Dore Gold and the US Stance on Jerusalem

Dore Gold has just written:

• There is presently a marked shift underway in U.S. policy on Jerusalem. True, no U.S. administration accepted Israel's annexation of Jerusalem in July 1967. Nonetheless, in the past we saw the U.S. and Israel coming to a modus vivendi with respect to Israeli policy in Jerusalem...


...U.S. policy on Jerusalem went through different shifts. Back in 1948, the U.S. was originally committed to the failed internationalization proposals in UN General Assembly Resolution 181. This original position was quickly replaced in the 1950s by acceptance of the 1949 armistice agreements.

When President Richard Nixon came to the White House in 1969, there was a definite hardening of the U.S. position on the issue of Jerusalem. For the first time, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Charles Yost, described Jerusalem as "occupied territory," terminology that had not been used by Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, who served under President Johnson. Under Nixon, the United States did not veto or even abstain from resolutions that disagreed with Israeli policy on Jerusalem in 1969, 1970, and 1971.

In successive administrations, we see that the U.S. did not want the issue of Jerusalem addressed by the UN Security Council, and we see a movement of U.S. policy much closer to the Israeli position. No U.S. administration formally recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem in July 1967. Nonetheless, in the past we saw the U.S. and Israel coming to a modus vivendi with respect to Israeli policy in Jerusalem, when Israel built various neighborhoods in the eastern parts of the city.

But the US never recognized Israel's sovereignty anywhere in Jerusalem. Not east and not west.

I don't think Dore has dome a good job on this issue.

He compounds obfuscation by writing:-

...Jerusalem had originally been slated to be internationalized for ten years as a corpus separatum under Resolution 181, that the UN failed to implement, and the city was invaded in 1948 by an Arab war coalition that included the Arab Legion. The UN secretary general in 1948 called that invasion a war of aggression. And as a result of that war, the Jews were ethnically cleansed from the areas that came under Jordanian control, and were denied access to Jewish holy sites. To call for a restoration of the status quo ante would mean that the U.S. backed the return of an illegal situation that was imposed in 1948, which also denied religious freedom.

But that exactly what the US did in July 1967 when it voted for this:

A/RES/2253 (ES-V)
4 July 1967

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2253 (ES-V). Measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned at the situation prevailing in Jerusalem as a result of the measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City,

1. Considers that these measures are invalid;

2. Calls upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would alter the status of Jerusalem;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly and the Security Council on the situation and on the implementation of the present resolution not later than one week from its adoption.

Here's from Wikipedia:

The United States views as desirable the establishing of an international regime for the city.[26] Its final status must be resolved through negotiations[27] and it does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.[28]
United States policy on Jerusalem refers specifically to the geographic boundaries of the "City of Jerusalem" based on the UN's corpus separatum proposal. De jure, Jerusalem is part of the Palestine Mandate and has not been under sovereignty of any country since.[29] President Bush (1989–1993) stated that the United States does not believe new settlements should be built in East Jerusalem[30] and that it does not want to see Jerusalem "divided". The administration of President Barack Obama has condemned expansion of Gilo, as well as evictions and house demolitions affecting Palestinians living in East Jerusalem.[31]


26 See General Assembly, A/L.523/Rev.1, 4 July 1967
27 U.S.: Only Israel, Palestinians should decide Jerusalem's future (Haaretz, Dec. 9, 2009)
28 A New Struggle For Jerusalem (New York Times, March 2, 1997)
29 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963: Near East, 1962-1963, V. XVIII. DC: GPO, 2000, 152. Memorandum of conversation, February 7, 1963. Crawford (NE)-Campbell (IO)-Bar-Haim (Israeli Embassy) meeting: U.S. position on the status of Jerusalem
30 U.S. Policy: Jerusalem's Final Status must Be Negotiated
31 US fury as Israel approves 900 new housing units in Gilo settlement (Times, Nov. 18, 2009)