Letters to the Ledger Opinion

Ledger stand on Supreme Court’s Jerusalem ruling is misguided

The Constitution has three references to presidential power and foreign policy. Two of them, the power to make treaties and the power to appoint ambassadors and other officials, are subject to approval by the Senate. Only one power, to receive ambassadors, is not subject to Congressional oversight.

Especially given the emphasis of our nation’s founding fathers on checks and balances, it’s difficult to understand how the Supreme Court is able to infer from that one unfettered power that Congress is precluded from preventing the president from making it American policy that American citizens born in the capital of Israel weren’t born in Israel.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did just that and its decision must be accepted until corrected by a future court.

I can, with difficulty, understand that some might disagree.

Jerusalem has been united throughout its history except for the unfortunate 19 years, between 1948 and 1967, when a portion was under Jordanian occupation. During that period, the Jordanian-occupied portion was generally neglected, demonstrating that Jerusalem really wasn’t all that important to Arabs and Muslims.

Once Jerusalem was reunited, the Arabs suddenly started pretending Jerusalem was tremendously important to them and had to be the capital of the Palestinian state they had shown absolutely no interest in establishing when the currently disputed territory was under their total control.

One of the litmus tests for determining whether the Palestinian Arabs are really interested in peace is whether they will stop pretending Jerusalem is of supreme importance to them and of no importance to the Jewish people. To date, they have obviously failed that litmus test, dismally.

I can, with difficulty, understand that some might disagree.

I can also understand, with great difficulty, that some might mistakenly believe it will be necessary to make the heartbreaking decision to re-divide Jerusalem in order to achieve peace.

I cannot, however, understand how a newspaper that has for years represented the Jewish community in Connecticut and been supportive of Israel expresses a desire for the division of Israel’s capital, as the Jewish Ledger does in its editorial “The Meaning of the Supreme Court ‘Jerusalem Passport’ Ruling” (June 12, 2015).

Please, say it ain’t so.

Alan Stein, Ph.D.
Founder, PRIMER-Massachuetts
and Primer-Israel President Emeritus,
Promoting Responsibility In Middle East Reporting, Natick, Mass.
Netanya, Israel


The views expressed in your editorial piece about the United States Supreme Court Ruling (“The Meaning of the Supreme Court ‘Jerusalem Passport’ Ruling,” June 12, 2015) only support further Palestinian intransigence in denying the rights of the Jewish People to sovereignty anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish People for 3,000 years and the State of Israel for 67 years regardless of the opinion of the current President of the United States or the Supreme Court.

Your wishful thinking of a peaceful “division” of Jerusalem in our time does not reflect the realities of what is happening throughout the Middle East, and the antisemitic (as well as anti-Christian) genocidal agenda of so many in the neighborhood, as well as the antisemitic propaganda perpetuated by the Palestinian Authority in its schools and media.

The best first step towards a peace agreement should be a move of the United States Embassy to Israel’s capital city, Jerusalem.

Arthur Seltzer

How Zionists helped defeat segregation in Baltimore
Senior Israeli official criticizes TIME mag for anti-Israel article
Intersectionality’s demonization of Jews

Leave Your Reply