The Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, chaired by MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionism), on Tuesday, approved for second and third readings at the plenum the proposed amendment to Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel (Amendment No. 3, Opening Diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem), sponsored by MKs Zeev Elkin (New Hope—The United Right) and Dan Illouz (Likud).
The bill proposes that no new consulates will be opened in Jerusalem, only embassies, and that the state will work to encourage the opening of foreign embassies in Jerusalem. This is in order to strengthen Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital. It should be noted that the bill grandfathers the consulates that currently exist in Jerusalem.
The purpose of the bill appears to be twofold: to encourage countries to move their embassies to Jerusalem; and to discourage countries with embassies in western Jerusalem from opening consulates to serve PA Arabs in eastern Jerusalem.
MK Elkin: “The bill is designed to deal with the pressures applied to the State of Israel as part of the prevalent approach around the world today, which does not view Jerusalem as the State of Israel’s capital. The bill stipulates that only diplomatic missions that have been accredited by the State of Israel can be opened in Jerusalem. By submitting their credentials, they recognize Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. This means that it’s forbidden to open a consulate, only an embassy, because this makes a statement. This has been Israel’s policy for decades. I would like to emphasize that the bill does not apply to the existing consulates.”
Adv. David Goldfarb of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in response to questions posed by the committee’s legal advisor, Adv. Dr. Gur Bligh: “Regarding cultural centers, in practice many cultural centers are given status under the Vienna Convention as a branch of the embassy, but if a country wants to open a cultural center on behalf of Jerusalem’s residents, the bill will not apply to it, because it’s not an official mission. Our understanding is that an official mission is one of two things—either an embassy or a consulate. Our statement over the years to countries has been that if they’re opening a mission, it should be an embassy.”
When asked about the status of the European Union, Adv. Goldfarb replied, “The European Union is not a state, and we have two historical agreements with it—one that enables them to open a mission with the status of an embassy, which is currently in Ramat Gan, and the second office is the EU’s Technical Assistance Office, which was established by force of an agreement in 1994, and to the best of my understanding the bill will not apply to it. If the European Union wants to open a third office in Jerusalem, the bill will not apply to it formally, but in practice this will require the Foreign Ministry’s consent. It is not accredited because it’s not a state, but it will be given status by the State of Israel.”
In response to a question by MK Gilad Kariv (Labor) regarding countries that do not have diplomatic relations with the State of Israel, Adv. Goldfarb said, “The missions that Israel and Morocco maintain are not embassies. On the face of it, if the Moroccans would want to move their office from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, this part of the bill would prevent them from doing so, as well as any other country that would want to open an interests section.”
MK Ofer Cassif (Hadash-Ta’al) explained his reservations about the bill, saying, “The deluge of legislation over the past months is part of the self-persuasion. A large portion of the radical or very radical right-wing is apparently not so sure of itself, so it proposes deranged bills to persuade itself. Whoever wants to believe that Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal and undivided capital, can believe this groundless myth, but I’m not willing to have this belief find expression in measures that entail apartheid and violence.”
“As part of the criminal annexation that has not been accepted by most of the world’s countries, there is a consensus that East Jerusalem is not part of the State of Israel. The peak is that under the racist apartheid Government, a transfer and violent expulsion is being carried out of the residents of east Jerusalem from their homes in favor of racist settlers. This criminal bill will pass, because we are dealing here with a fanatical and messianic coalition of blood, with substantial support from the opposition. The violent transfer in Jerusalem is a war crime. This bill is yet another seal of approval for this transfer,” said MK Cassif.
Committee Chair MK Rothman said that the wording of the bill would be approved as it was presented for its first reading, and added, “I congratulate MK Elkin for the privilege of passing this bill.”
MK Elkin thanked Committee Chair MK Rothman for “facilitating the legislative procedures in this important bill. We embarked on this not only as a theoretical bill, but because there was an attempt to force upon the State of Israel the opening of an American consulate, and our parliamentary group threatened to leave the coalition, and the Americans were persuaded to back down from the initiative. So this is a practical bill, which will not only protect the status of Jerusalem as our unified capital but will also ease the pressure from the State of Israel. This will also help in the diplomatic arena against states that apply considerable pressure. It should be noted that the first to propose this bill in a previous Knesset was [Minister of Economy and Industry MK] Nir Barkat (Likud).”
The bill was approved with the support of Committee Chair MK Rothman and MK Yinon Azoulay (Shas), with an opposing vote from MK Ofer Cassif (Hadash-Ta’al). MK Kariv was present in the room but did not participate in the vote. MK Elkin said that he was voting symbolically since his parliamentary group did not have a representative in the committee.
