Given President Trump’s avowed desire to help fashion the “ultimate” deal resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, some have taken to questioning the wisdom of his officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordering the start of the process leading to the relocation of the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
He seems to have taken one of the most contested issues off the table in Israel’s favor, say his critics. So why should the Arabs have any incentive to even go back to the negotiating table if a key negotiating chip has effectively been removed from the equation?
To be sure, U.S. policy does not bind the world on the Jerusalem issue. Even so, Palestinian leaders doubtless appreciate that with America behind Israel, Palestinian chances of getting anything close to what they want are nil.
But a parsing of Mr. Trump’s statement shows that there is a crucial incentive for the Palestinians to begin negotiating.
It went unremarked in the media, but in his statement the president said the decision recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
is not intended, in an way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved…. In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites, including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif. [Emphasis added.]
Interestingly, the Jerusalem Embassy Act, cited by the president, in which Congress declared Jerusalem to be the “undivided capital” – a phrase that is notably absent from the president’s declaration – notes that the 1993 Oslo Accords “lays out a timetable for the resolution of ‘final status’ issues, including Jerusalem.” Indeed, the president avoided specifying whether his reference to “Jerusalem” as the capital of Israel was limited to “West” Jerusalem, where the U.S. Embassy will be located, or whether it included “East” Jerusalem, which the Palestinians, at least in public, say is all they want as their capital in a Palestinian state.
So the president all but invited the Palestinians to come and negotiate over the issue he ostensibly resolved by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. And this is probably why Arab reaction to Mr. Trump’s declaration has been relatively mute. However, it also follows that if the Palestinians do nothing but pout and threaten future violence, Israel will continue to sit atop a united Jerusalem as its capital with American backing. Indeed, the president has referred to his approach here as the “fresh thinking” he promised to put into play.
But Israel has to be concerned about what the president’s reaction would be should the Palestinians change course and actually engage in serious negotiations. Will he hold to his vow never to pressure either side to accept that which it thinks it shouldn’t? Will he stick to his position of not supporting a resolution not agreed to by both sides? And if Israel insists on implementing its annexation of all of Jerusalem, no matter what the Palestinians offer, will President Trump reconsider?
Despite the uncertainty of what the future will bring, Israel is in a better place than it was before. As things stand, at least for the moment, Israel presumptively has the all-important American support for its control of Jerusalem. Certainly President Trump, by his recognition remarks, also finally shredded the Palestinian/UN contention that Jews historically have had scant connection to Jerusalem.
In this latter connection, we also note that recognition of Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem has the added virtue of having history, logic, and legal precedent on its side. The Jewish presence in Jerusalem goes back millennia.
Under the 1948 Partition Plan for Palestine – which had been seized by the Allied governments in World War I from the Ottoman Empire – Jerusalem was to be an international city, with no state having sovereignty and with the rights of all residents, of whatever religion or nationality, respected.
This design was rejected by the Arab world, which commenced a war against the new state of Israel aimed at destroying it. By the end of that war, the Arabs controlled the eastern portion of the city while Israel controlled the western part. It was that circumstance which resulted in the East Jerusalem-West Jerusalem designations of today. It was simply a matter of where the opposing armies met.
Significantly, the Palestinian claim on East Jerusalem primarily derives from the Arab armies having ended up controlling that territory in defiance of the Partition Plan. Yet, if the Palestinian claim is a function of Arab force of arms, why is Israel’s seizure of the same territory by force of arms in the Six-Day War (when Israel again beat back an Arab attempt to destroy it) any less dispositive?
Time will tell whether President Trump’s move last week was just a warning to the Palestinians to get real about negotiations or whether it was meant to have a permanent effect on future American policy.