The Deception Surrounding the "Jerusalem Bill"

[Lee Underwood, Editor - Emet News Service]

Summary ... The problem is that everybody wants to apologize for Bush even though he specifically says that he will not change the policy on Jerusalem or that he is dedicated to a 'Palestinian' state in the midst of Israel.

On September 30, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. The bill provides $8.6 billion in funding for the State Department for the fiscal year 2003. This includes funding that President Bush needs to use for operations around the globe.

Included in the bill were several provisions regarding Jerusalem. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 1646) includes the following provisions (Sec. 214, 215):

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, to immediately begin the process of relocating the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

No funds may be spent on the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, which deals mostly with Palestinian issues, until the post comes under the supervision of the U.S. ambassador to Israel. Currently, the U.S. consul general in Jerusalem reports directly to the State Department.

All federal documents listing countries and their capitals must identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

American citizens born in Jerusalem can demand that U.S. government-issued documents, such as passports and birth certificates, identify Israel as their birthplace.

The Secretary of State is to report to Congress within 60 days on U.S. efforts to ensure and promote Israel's full participation in the world diplomatic community.

What Bush did was sign the bill but disregarded all the items pertaining to Jerusalem. Following is the excerpt on Jerusalem from President Bush's 30 September statement [distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State]. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

[--- 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 ---]

Quoting from a press release from the State Department: "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.'"

I am not sure if there is any precedent for a U.S. president signing a bill whereby he accepts part of it but waves off that which does not suit his agenda. While one part of it is a recommendation, the other parts are clearly mandated by Congress, which can be overridden only by a presidential veto of the entire bill. It would then have to be rewritten, eliminating those clauses, and passed by the House and Senate before being signed by the president. This is the main reason that unpopular items are attached as amendments to other bills. Mr. Bush has, in fact, created a line-item veto.

The ridiculous part of this whole fiasco is that many people believe that he didn't really mean it and that a bill regarding Jerusalem was passed and signed by the president. An "Action Alert" sent out by the National Unity Coalition for Israel states: "Thank the President and Congress for passing the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, regarding the status of Jerusalem. President Bush must understand that with his signature this has become the law of the land and is not 'advisory only', as he mistakenly stated."

The fact is that he really did mean it. He even said that he meant it. He did not make a mistake. The problem is that everybody wants to apologize for Bush even though he specifically says that he will not change the policy on Jerusalem or that he is dedicated to a 'Palestinian' state in the midst of Israel.

Deception is not pretty. It takes two to create a deception: one who puts forth the deception and one who is willing to accept the deception without being discerning.

[ Published: October 6, 2002 ]

Keep current with these articles

Sign up to receive free e-mail alerts.


Need to find additional information?

In Depth Analysis

The Myth of Al Aqsa Mosque

Islam as a religion and Muslims as a group have continued to ignore Jerusalem as a non-entity and continue to bow toward Mecca when they pray. However, the myth that the Temple Mount is actually the place of Mohammed's alleged ascent continues to exist. That myth has become factual history, as the Arab/Muslims claim that the Jews' most holy site, built thousands of years before Christianity or the beginnings of Islam belongs to Islam. And the West continues to believe the myth as the Mullahs babble about their non-existent history, harking back to the Philistines and other tribes long gone.

Hamas Document - 2017

Hamas explains general principles and objectives in 42-article document.

The Real Goal of the 'Palestinian' Intifada

PA/PLO leader Abbas seems intentionally to ignore that he and his PA/PLO are responsible for the violence, as a result of their daily incitement against Israel. A recent poll found that approximately half of 'Palestinians' believe the "Intifada" should lead to the destruction of Israel.

Emet Blog

Three Doors Down in Halamish

This is an account of what happened in Halamish last Friday night, July 21, 2017, as told by a neighbor of the Solomon family, who lives three doors away from where the terror attack took place.

The 'Palestinian' News You Don't See

The tragedy of the pro-'Palestinian' movement is its attachment to a single narrative: "Look at how wretched the lives of the 'Palestinian' people are," they tell us, "It is because of Israeli oppression." Because this narrative must be constantly reinforced, there is little room for real reporting about the failures of the 'Palestinian' leadership and the corruption and infighting that have caused the 'West Bank' [i.e., Judea & Samaria] and Gaza to languish.

The "Spontaneous" Intifada Is Orchestrated by the Palestinian Leadership

The Arab leadership is attempting to portray the current Intifada as a kind of popular, spontaneous struggle that expresses the population's despair over the political situation. In reality, it is an Intifada supported and directed by the Arab leadership of the PA/PLO-Fatah and Hamas.


A Matter of Priority - The Jonathan Pollard Case

US Jewish leaders blew it recently when what was a rare opportunity to ask the US president face-to-face to release Jonathan Pollard, they didn't even consider the matter as being a priority.

Obama Declares War on Israel

Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizb'Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Islamic State, and the establishment of a terrorist state in the midst of Israel.

Could Barak Obama Swing the Upcoming Israeli Election?

It's no state secret that US President Barack Obama is not a huge fan of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His distain for the Jewish leader is well-known throughout the world; he's never tried to hide it. But now that Israel is having new elections in March does it mean Obama could, either directly or indirectly, influence the elections in Israel in order to obtain a defeat for Netanyahu?