Trump’s Embassy Move: Behind the Hysteria

Yesterday President Donald Trump announced that the United States was officially recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He also said he was initiating plans to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Mostly lost in this week’s journalistic drama is a solid discussion of the law and history shaping this historic moment.

The law

Twenty two years ago Congress passed the “Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995” which essentially declared three things:

1. That Jerusalem should remain an undivided city with respect for all ethnic and religious groups.
2. That Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel.
3. That the US Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.

The act also allowed a US president to delay implementing the law by signing a waiver every six months, an action that every president has taken for 22 years, until last Monday.

By passing this law, Congress technically recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. However, in a 2015 lawsuit regarding whether US nationals could have their place of birth listed as “Jerusalem, Israel,” on their passports  (Zivotofsky vs. Kerry, 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not actually have power over those kind of foreign policies.

So while Congress’s 1995 Act is a meaningful statement of support, President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital finally converts that sentiment into actual United States policy.

The President did not use the “undivided” language adopted by Congress, but simply used the word “Jerusalem” without the words “east” or “west,” as Russia did when it recognized what it called “West Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital. President Trump essentially took a middle road between these two extremes, leaving the option open for possible future negotiations and compromises.

The double standard

No country in the world recognizes or “non-recognizes” any other country’s capital but leaves it to each individual nation to decide. And certainly, no country designates a different capital, as many countries do with Tel Aviv. It would be like if you said to me, “I don’t recognize your name as being “Daniel,” for now on I’m calling you Bob.” It’s simply not done. And doing so technically violates international law.

So why the double standard?

It’s not because of war, disputes or occupation as some people claim.

In fact, 124 countries are involved in territorial disputes, including numerous occupations: some considered legitimate, some not. Yet 123 of those countries choose their own capitals without any question from the rest of the world. Only Israel is treated differently.

The history

Conjectures on the reason for this double standard include everything from global anti-Semitism to the oft repeated Arab desire to “wipe Israel off the map.” Without commenting on any of those issues, at least part of the problem goes back to how Israel became independent in the first place:

United Nations Resolution 181, called the “Partition Plan” of 1947 proposed separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem remaining under international control, using the Latin term, corpus separatum.

Israel accepted the plan but the entire Arab league rejected it; four Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq) invaded, with the goal of eliminating the infant Jewish state altogether.

As a part of this war, Jordan captured and occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem, including the Old City with its ancient Jewish quarter and the Western Wall. For the first time in history, Jerusalem became a divided city.

In 1967 the Arab nations tried to eliminate Israel again: this time the war began with a complex escalation which included initial casus belli (acts of war) by Egypt, and a preemptive attack by Israel against the Egyptian air force. However, the goal of the combatant Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) and of the other nations who supported the campaign (including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Algeria) was the same as in 1948: the total destruction of Israel.

This time, Israel managed to not only survive, but pushed Jordan back to its original borders, causing the eastern part of Jerusalem to come under Israeli control. Israel later annexed that area, meaning that it became officially part of Israel, thus ending the 19 year division of the city. However, the international community has not officially recognized the annexation as being valid.

The most visible international response to the outcome of the 1967 Six Day War was in the form of UN Resolution 242, which in essence called for two things: Israeli withdrawal from “territories occupied,” and for all states involved to terminate their belligerency and respect each others borders.

The context of the resolution made it clear that “withdrawal from territories” did not mean all territories, but withdrawal only insofar as necessary to create a safe situation for all parties moving forward.

Israel accepted the resolution. The Palestine Liberation Organization (which by then had become the official representative of Palestinian people) rejected the resolution and the Arab states resumed their attempts to annihilate Israel shortly thereafter, most dramatically in the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

In the spirit of Resolution 242, Israel eventually made peace with Egypt and returned the Sinai which it had previously captured in self defense. In 1988, Jordan renounced all its claims to the West Bank, including the eastern part of Jerusalem, and expressed hope that this area would become part of a Palestinian state. In 1994 Jordan and Israel officially made peace.

These days, the international community justifies non-recognition of Jerusalem’s capital status by referring to UN Resolutions 181 and 242, even though the Arab nations firmly rejected both (in word or in practice) and responded by attempting to destroy Israel entirely.

Beginning in 1993, the negotiations known as the “Oslo Peace Process” attempted to remedy these disagreements by creating a Palestinian state that would live peacefully alongside with Israel. Yet despite many attempts over the years, these processes have not led to a conclusion.

Now it seems the tide may be turning: with small but growing numbers of nations appearing ready to drop their double standards and treat Israel similarly to all other nations, most notably: Russia, the Pacific island of Vanuatu, have already given Jerusalem its due recognition. And Israeli media reports indicate that The Philippines, Czech Republic, and possibly Hungary will relocate their embassies.

The Arab world

Palestinian leaders declared three “Days of Rage,” and threatened an intifada as well as terror attacks against civilians. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned cryptically of “danger” and expressed his determination to cut off peace negotiations – an ironic threat as there are currently no peace negotiations and have not been since Abbas himself walked away from talks in 2014.

The Arab League officially objected strongly to the President Trump’s embassy move decision, making numerous dramatic statements in recent days.

However, last week highly respected Kuwaiti journalist Abdullah Al-Hadlaq described Israel with the words, “There is no occupation. There is a people returning to its promised land.”

While Al-Hadlaq did not specifically reference Jerusalem, it seems clear that if there is “no occupation” by the Jewish people in their “promised land,” then Jerusalem is not occupied either.

Within Kuwait and throughout the Arab world Al-Hadlaq’s statements are generally understood to be a subtle way of communicating government policy. Similar statements have come from equally respected scholars, journalists and community leaders in Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others.

The violence factor

Many  leaders and journalists contend that these threats of violence should have been reason enough for the United States to forgo moving the embassy and recognizing the capital.

But that logic creates a subtle dilemma: while it would be irresponsible of America to ignore the possibility of violence, the alternative would be to give veto power over U.S. foreign policy to anyone in the world who threatens to harm civilians. Yesterday America made it clear that it will not be held hostage in such a manner and it remains to be seen to what extent the threatened violence will actually happen.

Where do we stand now?

President Trump has signed two documents: the first is a proclamation that as a matter of U.S. policy America recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and that the President is directing the State Department to begin preparations to build a new embassy, and the second is another six month waiver of the Act.

The waiver is necessary in this case because the logistics of building an embassy take time, and without the waiver the 1995 Act would cut off needed funding from the State Department as of the next fiscal year.

Only time will show us how this week’s events will affect Israel’s standing in the world, the decisions of other countries regarding Israel’s capital, and the role of the United States as a “broker” in a potential peace process. The basic elements of dispute over borders, the future of Palestinian statehood, and the safety of Israelis from terrorism, all remain.

Yet as the current media hysteria begins to quiet down, we will be left with a new reality: that President Trump’s recognition of the Israeli capital is now the official policy of the United States of America. And regardless of one’s opinion on this policy, it has a firm basis in logic, law and history.

Featured image: CC BY- DYKT Mohigan via Wikimedia Commons, with modifications.