Galaxy Conference on Adult Education, Washington, D.C., December 9, 1969
"As a matter of policy, we do not provide assistance to the Israeli Government for projects in the occupied territories.
"On the general question of constructing housing and other permanent civilian facilities in the occupied zone, including Jerusalem, our policy is to call for strict observance of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to which Israel is a party. This Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own population into occupied territory. We interpret this to include undertaking construction of permanent facilities which have the intent of facilitating transfer of Israeli population into the occupied territories."
Department of State spokesperson, press conference, June 9, 1971
"I emphasize, as did Mr. Goldberg, that as far as the United States is concerned such unilateral measures, including expropriation of land or other administrative action taken by the Government of Israel, cannot be considered other than interim and provisional and cannot affect the present international status nor prejudge the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. The United States position could not be clearer.
". . . .Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the [Geneva] Convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the location of the borders of States of the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my Government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors. . . ."
U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. William Scranton, before United Nations Security Council, March 23, 1976
"As to Jerusalem, we strongly believe that Jerusalem should be undivided, with free access to the holy places for all faiths, and that its status should be determined in the negotiations for a comprehensive peace settlement.
President Jimmy Carter, "Explanation of the United States Vote for the Security Council Resolution on the Occupied Territories," March 3, 1980
Senator Paul Sarbanes: "Is it the present position of our Government that East Jerusalem is occupied territory?
Secretary Cyrus Vance: "That is the position, yes."
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 20, 1980
". . . we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations. . . ."
President Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation, Burbank, CA, September 1, 1982
"My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it's firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that's our strongly held view. We think it's constructive to peace--the peace process--if Israel will follow that view. . . ."
President George Bush, press conference, Palm Springs, CA, March 3, 1990
"Let me just say that our policy on Jerusalem remains unchanged. It must never be divided again, and its final status must be resolved through negotiation. . . ."
President George Bush, press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin, Kennebunkport, ME, August 11, 1992
The following statements describing U.S. policy as it has evolved over that period were drawn from U.S. Official Statements--The Status of Jerusalem, published by the Institute for Palestine Studies.
"We continue to support, within the framework of the United Nations, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the protection of the holy places in Palestine. . . ."
President Harry Truman, October 24, 1948
"The Government of the United States has adhered and continues to adhere to the policy that there should be a special international regime for Jerusalem which will not only provide protection for the holy places but which will be acceptable to Israel and Jordan as well as the world community. . . .
"The Government of the United States also wishes to convey that in view of its attitude on the Jerusalem question, it has no present intention of transferring the Ambassador of the United States and his staff to Jerusalem."
Aide-Memoire concerning the proposed move of the Israeli Foreign Ministry from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, July 9, 1952
[On June 28, 1967 Israel applied its laws and administration within the expanded boundaries of East Jerusalem.]
"The President [Lyndon B. Johnson] said on June 19 that in our view 'there . . . must be adequate recognition of the special interest of three great religions in the holy places of Jerusalem.' On this principle he assumes that before any unilateral action is taken on the status of Jerusalem there will be appropriate consultation with religious leaders and others who are deeply concerned. . . ."
White House statement, June 28, 1967
"The hasty administrative action taken today cannot be regarded as determining the future of the holy places or the status of Jerusalem in relation to them.
"The United States has never recognized such unilateral actions by any of the states in the area as governing the international status of Jerusalem.
"The policy of the United States will be governed by the President's statement of June 19 and the White House statement this morning.
"The views of the United States have been made clear repeatedly to representatives of all governments concerned."
Department of State statement, June 28, 1967
"With regard to the specific measures taken by the Government of Israel on 28 June, I wish to make it clear that the United States does not accept or recognize these measures as altering the status of Jerusalem. My Government does not recognize that the administrative measures taken by the Government of Israel on 28 June can be regarded as the last word on the matter, and we regret that they were taken. We insist that the measures taken cannot be considered as other than interim and provisional, and not as prejudging the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. . . .
"We believe that the most fruitful approach to a discussion of the future of Jerusalem lies in dealing with the entire problem as one aspect of the broader arrangements that must be made to restore a just and durable peace in the area."
U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. Arthur Goldberg, before United Nations General Assembly, Fifth Emergency Special Session, July 14, 1967
"The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in the city. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power.
Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.
"My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . ."
U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. Charles Yost, before United Nations Security Council, July 1, 1969
"We have made clear repeatedly in the past 2-1/2 years that we cannot accept unilateral actions by any party to decide the final status of the city. We believe its status can be determined only through the agreement of the parties concerned, which in practical terms means primarily the Governments of Israel and Jordan, taking into account the interests of other countries in the area and the international community. We do, however, support certain principles which we believe would provide an equitable framework for a Jerusalem settlement.
"Specifically, we believe Jerusalem should be a unified city within which there would no longer be restrictions on the movement of persons and goods. There should be open access to the unified city for persons of all faiths and nationalities. Arrangements for the administration of the unified city should take into account the interests of all its inhabitants and of the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian communities. And there should be roles for both Israel and Jordan in the civic, economic, and religious life of the city. . . ."
Secretary of State William Rogers, address to the 1969 Galaxy Conference on Adult Education, Washington, D.C., December 9, 1969
"As a matter of policy, we do not provide assistance to the Israeli Government for projects in the occupied territories.
"On the general question of constructing housing and other permanent civilian facilities in the occupied zone, including Jerusalem, our policy is to call for strict observance of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to which Israel is a party. This Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own population into occupied territory. We interpret this to include undertaking construction of permanent facilities which have the intent of facilitating transfer of Israeli population into the occupied territories."
Department of State spokesperson, press conference, June 9, 1971
"I emphasize, as did Mr. Goldberg, that as far as the United States is concerned such unilateral measures, including expropriation of land or other administrative action taken by the Government of Israel, cannot be considered other than interim and provisional and cannot affect the present international status nor prejudge the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. The United States position could not be clearer.
". . . .Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the [Geneva] Convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the location of the borders of States of the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my Government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors. . . ."
U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. William Scranton, before United Nations Security Council, March 23, 1976
"As to Jerusalem, we strongly believe that Jerusalem should be undivided, with free access to the holy places for all faiths, and that its status should be determined in the negotiations for a comprehensive peace settlement.
President Jimmy Carter, "Explanation of the United States Vote for the Security Council Resolution on the Occupied Territories," March 3, 1980
Senator Paul Sarbanes: "Is it the present position of our Government that East Jerusalem is occupied territory?
Secretary Cyrus Vance: "That is the position, yes."
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 20, 1980
". . . we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations. . . ."
President Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation, Burbank, CA, September 1, 1982
"My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it's firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that's our strongly held view. We think it's constructive to peace--the peace process--if Israel will follow that view. . . ."
President George Bush, press conference, Palm Springs, CA, March 3, 1990
"Let me just say that our policy on Jerusalem remains unchanged. It must never be divided again, and its final status must be resolved through negotiation. . . ."
President George Bush, press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin, Kennebunkport, ME, August 11, 1992
