In light of the current effort on the part of Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY9) and the law firm of Lewin & Lewin, LLP, to bring the case of Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State before the Supreme Court, we at Jewish Response would like to fill in the public on the background of this case and the city of Jerusalem in general.
For centuries, Jerusalem has been home to a community of pious Jews who lived in poverty and devoted their lives to studying and practicing the Torah. These Jews lived peacefully alongside their Arab neighbors and had no nationalistic aspirations.
As the twentieth century dawned, the newly founded Zionist movement established agricultural settlements in Palestine and, following WWI, received permission from the British Mandate government to increase Jewish immigration. The new immigrants were very different from the old Jewish community: they came with a shovel in one hand and a gun in the other, with the goal of establishing a Jewish state, by force of arms if necessary.
The Jews of Jerusalem realized that this new movement would jeopardize the peace they had enjoyed for so many centuries. Furthermore, as religious Jews, they believed that only the messiah could reestablish the Jewish state, and they saw any attempt to establish a Jewish state before the messiah as blasphemous. Therefore, they made it clear to the British government that they were an independent community with no connection to Zionism.
In the summer of 1947, when the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine was in Jerusalem compiling its report, Rabbi Joseph Zvi Dushinsky, chief rabbi of the old religious community of Jerusalem, appeared before the committee to plead with them not to establish a Jewish state, and if they did, at least not to include Jerusalem in that state.
And indeed, the UNs Resolution 181 on Palestine, which passed in November 1947, recommended that Palestine be divided into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem as an international zone administered by the UN.
In the ensuing battle between the Zionists, the local Arab militias and the Jordanian Arab legion, Jerusalem was divided. The Zionists took the western half and the Jordanians took the eastern half, including the walled Old City.
Consistent with the UN resolution, President Harry S. Truman recognized the new State of Israel, but not its sovereignty over Jerusalem. To this day, the US embassy is located in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, despite the fact that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. The same is true of the embassies of almost all other countries. Only two countries have embassies in Jerusalem Costa Rica and El Salvador.
In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, under which the US must relocate its embassy to Jerusalem. However, a presidential waiver was included which left the enforcement of this act up to the presidents judgment. Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama have until now all exercised this right and postponed the moving of the embassy.
In 2002, another attempt was made to use the legislative branch to determine US policy on Jerusalem, in the form of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Aside from requiring the relocation of the embassy, this bill required the State Department to issue passports to US citizens born in Jerusalem reading Jerusalem, Israel," instead of simply "Jerusalem" as has been the State Department's longtime policy. President George W. Bush signed the bill, but in a signing statement declared that this part of the bill was not binding as it infringed on his executive powers to make foreign policy. The US policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed, said the President.
Enactment of the law provoked confusion and criticism overseas. The US Consulate in Jerusalem informed the State Department that despite best efforts to get the word out that US policy on Jerusalem has not changed, the reservations contained in the President's signing statement have been all but ignored, as Palestinians focus on what they consider the negative precedent and symbolism of an American law declaring that Israel's capital is Jerusalem.
In October 2002, Menachem Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem to parents who are US citizens, making him a citizen as well. In December 2002, Menachem's mother applied for a US passport and a Consular Report of Birth for her son at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. She requested that both documents record her son's place of birth as Jerusalem, Israel. US diplomatic officials told Mrs. Zivotofsky that State Department policy forbade them from recording Israel as her son's birthplace. Consistent with its policy, the State Department issued a passport and Consular Report of Birth identifying Jerusalem as Menachem's place of birth without reference to Israel. In September 2003, Menachems parents filed a lawsuit ordering the State Department to comply with the Foreign Relations Authorization Act and record Jerusalem, Israel, as his birthplace in both his passport and Consular Report of Birth. The district court ruled that deciding this issue would be an infringement on the executive powers of the President. The case was similarly rejected by a federal court of appeals. The Zivotofskys lawyers, Lewin & Lewin, with the help of Congressman Weiner, are now petitioning the Supreme Court to hear this case. The central issue before the court is whether the law passed by Congress in 2002 is constitutional.
Jewish Response is an organization of Orthodox Jews in America founded with the purpose of defusing anti-Semitism by refuting common stereotypes about Jews. Jewish Response is troubled by the Zivotofsky case not because it takes one side or the other in the debate between the legislative and executive branches, but because of the public impression that the voters who elected these members of the legislative branch support this bill. As Orthodox Jews, we identify with the centuries-old Jewish community of Jerusalem who never had any interest in Zionism or Israeli sovereignty over the Holy City. Whether US policy regarding Jerusalem changes or not, we fear that if American Jews are seen as those pushing for the change, it will give rise to hatred and violence against Jews both here and in Jerusalem itself.
There are large communities of Orthodox Jews in America who dont support Israel or its right to rule Jerusalem. We stand completely behind the longstanding US policy not to recognize Jerusalem as Israels capital. Why then do our representatives in the House and Senate insist on pleading the cause of hard-line Zionists while ignoring our communities?
It is true that there are many Zionist Jews and non-Jews who would approve of this law living in the districts of the 352 members of the House who voted for it. But there is no reason why non-Zionist Jewry should not be officially recognized and represented in Congress as well. And let us stress that we are not only talking about Orthodox Jews. A recent study found that only half of American Jews under the age of 35 are comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state.
If our representatives in Congress want to do something for their non-Zionist Jewish constituents, there are many good places to start. For example, legislation could be introduced to take all mention of the State of Israel out of the Holocaust Museum in Washington. Jews in our community feel strongly that Israel should not be portrayed as the solution or insurance policy against a Holocaust rather, it is additional problem. For us, the recognition of the State of Israel as the problem would itself be the beginning of the solution. Jewish Response
The above is a proposed ad for the Washington Post. To help sponsor the ad, or if you have comments or suggestions, please contact us.
Jewish Response 70 Franklin Ave Brooklyn, NY 11205-1585 Phone. 347-424-0778 Fax: 845-517-4996