If Congress adopts the proposed legislation requiring the U.S. Embassy in Israel to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the President would not have to make the shift immediately, Rep. Tom Lantos (D. Calif.) said today.
Lantos, who introduced the bill in the House along with Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R. N.Y.), made this point in testifying before a joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East and International Operations.
He said not only does the bill “not set a deadline for action” but there are no “financially punitive measures,” such as cutting off funds for the Embassy if it is not moved.
Gilman and Lantos told the two subcommittees that the House bill now has 220 co-sponsors, “a clear majority.” Sen. Arlen Specter (R. Pa.), who along with Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D. N.Y.) introduced a similar bill in the Senate, said 42 Senators support the bill, nine short of a majority.
Lantos said that while he wants the Embassy “physically moved,” even if the only outcome is that “Congress expresses itself,” that it wants to eliminate the “inequity” and “double standard” whereby Israel is the only country out of the 136 where the U.S. has embassies where the Embassy is not in the nation’s capital, “that would also be a step in the right direction.”
His remarks appeared to lend credence to reports that supporters of the bill may be satisfied for the present with just Congressional action. President Reagan has indicated that he would veto the legislation.
Quick action is not expected in either house of Congress. But the Senate and the House have each held one hearing on the bill and both are scheduled to have at least one more.
RAPS AMBASSADORS’ LOBBYING EFFORTS AGAINST THE MOVE
Meanwhile, Lantos strongly criticized “the widely disseminated lobbying of some Ambassadors” that if the Embassy was moved it will result in terrorism against U.S. personnel and facilities in the Middle East.
“When I introduced this legislation, it was motivated by one principle — to right a wrong by rejecting a discriminatory double standard,” Lantos said. “Now a second principle has become equally important. We must never allow U.S. policy to be dictated by timid bureaucrats conjuring up the specter of terrorism.”
He said that by failing to adopt the legislation, “We are inviting and encouraging extremists to threaten violence whenever they disagree with our policies. American foreign policy must never be held hostage to the threat of blackmail.”
Gilman also noted that “our actions will be limited indeed if we succumb to the dictates and threats of fanatics and extremists.”
WARNINGS SOUNDED AGAINST EMBASSY RELOCATION
But former Rep. Paul McCloskey (R. Calif.) said that if the law was adopted it would result in the loss of more American lives than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which led to the heavy involvement of the American military in Vietnam. He predicted that young Moslems would engage in acts of violence against Americans for generations.
Rep. Mervyn Dymally (D. Calif.) said that in a recent meeting with representatives of Arab Chambers of Commerce they said that there would be a boycott of U.S. products if the Embassy was moved.
Lantos stressed that moving the Embassy will not “judge or in any way affect any issue or controversy surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict. West Jerusalem has been an integral part of Israel since 1949 and this has been recognized by all nations with whom Israel maintains diplomatic relations.” He noted the U.S. Embassy would be in West Jerusalem.
Gilman also stressed that moving the Embassy would recognize “the reality that Jerusalem is the capital and administrative heart of Israel” and “would not in any way affect the territorial issues relating to Jerusalem.”
Rep. Michael Barnes (D. Md.) said he was “disappointed” that Secretary of State George Shultz has argued that moving the Embassy would harm the U.S. ability to be a peace-maker in the Middle East. “The United States remains the only significant world power that can help bring all the parties to the negotiating table,” he said.
“To imply that our credibility or our influence would be irreparably damaged and that it rests on such a fragile basis is an extremely unfortunate and regrettable mistake.”
Specter said that the move would facilitate the negotiations by letting “the Arabs know they cannot sit still forever.” He said it would also be a “signal” to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to “put your Ambassador back in Israel.”
But Rep. Nick Rahall (D. W. Va.) said that “moving the Embassy would be perceived as the U.S. having pre-judged the issue — a unilateral act — making any future negotiations useless.”
Former Rep. Paul Findley (R. III.) said that it “would be a signal that the United States has given up on the process of peaceful negotiations and accepts the status quo in Jerusalem which was established and is maintained by force.” He said that “enactment of this bill could convey the explosive message that peaceful settlement is impossible.”
McCloskey said that moving the Embassy would be perceived by the Arab world as U.S. approval of Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and of Israel’s settlement policies in the West Bank and Gaza.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
