A denial of one's nationality

RHONDA SPIVAK

The case of Eliyahu Veffer of Toronto, who wanted his passport to show his birthplace not as Jerusalem but as "Jerusalem, Israel," has generated much interest in the ongoing political dispute over the unique status of the city.

In both the United States and Canada, an individual born in Jerusalem cannot refer to Israel in his or her passport. In refusing to grant leave to hear Veffer's appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that Veffer cannot show "Jerusalem, Israel" as his birthplace, however, the very issue raised in the Veffer case is currently being litigated in the United States in the case of Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, who also wants to have his passport show "Jerusalem, Israel" as his birthplace.

With the exception of Jerusalem, Canada's passport policy is that, when a city is in a disputed territory, the passport applicant is allowed to choose which country to include on his or her application. For example, a person born in Cyprus can choose whether to put Turkey or Greece as a birthplace.

"The only exception to that general policy is Jerusalem and, for that disputed territory alone, Canada said you cannot put Israel, you cannot put Jordan, you cannot put anything," said David Matas, senior counsel for B'nai Brith, who unsuccessfully represented Veffer in his legal battle.

The rationale for the current passport policy was laid out in a court document in the case filed by the minister of foreign affairs, former Canadian ambassador to Israel Michael Bell, who stated: "Canada continues not to recognize the sovereignty of any party over Jerusalem and agrees that the status of Jerusalem can only be resolved as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. Canada opposes Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem and does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the city of Jerusalem as defined in the United Nations Partition Plan."

According to the UN Partition Plan, in 1948, Jerusalem was to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United Nations and was not to belong to either the Jewish or Palestinian states that were to be created by the plan. Accordingly, Canada said its policy is not to allow a Jerusalemite to name a country in his or her passport.

In response to this policy, Matas said that, "It's true that under the partition plan, the United Nations was to have had jurisdiction over the city of Jerusalem, but the United Nations never sent troops into Jerusalem in 1948 to exercise sovereignty or control over the city. Israel accepted the partition plan, but the Arab states did not and they invaded.... Jordan got to Jerusalem because it invaded during the war [of 1948] and the UN plan never materialized."

In the Veffer case, lawyers for the federal government successfully argued that, until Israelis and Palestinians negotiate their competing claims of sovereignty over Jerusalem, any change in Canada's policy would show favoritism to Israel in the dispute and discriminate against the Palestinians.

A coalition called Canadians for Jerusalem intervened in the Veffer case and argued that "Canada would be playing a dangerous political game" if it allowed individuals to identify Jerusalem as part of Israel on a passport.

Matas rejected the notion that ruling in Veffer's favor would have undermined the perceived neutrality of Canada in the Middle East. As he said, "Prior to April 1976, Canada's passport policy was that a person born in either East or West Jerusalem could have Israel shown in the passport as his/her country of birth simply by asking. The Canadian contribution to peace in the Middle East was at its height in 1957, when then-Canadian foreign affairs minister Lester Pearson won a Nobel Peace Prize. At that time, anyone born in Jerusalem could have in his passport 'Jerusalem, Israel' as his place of birth."

In April 1976, the Canadian policy changed to the present one.

"The shift in Canada's policy in April 1976 was not motivated by the situation in the Middle East. It was because some passport applicants born in Yugoslavia wanted Croatia indicated in their passports as the country of their birth, and Croatia wasn't yet a country. Jerusalem was included in the new policy ... but, in my view, Croatia wasn't a very analogous case to Israel, because Israel already existed as a country," said Matas.

Matas added that, "For 32 years, from 1948-1976, Canada allowed 'Jerusalem, Israel' in Canadian passports, for parts of East Jerusalem and all of West Jerusalem, without any apparent impact on Canadian perceived neutrality. For nine years after Israel assumed control of East Jerusalem in 1967, Canada allowed 'Jerusalem, Israel' in Canadian passports, for all of East and West Jerusalem without any apparent impact on Canadian perceived neutrality."

In the last five years, the Canadian passport office, in error, allowed 131 individuals to record "Jerusalem, Israel" as a place of birth in their passports and 15 individuals were allowed to record "Jerusalem, Jordan." These passports have been recalled as a result of the litigation, said Matas.

If the Canadian policy were to be returned to the pre-1976 policy as Matas wants, how would the passport office deal with a Palestinian who wanted to put "Jerusalem, Palestine" in his or her passport?

"Our position is that if someone wanted to do this, we're not precluding anything. It would be up to the passport office to decide," Matas responded. However, he did acknowledge that "the problem with putting Palestine on a passport is that it's not a country."

Rhonda Spivak is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

^TOP