Thank You but No Thanks : This is no time to speak of shifting U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

It would be an exaggeration to say that Congress takes a perennial interest in Jerusalem. It’s more like quadrennial, with the professed level of concern peaking--by no coincidence whatsoever--just about the time serious presidential politicking begins.

Usually Congress contents itself with a resolution calling for the American Embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This time around, though, a much more mischievous effort looms. Legislation introduced this week calls for ground to be broken on a Jerusalem embassy by Dec. 31, 1996, with the facility to be opened no later than May 31, 1999. And just to make sure the will of Congress wouldn’t be defied, there was this zinger: If the State Department didn’t follow the timetable, its overseas construction budget would be cut by half. Among the sponsors of this measure are Sens. Bob Dole, Phil Gramm and Arlen Specter, all--surprise, surprise--seekers after the Republican presidential nomination.

What’s wrong with moving the Embassy to Jerusalem? Nothing; that’s where it belongs, in the city that has always been Israel’s capital, and certainly the day is drawing closer when that’s where it will be. The question is wholly one of timing. No issue in Middle East peace talks is more complex and emotional than what will happen in Jerusalem, where the Palestinians claim rights that Israel doesn’t recognize but has agreed to begin discussing in the Mideast negotiations next year.

In that light, Congress’ effort to dictate a schedule for the Embassy move isn’t simply unproductive but damaging. Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has let it be known he’s embarrassed by it. Henry Siegman, a former director of the American Jewish Congress, calls it “the kind of mindlessness that reigns supreme whenever a presidential campaign begins.” If Congress really wants to help the Mideast peace talks along it ought to promptly and wisely take itself out of the Embassy relocation business.