Jerusalem — and the region — fractured

Shelley Walia
Professor Emeritus, Panjab University 

The declaration by Donald Trump to proclaim Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv has confounded the world leaders and left the political pundits speculating on why this was necessary. It is widely regarded as one of the egregious foreign policy debacles that is clearly designed to pander to his evangelical, hardline pro-Israeli base.  He has thrown a spanner, if not a bomb, in the Middle East peace process. The Hollywood movie Dumb and Dumber comes to mind with Trump definitely falling in the Dumber category. There was surely no compulsion at this point to recognise Israel's right to this hotly contested piece of real estate except to defy sound diplomacy and to pompously proclaim that he has delivered on his campaign promise. The obsessive hankering for domestic adulation has 'Trumped' sound foreign policy decisions.

Sentiments linked to Jerusalem

Jerusalem is uniquely qualified as a seat of both Islam and Judaism and has, thus, become associated with a nationalistic fervor, for Israel and Palestine alike. The sentiment and sensitivity runs dangerously high, given its central position in both religions. This ill-considered decision has provoked much anger worldwide and most so in the Arab world, except for the jubilation of the Israelis on the victory of their uncompromising religious nationalism which now dominates Israeli politics.

The ground reality that needs to be recognised and implemented is that this is an international city, crucially significant to Christians, Jews and Muslims. Arabs constitute more than a third of the population and have lived alongside Jews since antiquity. Each should be given a part in its governance. It is complex and vexing to put this policy in place but anything otherwise will be more catastrophic. 

US move unwise

If a peace process is being discussed then the future of this city should be a part of the negotiation. Unfortunately, Trump has unwisely preempted that action by taking Jerusalem out of the equation in opposition to the Oslo Accord. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has rightly pointed out that any "unilateral measures" would undermine anymove towards a rapprochement. "In this moment of great anxiety, I want to make it clear: there is no alternative to the two-state solution," Guterres asserted. "There is no Plan B." 

The argument of establishing who was there first is a slippery slope and one that the US would be wise to not tread on. Instead of piecemeal politically expedient solutions, if President Trump is indeed that magical self-proclaimed deal-maker, he should articulate a policy towards the West Asia that's prudent and fair, work at a two-state outcome, demand that Israel immediately cease its expansion of the Jewish settlements in West Bank and recognise that both Palestine and Israel have an equal right to Jerusalem. Thus, it should belong to both. By his action, Trump has jeopardised the global campaign for a solution supported by the leadership of the three Abrahamic faiths. It is the final demise of the Arabs' faith in the American efforts. Washington is out of the game, leaving an Israel bolstered, in the words of  Ir Amim, an advocacy group in Jerusalem, in "pushing for legislation that would redraw the city's boundaries and reshape its demographic balance, with the intention of making a two-state solution impossible."

Towards a lasting solution

However, it's advisable to not just castigate Israel but also persuade Hamas to be cognisant of the violence it perpetrates with thousands of innocent lives lost on both sides. A well-intentioned effort towards a lasting solution through confidence-building measures will instill some hope for a peace agreement at this crucial juncture. No one is naive to think that an amicable agreement on Jerusalem would signal the much-awaited peace in the region, but it could be the beginning of the settlement to initiate the good faith dialogue. In other words, Jerusalem is part of the inclusive solution and it is difficult to agree with Trump's rhetoric: "We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians." The expediency of political interests has outrun the two-nation theory. There is a new axis of evil developing in the region, with Israel, the US and Sunni Saudi Arabia, strange bedfellows, but all equally intolerant of the alleged belligerence of a nuclear Iran. The sudden love for Israel is an indicator of the rancour with Iran. Israel is the strongest and most strategic US ally in that theatre and this move has solidified that alliance.

Undoubtedly, the design of moving the US Embassy to the West Jerusalem and then building another embassy on the eastern side in recognition of the new state of Palestine should have, in all diplomatic propriety, come after the two-nation solution had been implemented amicably. By predating this move, Trump has not only unsettled the peace process in one blow, but also provoked the wrath of many stakeholders, thereby compromising the very stability of the region and undermining his closest allies, and as Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian political activist, responds, " He has given all extremists and nuts all over the world who are ready to commit acts of violence a perfect excuse because he has provoked spiritual sentiments and religious feelings to the point where we don't know how far the ramifications will go." The third intifada looms large on the horizon and prospects for a lasting peace deal appear ever more distant. 

Claims of Jews, Arabs, Christians

The Jews claim that they descend from the Israelites and Maccabees, while the Islamic discourse suggests that modern Palestinians descend from different inhabitants of the region. Politicisation of the histories reinforces their claim. Although the Quran does not mention the name "Jerusalem", the hadith claims that Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Christian settlers carried out renovations of the shrines pertaining to the life of Christ, architecturally altering many like the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosques on the Temple Mount to assert the authority of the Roman church. Asking the Arabs to accept this holy city in which they have lived for thousands of years as the capital of the usurper is as if asking Jews that they would be restricted from praying at the Western Wall or visiting the Temple at the Mount. Both positions are untenable.