Some thoughts on President Trump’s historic (yes, it is) declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel:
1) Some commentators minimize its importance. There seem to be two kinds of minimizers: friendly and unfriendly. Friendly minimizers say things like “the reality is that it’s our capital and nothing anyone can say can change that. So Trump’s declaration doesn’t matter.” The unfriendly ones say “Trump is biased and an Islamophobe, who cares what he says?”
Both of these positions are wrong. To the friendly ones, I say that appearance may not be reality, but it helps create it, especially in politics. Our enemies know this well, which is why they aggressively promulgate ridiculous lies, like insisting that there is no Jewish connection to Jerusalem, that there was no Temple there, or that Palestinian Arabs are descended from Canaanites. Truth is truth, but a curtain of lies can obscure it, and after a while nobody knows the difference.
Trump can’t make Jerusalem our capital – only the people of Israel can do that. But a declaration by the president of what is still the most powerful and richest country in the world carries weight. His statement represents a crack in the truly antisemitic double standard that has been applied to Israel with respect to Jerusalem since 1948.
To our enemies, I say that if it is so unimportant, why are you so upset? Why are Palestinian Arabs rioting and trying to kill Jews with firebombs and rocks, why are we being bombarded with rockets from Gaza, why are Europeans denouncing it in the UN Security Council, and why is the Turkish president mounting a major diplomatic offensive to reverse it? Why is there an outbreak of Jew-hatred all over the world? If it doesn’t mean anything, why don’t you just ignore it?
Perhaps calling it the “Trump Declaration” is a bit much. But compare it to the Balfour Declaration. Although it was ultimately embodied in international law, the Balfour Declaration itself was nothing more than a statement of the opinion of a majority of the British Cabinet. Yet both friends and enemies of the Jewish state understood, then and now, its significance.
Since 1948, the international community has held that Jerusalem is too important to be placed in the hands of the Jews it despised, even though only the Jews have ever made the holy places of the three religions accessible to everyone. The Muslims would like to control it for their benefit alone, as was demonstrated during the 19-year Jordanian occupation, marked by triumphalist destruction of Jewish sites.
The post-Christian descendants of barbarian tribes (i.e., the Europeans) seem to think their moral superiority entitles them to rule over the holy city, whose spiritual power even they admit. But their violent opposition to Trump’s quite moderate declaration illustrates that the rational, social-democratic façade covering their atavistic Jew-hatred is thinner than we thought.
2) The US State Department seems to take the partly-friendly position that “it reflects reality, but there are no practical consequences.” So they have announced that there will be no changes to consular procedures. People born in Jerusalem will continue to have only “Jerusalem” rather than “Jerusalem, Israel” on their passports. The desire to not change anything seems to have led them to the absurd position that they can say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but they cannot admit that the city is in Israel (because then they might have to put it on a passport).
I expect that the State Department will fight tooth and nail to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv. They will try to wait Trump out. Maybe he will only serve one term, they think. He has given them a chance to do the right thing by signing the waiver, in order to let them do what they need to do without time pressure. But if he feels they are not acting in good faith, all he has to do is let the 6-month deadline pass.
3) Both Trump and the State Department stress that while Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, they do not wish to say precisely what Jerusalem is.
In Trump’s words,
We are not taking a position of any final status issues including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.
For good measure, he added that the status quo at the Temple Mount (which he also referred to as haram al-sharif) should be maintained.
Israel welcomed Trump’s statement, despite the caveat. Even though it implicitly contradicted Israel’s official position that it is sovereign in all of Jerusalem, most Israelis, except the Arabs and the most extreme Jewish parties, applauded.
In April, the Russian Foreign Ministry made a statement similar to Trump’s, except that it distinguished between East and West Jerusalem, presumably according to the 1949 armistice line (the “Green Line”):
We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
But after Trump’s speech, the Ministry announced that it was “seriously concerned.” Since, logically speaking, Trump’s declaration said less than its own statement in April (the Russian statement specified boundaries of sovereignty and Trump’s did not) one wonders what the Russians are “concerned” about.
The Palestinians are also inconsistent. The official Palestinian negotiating position (according to a PA statement of 2006) on Jerusalem is that “East Jerusalem” is occupied territory which should be under Palestinian sovereignty. “West Jerusalem,” according to them, is subject to final status negotiations. This is contradicted by the Russian statement, which unequivocally gives West Jerusalem to Israel, while Trump’s statement is consistent with it! Nevertheless, the Palestinians did not riot in April, nor did the Europeans have fits.
“Trump just destroyed the possibility of two states,” said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, moments after Trump’s speech. I admit that I am totally at a loss to see how he did that. Maybe someone can explain this to me.
I can’t come to any other conclusion than that much of the reaction is a form of “Trump derangement syndrome.” Trump bent over backwards to make a carefully calibrated, moderate statement that would not prejudge negotiations while still recognizing reality. And yet, the Russians, the Palestinians and Muslim states, and the Europeans (not to mention the Democrats and the Union for Reform Judaism in the US) found it unacceptable.
The problem, apparently, is not what was said but who said it.
Here’s the one state solution supported by Congress in 1922:
Read the fascinating floor discussion from the entire congressional record, pages 71-92.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1922-pt10-v62/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1922-pt10-v62.pdf
During consideration of the resolution on the House floor, Rep. Walter Chandler-R-NY, delivered a lengthy and riveting speech summing up the purpose and background of the resolution. His speech makes it clear that the intent was to
always have one state controlled by Jews, that it was universally understood the Jewish government would be better for all sides in terms of democratic values, and that a few jihadist agitators were seeking to undermine the agreement. He also predicted that Jerusalem would be the seat of the Jewish government. His words
were quite prophetic and ominous. Chandler directly addressed the smattering of Arabs living in the area as follows:
1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be
required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which
has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction
of the countries of the east.
3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under the
conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to
retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.
This makes it clear that nobody ever intended to establish any other entity
governing the area. Chandler prophetically noted that “the Arabs in Palestine
should be and would be happy and content under the present government of
that country if it were not for the Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around
over the land stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the
true character of the Zionist movement.”
And that is exactly what happened for the next 95 years – the Arab agitators waged
jihad and every modern American president has cowered in the face of jihad. The
entire purpose of the agreement on Palestine was to give the land only to the
entity that would protect the holy sites and civil rights, yet global elitists here and
abroad rewarded Arabs for violating the agreement. Of course, they continue to
pull the jihad/intifada card, because it works. Violence, does pay and did pay
off for the jihadists. Commensurate with every threat of violence was a demand
that Jews pay tribute in the form of blood or surrender.
After 95 years, Trump has righted a wrong and restored the original intent of a
unanimous body of Congress in 1922. Looking ahead, it’s essential that Trump
surround himself with those who share his views and that he not back down in
the face of the century-old Arab tactic of threatening and committing violence.
Strongly agree with you about the The State Department. They will be in slowest motion/gear in accomplishing all the tasks required for the embassy move. Trump should demand detailed monthly reports to ensure they kick it into high gear.
He must hold their feet to the fire and not delegate the oversight, as he has only
anti-Semites on his team. McMaster, Tillerson & Mattis along with the entirety of
the State Dept. If he fixes his major personnel problems, it’s within his grasp to be a truly transformational president.
At last, this should be the first step in abandoning the entire death wish of
having jihadists govern Judea and Samaria, and instead fulfill the original
Mandate for Palestine, which is in alignment with international law; even
though he’s one of the only atty’s. smart enough to either understand that or
the only one brave enough in the US to repeatedly speak the truth – Eugene
Kontorovich.
When he testified last month in Congress about moving the US Embassy, he
observed that Palestinian Arabs and others couch their objections in terms of
the dire violence that would result. And, observed the professor, “predictably
they continue to make these threats because they see that the tactic works –
waiving the law because of threats of violence actually perpetuates further violence.”
It seems to me that the statement is extremely important. You have indicated many of the reasons for this. As you said it exposes the mendacity that has accompanied the issue and reached its abysmal low in the effort to deny the Jewish people all historical connection with Jerusalem.
It would have been of course preferable if a President universally admired had made the declaration instead of one so controversial. But the truth is in making it Trump revealed himself to be a leader of courage, and a keeper of a most difficult promise. For this he certainly deserves the deep gratitude of the Jewish people and the people of Israel.