While watching France 24 reporters interviewing people in Ramallah about President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol - a Palestinian said: We have been raised since childhood to believe there is no Israel and Jerusalem is ours.
From Honest Reporting:
Today at 1pm EST, President Trump is set to announce that the United States is officially recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and beginning plans to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to the capital.
America’s Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 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; and
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.
Technically, due to this law, Congress has already recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, but a 2015 Supreme Court case regarding passports (Zitofsky v Kerry, 2015) holds that Congress does not actually have power over those kinds of policies. So while Congress’s 1995 law is a meaningful statement of support, President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will finally convert that sentiment into actual US policy.
It is unclear whether Trump will echo the “undivided” language adopted by Congress, but a statement of “Jerusalem” without the words “east” or “west” would seem to imply the entire city.
Earlier this year, Russia recognized “West Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital, and the Czech parliament called on its government to recognize simply “Jerusalem.”
No country in the world recognizes or “non-recognizes” any other country’s capital but leaves it to each individual nation to decide. It would be like if you were to say 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.
The problem goes back to how Israel was created:
United Nations Resolution 181, called the “Partition Plan,” proposed a Jewish state, an Arab state for the people who later began nationally identifying as “Palestinians,” and for Jerusalem to remain under international control.
Israel accepted the plan. The entire Arab League rejected it, and four Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq) invaded, with the goal of eliminating the 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.
In 1967 the Arab nations tried to eliminate Israel again: this time with three nations attacking: Egypt, Jordan, Syria) and others contributing arms and other support (including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Algeria).
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.
The most visible response from the world was in the form of UN Resolution 242, which called for two things: Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied, and for all states involved to terminate their belligerency and respect each other's 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 Arab nations (included the PLO, which by then had become the official representative of the Palestinian people) all rejected the resolution, and resumed their attacks on 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 land it had occupied west of the Jordan River (including the eastern part of Jerusalem), and expressed its hope that this area would become part of a Palestinian state. In 1994 Jordan and Israel officially made peace.
These days, nations around the world usually justify non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by referring to UN Resolutions 181 and 242, even though the Arab nations firmly rejected both.
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 Russia, the Czech Republic and the United States all appearing ready to drop their double standards and treat Israel similarly to all other nations.
We are even beginning to see changes in the Arab world:
On the one hand, the Arab League officially objected strongly to the move.
However, in recent weeks, 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.”
Al-Hadlaq’s statements are often understood to reflect government policy, and he is highly popular and respected among Arab people in general. Similar statements have come from scholars and community leaders in Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others: including such notables as Turki Al-Hamad and Ahmad Al-Arjav.
In the meantime, Palestinians have declared three “Days of Rage,” threatened an intifada and terror attacks against civilians, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned cryptically of “danger” and 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 them in 2014.
All of this puts the United States in an awkward position: to not move the Embassy would seem to give a veto power over US policy to anyone who threatens violence against civilians. It remains to be seen to what extend the threatened violence will actually happen.
Where do we stand now?
There has been some discussion in the media that Trump may sign another six month waiver of the Act in order to allow time to decide and implement all the necessary logistics of moving the embassy. Strictly speaking, according to the Act the President does not actually have the option to do that, yet the mechanism for constructing the new Embassy does not technically require such a waiver.
According to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, the Secretary of State has 30 days to submit a report to Congress detailing a plan to move the Embassy, including the approach to beginning site selection and construction details. There is no specific deadline on when the actual construction and moving process must be completed, however it is generally understood that the State Department must act in good faith, and is also required to make progress reports to Congress every six months.
* * *
