Objecting to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/19, which criticizes the United States' recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 11, 2018
Affirms the President's December 6, 2017, proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announcing the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Israel as soon as practicable.
Opposes and calls for the repeal of United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/19 of December 21, 2017, which criticizes U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.
Reaffirms that a sustainable peace agreement will only result from direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and cannot be imposed by international organizations.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.684 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.684 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.684 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.684 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.