Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:43:07.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Israel's 1967 Governmental Debate about the Annexation of East Jerusalem: The Nascent Alliance with the United States, Overshadowed by “United Jerusalem”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2016

Ofra Friesel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“No Israeli, dove or hawk, will ever surrender any part of Jerusalem.”

Arthur J. Goldberg, United States Ambassador to the United Nations 1965–68

The main position of modern international law prohibits the annexation of occupied territory. Israel, however, like Jordan two decades earlier, annexed East Jerusalem after its occupation in June 1967, and applied its national laws there. Although the legality of the Israeli move according to international law has been debated extensively ever since, the fact that in doing so Israel chose to act contrary to expressed American objections to this move has not been thoroughly examined, however. This research focuses on the Israeli governmental deliberations and eventual decision to annex East Jerusalem, against the backdrop of the early days of the emergence of a hesitant Israeli–American alliance following the 1967 War. Through an analysis of Israeli government meeting protocols, now released to the public, together with American and United Nations sources and existing scholarship, I aim to uncover what weight the United States objection to Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem held in the Israeli government's deliberations concerning whether or not to annex it.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 363 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Goldberg, Arthur J., “What Resolution 242 Really Said,” American Foreign Policy Interests: The Journal of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy 11 (1988)Google Scholar, reprinted in American Foreign Policy Interests: The Journal of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy 33 (2011): 45Google Scholar.

2. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967); Higgins, Rosalyn, “The June War: The United Nations and Legal Background,” Journal of Contemporary History 3 (1968): 270–71Google Scholar; and Rainer Hofmann, “Annexation,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).

3. Elihu Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places (London: Anglo-Jewish Association, 1968, reprinted 1980) 46–47; Susan M. Akram and Michael Lynk, “Arab–Israeli Conflict,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011), para. 19; and Ruth Lapidoth, “Jerusalem,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013), para. 18–19.

4. As will be shown, during the Israeli governmental deliberations prior to the June 1967 annexation of East Jerusalem, it was clear that applying Israeli domestic law was a means of annexation. Subsequently, a claim was made that the application of the Israeli national laws to East Jerusalem did not amount to annexation. This interpretation was rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court as early as 1970. In a majority ruling, the court expressed the opinion that East Jerusalem had become part of Israel – High Court of Justice (hereafter H.C.J.) 283/69, Ruidi and Maches vs. Military Court of Hebron, 1970(2) P.D. 419 [in Hebrew]. In the ruling, Justice Y. Kahan stated: “… As far as I am concerned, there is no need for any certificate from the Foreign Minister or from any administrative authority to determine that East Jerusalem… was annexed to the State of Israel and constitutes part of its territory… by means of these two enactments and consequently this area constitutes part of the territory of Israel.” Moshe Hirsch, Deborah Housen–Couriel, and Ruth Lapidoth, Whither Jerusalem? Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1995) 22–23.

5. The Israeli claim to title in East Jerusalem under international law is based, among other things, on the existence of a vacuum of sovereignty in Jerusalem, pursuant to the Arab refusal to accept the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan including the internationalization of Jerusalem. That vacuum was not filled when Jordan occupied East Jerusalem in the 1948 War and annexed it, because Jordan was acting in a war of aggression. Hence a singular situation was created in which, after occupying East Jerusalem in a war of self-defense in June 1967, Israel had a stronger claim to sovereignty in East Jerusalem than the Jordanian one. For different positions on this, see: Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, 37–46; Stephen. Schwebel, M., “What Weight to Conquest?” American Journal of International Law 64 (1970): 344–47Google Scholar; Yehuda Z. Blum, The Juridical Status of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1974); Henry Cattan, Jerusalem (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981), 107–21; Thomas Mallison and Sally Mallison, The Palestinian Problem in International Law and World Order (London: Longman, 1986), 197–201; Quigley, John, “Old Jerusalem: Whose to Govern?” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 20 (1991): 164–66Google Scholar; Menachem Klein, Jerusalem: The Contested City (New York: New York University Press, 2001) 104–204; International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004 ICJ Reports 136), para. 70–78; Hirsch, Moshe, “The Legal Status of Jerusalem Following the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Separation Barrier,” Israel Law Review 38 (2005): 299–302Google Scholar; and Lapidoth, “Jerusalem,” Para. 35–39.

6. Book of Lamentations, 1:6–7.

7. The Old City forms a walled quadrilateral approximately 900 meters long on each side. It includes a concentration of places holy to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, among them the Temple Mount, site of the First and Second Temples, known to Islam as Al-Ḥaram al-Sharīf, Al-Aqṣā Mosque, The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and others with imminent religious and historical importance. Bernard Wasserstein, “Jerusalem: National Capital, Israel,” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014) http://www.britannica.com/place/Jerusalem/City-layout#ref17891 (February 24, 2016).

8. General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, 42 UNTS303, (April 3, 1949) art. 8.2.; Higgins, “The June War,” 256; Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, 31–33; and Lapidoth, “Jerusalem,” para 19.

9. “Statement at the Western Wall by Defense Minister Dayan, June 7, 1967,” Israel Foreign Ministry site http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/11%20Statement%20at%20the%20Western%20Wall%20by%20Defence%20Minist.aspx (February 24, 2016).

10. Akram and Lynk, “Arab–Israeli Conflict,” para. 24–25.

11. William B. Quandt, Decade of Decisions: American Policy Toward the Arab–Israeli Conflict, 1967–1976 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 1–15, 37–71; and Avraham Ben Zvi, Decade of Transition, Eisenhower, Kennedy and the Origins of the American–Israeli Alliance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 134.

12. Kosygin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, A/PV.1526 (June 19, 1967) para. 8; Quandt, Decade of Decisions, 1, 10, 62; and Michael Dumper, The Politics of Jerusalem Since 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 231.

13. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Statement by the President on Rising Tensions in the Near East,” May 23, 1967. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28265 (February 24, 2016).

14. Johnson Library, President's Daily Diary, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Vol. XIX, 1967 (hereafter FRUS) Doc. 163, 1st FN; and Lucius D. Battle, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, June 5, 1967, FRUS Doc. 163.

15. Eban, Israel Government Meeting (hereafter IGM), June 5, 1967, Israel Archive (hereafter ISA) A 8164/6, 63; Quandt, Decade of Decisions, 41–44; and Avi Raz, The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the Aftermath of the June 1967 War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 13.

16. Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 13–14; Quandt, Decade of Decisions, 40–41, 61; William B. Quandt, Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab–Israeli Conflict since 1967, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 2005), 24, 45; and Quandt, Decade of Decisions, 40–41, 61.

17. Quandt, Decade of Decisions, 1–15.

18. Battle, June 5, 1967, FRUS Doc. 163.

19. Townsend W. Hoopes to McNamara, June 8 , 1967, FRUS Doc. 226.

20. Editorial note, FRUS Doc. 155.

21. Kosygin to Johnson, June 5, 1967, FRUS Doc. 156.

22. Kosygin to Johnson, June 10, 1967, FRUS Doc. 243.

23. Memorandum for the Record, CIA Director Richard Helms, October 22, 1968, FRUS Doc. 244.

24. General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, June 10, 1967, FRUS Doc. 253.

25. Memorandum of Conversation, November 4, 1968, FRUS Doc. 245.

26. Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State, June 10, 1967, FRUS Doc. 259.

27. Abba Eban, An Autobiography (New York: Random House, 1977), 422.

28. Memorandum for the Record, CIA Director Richard Helms, October 22, 1968, FRUS Doc. 244.

29. Hoopes to McNamara, June 8, 1967, FRUS Doc. 226.

30. Ibid.

31. Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 13–14; Hahn, Peter L., “Special Relationships,” Diplomatic History 22 (1998): 268–69Google Scholar.

32. Department of State to the Embassy in Jordan, June 6, 1967, FRUS Doc. 170.

33. Ibid.

34. Howard W. Wriggins to Walt W. Rostow, June 12, 1967, FRUS Doc. 268.

35. Embassy in Morocco to the Department of State, June 10, 1967, FRUS Doc. 248.

36. Editorial Note, FRUS Doc. 164.

37. Department of State Bulletin, June 26, 1967, 946–47.

38. Telegram from the Embassy in Morocco to the Department of State, June 13, 1967, FRUS Doc. 275.

39. Ibid.

40. Bick, Etta, “Transnational Actors in a Time Crisis: The Involvement of American Jews in Israel–United States Relations, 1956–57” Middle Eastern Studies 39 (2003): 158Google Scholar.

41. Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to President Johnson, June 7, 1967, FRUS Doc. 195.

42. Larry Levinson and Ben Wattenberg to President Johnson, June 7, 1967, FRUS Doc. 198.

43. Ibid.

44. On June 8, 1967, Israeli armed forces attacked a United States navy intelligence ship killing 34 crew members. For elaboration see: William D. Gerhard, Henry W. Millington, Attack on a SIGINT Collector, The USS Liberty, NSA History Report, United States Cryptologic History series, National Security Agency, 1981 https:// www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf (February 24, 2016) Jacobsen, Walter L., “A Juridical Examination of the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty” Naval Law Review 36 (1986): 1–51Google Scholar; and James M. Scott, The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel's Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009).

45. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 62.

46. Harry C. McPherson, Jr. to President Johnson, June 11, 1967, FRUS Doc. 263.

47. 1967S/PV.1348 (OR).

48. McPherson to President Johnson, June 11, 1967, FRUS Doc. 263.

49. Akram and Lynk, “Arab–Israeli Conflict,” para. 19.

50. See, for example, article II.2. of the Jordanian–Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949: “It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” The Avalon Project, Yale Law School http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp#1 (February 24, 2016).

51. Wriggins to Rostow, June 12, 1967, FRUS Doc. 268.

52. Arthur Lall, The UN and the Middle East Crisis, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 116–22; Eban, IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 63; Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 7, 13; and Amnon Ramon, “From Great Misgivings to Enthusiastic and Extensive Annexation: The Israeli Government and ‘United Jerusalem’ (June 1967),” in Study of Jerusalem through the Ages [in Hebrew], eds. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, Aviva Halamish, Ora Limor, Rehav Rubin and Ronny Reich (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 2015) 365–66, 375.

53. Eban, An Autobiography, 419.

54. Eban, IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 63; and Eban, An Autobiography, 419.

55. Memorandum of Conversation, Washington, June 16, 1967, FRUS Doc. 301.

56. IGM, June 5, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 2; and Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 38.

57. Menachem Begin became a member of government as the result of a National Unity Government established on June 1, 1967 because of the tense security situation. Ten years later Begin would be elected Israel's prime minister.

58. IGM, June 5, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 2–4.

59. IGM, June 5, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 6–7.

60. “Statement at the Western Wall by Defense Minister Dayan, June 7, 1967,” Israel Foreign Ministry site: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/11%20Statement%20at%20the%20Western%20Wall%20by%20Defence%20Minist.aspx (February 24, 2016).

61. McPherson to President Johnson, June 11, 1967, FRUS Doc. 263.

62. Uzi Benziman, Jerusalem: A City without a Wall [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1973), 47; Meron Benvenisti, “The Torn City” [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973), 119–20; Yossi Feintush, U.S. Policy on Jerusalem (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987), 124; Dumper, The Politics of Jerusalem Since 1967, 229; and Ramon, “From Great Misgivings,” 374–75.

63. Shlomo Slonim, Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy 1947–1997 (The Hague: Kluwer, 1998), 192.

64. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 1. For a comprehensive discussion of the status of the population in the annexed territory, see Ramon, “From Great Misgivings,” 381–82, 390–98.

65. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 21.

66. Ibid, 19. As early as June 7, 1967, Israel's prime minister made a statement regarding the safeguarding of the holy places http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/12%20Prime%20Minister%20Levi%20Eshkol-s%20Address%20to%20the%20Spi.aspx (February 24, 2016).

67. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 21.

68. Ibid. This phrasing was used some years later, when Basic Law: Jerusalem Capital of Israel, of 1980 was adopted, under Menachem Begin as prime minister https:// www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm (February 24, 2016).

69. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 24–26. For the joint Israel–Jordan opposition of internationalization of Jerusalem see Benvenisti, “The Torn City.” 93–103, 58–72.

70. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 24–26.

71. Ibid., 28.

72. Ibid., 21.

73. Ibid., 30.

74. Ibid., 39.

75. Ibid., 46–47.

76. Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907, art. 43 http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=3741EAB8E36E9274C12563CD00516894 (February 24, 2016) and The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, art. 64 http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9861b8c2f0e83ed3c1256403003fb8c5/6db876fd94a28530c12563cd0051bef8 (February 24, 2016).

77. For elaboration about the law of occupation, its history and sources see: Eyal Benvenisti, “Occupation, Belligerent,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

78. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 54.

79. IGM, June 18, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 2.

80. Ibid.

81. Nikolai Fedorenko, Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations, A/6717, June 13, 1967.

82. IGM, June 18, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 33–34.

83. Ibid, 28; and Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 53.

84. IGM, June 18, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 42

85. IGM, June 18, 1967, ISA A 8164/7, 57–78.

86. IGM, June 18, 1967, ISA A 8164/7, 63.

87. IGM, June 25, 1967, ISA A 8164/10, 11. See also Department of State to Embassy in Israel, June 16, 1967, FRUS, Doc. 303; IGM, June 25, 1967, ISA A 8164/10, 3; and Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 54.

88. IGM, June 25, 1967, ISA A 8164/10, 35.

89. Ibid., 11.

90. Ibid., 73.

91. Benziman, Jerusalem, 54; and Ramon, “From Great Misgivings,” 390–98.

92. IGM, June 25, 1967, ISA A 8164/10, 12.

93. IGM, June 26, 1967, ISA A 8164/11, 13.

94. Ibid., 14.

95. Ibid.

96. IGM, June 27, 1967, ISA A 8164/11, 20.

97. Ibid., 9.

98. Ibid., 17.

99. This statement was later quoted in an Israeli Supreme Court case given on March 1968 as the basis for a ruling that East Jerusalem was part of Israel – H.C. J. 223/67, Ben Dov vs. Minister of Religious Affairs, 1968(1) P.D. 440 [in Hebrew].

100. Israeli Parliament Protocol, June 27, 1967, 2422.

101. Benziman, Jerusalem, 59.

102. Ramon, “From Great Misgivings,” 407. For the required legislative procedure according to the Israeli parliament regulations and its binding legal standing see Amnon Rubinstein and Barak Medina, The Constitutional Law of the State of Israel, 6th ed. [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2005) 727–29.

103. The Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11) Law, 1967 and the Municipalities Ordinance (Amendment No. 6) Law, 1967. The Law and Administration Ordinance's first section authorized the government to apply the law, jurisdiction, and administration of Israel to areas formerly part of mandatory Palestine. The Municipalities Ordinance amendment enabled the minister of the interior to expand by proclamation the area of municipal corporation to include any area designated under the Law and Administration Ordinance. On June 28, 1967 in an executive action, the minister of the interior designated an area in East Jerusalem and outlying areas as part of the municipal City of Jerusalem. See Lapidoth, “Jerusalem,” para. 21; and Slonim, Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy 1947–1997, 192–23.

104. Ramon, “From Great Misgivings,” 407–8.

105. Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State, June 9, 1967, FRUS Doc. 227.

106. President's Daily Brief, June 9, 1967, FRUS Doc. 230.

107. McPherson to President Johnson, June 11, 1967, FRUS Doc. 263.

108. Embassy in Israel to Department of State, June 13, 1967, FRUS Doc. 277; and Department of State to Embassy in Israel, June 16, 1967, FRUS Doc. 266.

109. Memorandum, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 11, 1967 (ISA/FA) 5964(7), 1.

110. IGM, June 11, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 11.

111. Ibid., 56, 60–61.

112. W. Howard Wriggins to Walt W. Rostow, June 12, 1967, FRUS Doc. 268.

113. Department of State to Embassy in Israel, June 16, 1967, FRUS Doc. 303.

114. IGM, June 25, 1967, ISA A 8164/10, 3; and Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 54.

115. “Approximately 300,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem were expelled or fled from their homes and crossed into Jordan. As well, 100,000 Syrians living on the Golan Heights fled the fighting and became refugees.” Susan M. Akram and Michael Lynk, “Arab–Israeli Conflict,” para. 25.

116. IGM, June 29, 1967, ISA A 8164/11, 4.

117. Ibid., 7.

118. Pursuant to the attack, Israel immediately sent a message to the United States saying that it had erroneously attacked a ship that was possibly an American one, and conveyed its apologies. Jacobsen, “A Juridical Examination of the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty,” 36. In 1968, Israel paid the United States government compensation on behalf of the families of the thirty-four men killed and on behalf of other men wounded. Later, Israel also paid compensation for material damage done to the ship. Gerhard and Millington, Attack on a SIGINT Collector, The USS Liberty, 64.

119. IGM, June 29, 1967, ISA A 8164/11, 7.

120. Department of State, Bulletin, July 17, 1967, 60.

121. President's Special Consultant (Bundy) to Johnson, July 4, 1967, FRUS Doc. 341. For the American demand that Israel issue a statement following the legislation claiming “that steps taken regarding Jerusalem were not irrevocable or final,” see: Department of State to Embassy in Israel, June 30, 1967, FRUS Doc. 333.

122. For an elaboration on United States nonrecognition of Jordanian rule over East Jerusalem, see Dumper, The Politics of Jerusalem since 1967, 234–35.

123. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Address at the State Department's Foreign Policy Conference for Educators,” June 19, 1967. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28308 (February 24, 2016).

124. IGM, June 29, 1967, ISA A 8164/10, 5. It should be noted that some lack of clarity persists about whether the initiative to present the annexation as a mere administrative act rather annexation was initially an Israeli or an American one. The above-cited summary of the meeting Harman initiated with Rostow on June 29, 1967, clearly suggests it was the Israeli officials, Harman and Evron, who presented the annexation as a mere municipal merger. Rostow then requested that the Israeli government publicly declare that the move did not constitute annexation. Department of State to Embassy in Israel, June 30, 1967, FRUS, Doc. 333. In addition, Harman and Evron's statement concurs with instructions that Eban gave in a Foreign Ministry meeting on June 23, 1967, according to which the actions regarding Jerusalem would be presented as a practical move deriving from the administration of the entire city. IGM, June 18, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 33–34. However, in an unsigned action memorandum from the Control Group to Secretary of State Rusk, drafted toward the impending vote in the United Nations GENERAL ASSEMBLY on Jerusalem (on July 4, 1967) the idea of presenting the annexation simply as an administrative step was presented as an American one. Control Group to Rusk, undated, FRUS, Doc. 340. Avi Raz writes that it was Washington that pressured Eban to present the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem as a mere administrative act; see Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 55. Despite this lack of clarity, my understanding at this point, based on the interaction of Israeli and American sources presented previously, and the logic presented in the Israeli government meeting held on June 18, 1967, mentioned previously according to which the legislation would be of a general character, that is, legislation that would not name Jerusalem but would be used for its annexation—IGM, June 18, 1967, ISA A 8164/6, 33–34—is that the initiative was Israeli to begin with.

125. Letter from Foreign Minister Eban to Secretary-General U Thant on Jerusalem, July 10, 1967. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/16+Letter+from+FM+Eban+to+Secretary-General+U+Thant+on+Jerusalem.htm (February 24, 2016) Despite Eban's letter, the Israeli Supreme Court already held in 1968 that East Jerusalem was part of the State of Israel. See: Lapidoth, “Jerusalem,” para 53–54; Ruth Lapidoth, Commentary on Basic Law Jerusalem Capital of Israel [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem, Sacher Institute, 1999), 49–56.

126. A/RES/2253(ES-V), 4 July 1967; and Dumper, The Politics of Jerusalem Since 1967, 231.

127. Ibid.

128. Memorandum of Conversation, July 5, 1967, FRUS Doc. 343.

129. Ibid.

130. Richard F. Grimmett, “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998–2005”, Congressional Research Service, October 23, 2006: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33696.pdf; and Jeremy M. Sharp, “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” Congressional Research Service, April 11, 2014: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf