Palestine and Israel After Trump's Order

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, the last day President Trump could act regarding the transfer of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (Al-Quds) like his predecessors. In 1995, the U.S. Congress legally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but President Bill Clinton refrained from signing the law, arguing that its implementation would hinder peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Subsequently, an amendment was passed allowing the President to suspend the law for six months, which Clinton immediately utilized to delay its implementation. From Bill Clinton to George Bush and Barack Obama, U.S. presidents avoided implementing the 1995 resolution for 22 years, citing the need to aid the peace process alongside U.S. security interests. However, since 2016, when Donald Trump began his campaign, he promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem if elected. He could have done this six months earlier but had suspended the law's implementation once again. This situation bears similarities to the President's stance on approving or disapproving the nuclear agreement with Iran. In both cases, arguments can be made for or against the status quo, but President Trump delegated the decision on the nuclear agreement to Congress while issuing an order to move the U.S. embassy in Israel and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel despite the amendment allowing for suspension. Trump's statements and congressional resolutions – not long ago, Congress passed a 'non-binding' resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem's reunification after the 1967 Six-Day War. This resolution explicitly referred to the 1995 law and called on the President and U.S. officials to act in accordance with the 'Jerusalem Embassy Act.' However, the same resolution, which passed the U.S. Senate with a 90-0 majority, reiterated that 'the longstanding and bipartisan U.S. policy is that the final status of Jerusalem is a matter to be resolved between the parties through bilateral negotiations aimed at achieving a two-state solution [Palestinian-Israeli].' The President's remarks ambiguously emphasize these points, and for this reason, they cannot be considered neutral from a country that is a significant member of the peace process. Of course, besides announcing the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem, Trump mentioned points that received less attention: he stated, 'I want to make one thing clear. This decision does not in any way undermine our strong commitment to facilitating a lasting peace agreement. We want a deal that is a great deal for Israelis and Palestinians. We are not taking a position on the issues related to the final settlement, including the subject of borders and the sovereignty of Israel in Jerusalem or the resolution of disputed borders. That is up to the parties.' Some commentators believe these remarks indicate that the President's statements align with the congressional resolution, while others argue that the order to move the embassy and the official recognition of the capital could severely undermine the already stalled peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. International reactions – It cannot be convincingly claimed that the international conditions have provided a suitable time for implementing this law. In a situation where the Middle East is embroiled in multiple tensions, none of which have reached a definitive conclusion, and if they are close to final stages, the United States' leadership role in them is not very prominent, President Trump's action could only initiate new disputes and complicate the regional situation. Leaders of Arab countries, including the King of Jordan, whose country signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, warned about this matter before Trump's order, deeming it harmful and dangerous to the peace process. Jordan is a very important ally of the United States, and any chaos in Israel will inevitably spill over to its neighbor, Jordan, especially since the 1994 peace agreement with Israel grants rights concerning religious holy sites, and Jordan will not be able to remain silent in the face of public opinion pressure. Despite intelligence cooperation with Israel, Saudi Arabia has urged Trump to refrain from such an action. Egyptian President Sisi also recommended delaying this decision. The current situation in the Middle East – The Syrian crisis has not yet cooled down, and the parties involved have not even agreed on the generalities of a political and acceptable solution. The Gulf Cooperation Council has unexpectedly and suddenly collapsed, and Saudi Arabia's leadership in this council is facing a serious challenge. Long-standing relations between Qatar and some members of the Gulf Cooperation Council have broken down, and hostile relations exist between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Iran and Saudi Arabia's relations are in an explosive state, and the internal situation in Saudi Arabia, both domestically and in terms of continuing and managing the Yemen war, is even more uncertain. The friction between Israel and Syria, and indirectly between Syria and Iran, along with Saudi Arabia's friction with Lebanon and Hezbollah, and through Hezbollah with Iran, are like two sharp edges of a Damocles sword, unpredictably poised to act in the region. Meanwhile, the U.S. is engaged in a power balance war on the Korean Peninsula and creating balance in areas where Russia and China have more influence. Decision-makers in Tel Aviv and Washington may have concluded that only in such chaotic conditions can critical decisions be implemented, but this interpretation is flawed as it could be explosively dangerous. In fact, a significant factor has been overlooked: in a situation where U.S. allies in the Middle East are embroiled in internal and regional crises, if a new intifada begins between Palestinians and Israelis, one cannot count on the mediating and deterrent role of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, as they are themselves engaged in the game of hegemony and regional terrorism and will have fewer resources to control the Palestinian crisis. The White House may calculate that despite the dissenting voices from Cairo, Riyadh, or Oman, they will remain silent regarding the implementation of the plan to stabilize the capital in Jerusalem and the transfer of the U.S. embassy there; or they may even think that nearly 70 years of fruitless wars by the region's Arab leaders and even the Palestinians have exhausted them, and they are no longer willing to pay the price for it. These calculations are dangerous because the lack of timely responses from the political regimes in the region regarding Palestine could lead to a popular uprising against them, opening the way for extremist movements within society and terrorist groups. In practice, those groups act as disruptors of the status quo and will operate either through revolutionary action and solidarity with Palestinians or through a new form of terrorism. This latter form could emerge not only in Middle Eastern countries but also in Israel, the U.S., and Europe, posing new security threats. European and Christian world reactions – Jerusalem has thousands of years of history, and in the last two thousand years, two new prophets have emerged in the land where Moses was a prophet. Every part of the land of Jerusalem is sacred to the followers of all three religions: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and holy sites of all three religions exist there. Although followers of each religion do not live in equal numbers there, in this particular case, religious belief is more important than the believers and shapes the foundation of social behaviors. In addition to religious belief, the smallness of the land and the limited territories have made Jerusalem and all of Israel a highly valuable property that its owners are willing to protect with their blood and lives. Therefore, as a historical reality, it must be accepted that attempts to change ownership can easily lead to war and bloodshed. Before President Trump's speech, Pope Francis, the leader of Catholics worldwide and the Vatican, as the custodian of some Christian sites in Jerusalem, urged Donald Trump to maintain the sanctity of the current status of the city. The World Council of Churches in Geneva also made a similar request to the U.S. President. Michel Aoun, the Christian President of Lebanon; the Presidents of several European countries involved in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis, including Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, either directly or through statements, asked Donald Trump to refrain from such actions. Both British Prime Minister Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron expressed concern about the jeopardy of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations regarding reaching a final agreement. May emphasized that Jerusalem should be the shared capital of the two future states of Israel and Palestine. Supporters and opponents – Various Palestinian factions, such as the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, described the U.S. action as a declaration of war and an end to the U.S. role as a mediator in the peace process. This means that the U.S. has reduced its position to that of a supporter of one side against the other and has traded its credibility for this action. Following debates by Saad Hariri, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, regarding the necessity for Hezbollah to remain neutral in external matters of Lebanon, Hezbollah initially showed no reaction in disbelief. The parliamentary group of Hezbollah condemned the U.S. action on Thursday and deemed 'resistance' the only solution. China has also joined the critics of Trump's decision, and surprisingly, Russia, like Hezbollah, remained silent in the early hours. Palestinians considered Trump's decision the biggest mistake of his life and showed their first reaction by announcing three days of nationwide protests under the title 'Day of Rage.' One can only hope that during the three days announced for protests, the parties will exercise restraint and that the situation will not escalate from protests and expressions of dissent to bloodshed and conflict. Turkey's warning about severing relations with Israel and Qatar's statement calling the U.S. position 'a death sentence for peace seekers' is unprecedented in its own right. While Iran's reaction reflects the country's concern about 'provoking Muslims and igniting a new intifada and intensifying extremism' in the region, it also holds the U.S. and Israel responsible for it. Iran also views Israel's goal as 'replacing' Jews with Muslims to change the demographic makeup of the city of Jerusalem (Al-Quds) and believes that 'the entry of extremist Jews' into Al-Aqsa Mosque will lead to the destruction of Islamic holy sites and 'assault and desecration' of them. Naturally, Israel is the only country fully in favor of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transferring the U.S. embassy to this city. All official officials of the Likud Party and Prime Minister Netanyahu are extremely pleased with this event. Likud's opponents, while welcoming the stabilization of their capital, are cautiously critical of the timing of it. Some supporters of Trump's action consider it a timely blow against anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, Israeli media claim that Rodrigo Duterte, the President of the Philippines, and the Hungarian government are considering the possibility of moving their embassies to Jerusalem. It is not unlikely that some other countries may also make such a decision to gain concessions from President Trump or Israel, but certainly, until Trump's decision reaches the implementation stage, other countries will not rush into this. Trump's motivations – Many U.S. media have strongly criticized Trump's action, suggesting it could lead to chaos and disorder in the international arena and provoke terrorism in the Middle East. Critics argue that this action is completely contrary to U.S. objectives in the Middle East, which seeks to counter jihadist movements while also aiming to curb Iran's influence. Others recall the events a few months ago when, following the killing of an Israeli police officer, the Israeli government decided to use security control devices to inspect Palestinian visitors, which quickly led to Palestinian protests and ultimately forced the government to retreat. The roots of this decision can be traced to domestic politics. It seems that right-wingers, evangelical Christians, the influence of pro-Israel lobbyists and various circles, especially Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor on foreign policy, played a role in this decision-making. In any case, until the implementation of Trump's decision, one must await new stages of crisis in the Middle East. If a crisis begins, its scope will not remain limited to that region and could easily spiral out of control, but it is still too early to definitively confirm the occurrence or non-occurrence of conflicts. However, whatever happens, the next step in the seventy-year conflict between Palestine and Israel will be a decisive one.