The United States has been one of the most prominent supporters of the occupation since its inception until today, a fact that became evident in the unprecedented support the U.S. provided to the occupation during its war on the Gaza Strip, in addition to its military, financial, and political backing.
This support has experienced numerous upward trends since the occupation of the eastern part of the city in 1967, culminating in the arrival of American missiles used by the occupation to kill Palestinians.
With Trump's return to the White House, this article presents an overview of the most significant decisions and positions taken by American presidents from both the Republican and Democratic parties, since the occupation of the city in 1967 until 2024, in the context of providing a comprehensive view of American presidents' performance and their interactions with Jerusalem, as well as the extent of American support for the occupation, which varied between ignoring its practices and exercising veto power against any international resolutions.
First: President Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969):
In the aftermath of the occupation of the eastern part of Jerusalem, the American administration did not show a direct position. President Johnson ignored the issue in his speech on June 19, 1967, in which he presented a peace proposal, referring to the city indirectly by stating, "There must be a sufficient recognition of the specific interests of the great religions in the holy places."
This American administration abstained from voting on UN General Assembly Resolution No. (2253), issued on July 4, 1967, which called on “Israel” to “cancel the measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem and refrain from doing so in the future.”
On May 21, 1968, it abstained from voting on Resolution (252), reaffirming the international community’s rejection of "the acquisition of territory by military conquest."
Second: President Richard Nixon (1969-1974):
In 1969, then Secretary of State William Rogers presented proposals to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict, emphasizing secure access to the holy places and stressing the importance of managing the unified city, including the interests of the adherents of the three religions.
Sources indicate that the American plan at that time confirmed the U.S. abandonment of the idea of internationalizing Jerusalem, allowing it to remain under occupation, in addition to dropping the role of the United Nations in any solution regarding its status, and noted that the status of Jerusalem would be settled through negotiations.
Third: President Gerald Ford (1974-1977):
After Ford assumed the presidency following Nixon's resignation, he retracted his proposal. Just 20 days after taking office, on August 9, 1974, he announced that he would not implement his proposal regarding Jerusalem in order to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Fourth: President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981):
The stance of American administrations began to shift with the Carter administration. In 1978, Carter’s letter to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat included a clear reference that Jerusalem is part of the occupied West Bank and that historical Arab rights in it should be respected, along with the rights of its Palestinian inhabitants.
The content raised the ire of the leaders of the occupying state, prompting then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin to threaten to withdraw from peace negotiations with the Egyptian side; this pushed Carter to adjust his stance to align more closely with the "Israeli" side.
Since Carter's presidency, the official American discourse began to retreat from characterizing Jerusalem as an occupied territory, solidifying the distinction between the overall stance on the occupied territories of 1967 and the stance on Jerusalem, especially in light of the occupation's insistence on Jerusalem.
Fifth: President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989):
During Reagan's administration, the U.S. administration began to operate based on "united Jerusalem." In a speech in 1982, Reagan confirmed his support for the "unity of Jerusalem," but insisted that its status should be determined through negotiations. At that time, the American position reflected an ambiguous rejection of settlement expansion. In points on peace published by Reagan’s administration, it stated its support for a "real freeze on settlement activity," but opposed "dismantling existing settlements" during the five-year transitional period.
In 1984, debate re-emerged between Reagan and Congress regarding occupied Jerusalem, as Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan introduced a bill proposing to move the U.S. Embassy from "Tel Aviv" to occupied Jerusalem. The Reagan administration opposed the law, emphasizing that the United States is one of the strongest supporters of the occupying state, but maintaining the American embassy in "Tel Aviv" is a fixed American policy. Officials in the Reagan administration at that time indicated that moving the embassy would undermine the administration's ability to play a mediating role in the Arab Israeli conflict.
Sixth: President George H.W. Bush (1989–1993):
The Bush administration did not treat Jerusalem as occupied land; its positions on Jerusalem varied from advocating its division to asserting it was a city that could not be divided. On March 31, 1990, a letter was sent to Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek, clearly indicating that U.S. policy affirmed the need to divide Jerusalem once again. The objection arose against the backdrop of the occupation’s request for a $400 million loan to finance housing for Soviet settlers in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
Despite the Bush administration's "reserved" stance on settlement activity, its international diplomacy was increasingly supportive of the occupation. On May 31, 1990, the United States vetoed a draft resolution to send an international committee to the occupied Arab territories to investigate the "Israeli" oppressive practices against the Palestinian people.
Seventh: President Bill Clinton (1993–2001):
Clinton’s electoral campaign focused on supporting "Israel," affirming that "united Jerusalem" is Israel’s eternal capital. The campaign did not stop at this clear deviation; it also criticized the policies of Republican President George H.W. Bush, which linked loans to a freeze on settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Upon his arrival at the White House, Clinton's statements focused on the necessity of addressing the Jerusalem issue in the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and "Israeli" sides. The Jordanian-"Israeli" negotiations in 1994 included specific statements regarding the occupied city, and the peace agreement between the two sides included a clear clause about Jordan's role in occupied Jerusalem, stating that "Israel" respects the current special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, and when negotiations regarding the permanent status are held, "Israel" will give high priority to Jordan's historical role in these sites. Clinton's speech during the signing of the agreement reflected a convergence of American views on Jerusalem with the occupying power's views, indicating that the previous clause was merely an attempt to secure Jordan's signature on the agreement.
In addition to signing the "Oslo" agreement, Clinton's presidency saw the most significant development regarding the issue of Jerusalem. In November 1995, both Congress and the Senate enacted the "Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995," confirming that Jerusalem is "the capital of Israel" and that it is "the spiritual center of the Jewish religion." In its third section, Congress demanded that the U.S. administration officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the occupation and specified financial punitive measures against the U.S. State Department if it did not complete procedures to open the embassy in Jerusalem.
However, Clinton postponed the implementation of the law, citing presidential powers, and since that date, U.S. presidents have consistently signed decisions to postpone the embassy relocation for six months, until it was inaugurated during President Donald Trump's administration. Despite Clinton's administration's efforts to demonstrate its ability to foster peace between the two sides, its positions on settlement expansion were no less supportive of the occupation than its stance on Jerusalem. During Clinton's presidency, there was an increasing bias towards the occupation, exemplified by the American green light granted to the "Israeli" side to build thousands of settlement units in Jerusalem in 1997.
Although the U.S. administration publicly opposed settlement construction, it thwarted two Security Council resolutions on March 7, 1997, and March 21, 1997, which clearly demanded that the occupation stop construction in the "Har Homa" settlement on Abu Ghneim Mountain in occupied Jerusalem.
In the next article, we will discuss the positions of subsequent U.S. presidents from George W. Bush to Joe Biden.
