US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on December 6 surprised the international community and triggered the wrath of Palestinians and many Arab states.
We do no have an absolute explanation at the moment why the president acted in this way, overthrowing traditional US policy and the international consensus on this issue, but at first sight it seems that internal calculations prevailed over other variables.
In any case, it has to be taken into account that there was a decision by the US Congress back in 1995 (the Jerusalem Embassy Act) requiring that the US Embassy to be transferred from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, that act has not been implemented, since all US presidents have used the deviation clause – a provision that allows them to postpone the decision – noting that the Jerusalem issue must be resolved in the context of a final negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.
But why has Trump broken this consensus?
The special US-Israeli relationship
Before attempting to answer this question, we must focus on US-Israeli relations. Since the end of World War II, Israel has enjoyed a special relationship with the United States. Specifically, after the Six Day War in June 1967, Israel became for the US a “strategic asset” in the region, while Arab states such as Egypt and Syria were allied with Russia.
It is worth mentioning that Israel is the largest recipient of US aid in the world, amounting to US$3 billion every year. In addition, the US provides the Jewish state with unprecedented diplomatic support and billions of dollars’ worth of armaments. I would call this relationship the external variable.
Turning to history, the United States in 1947 supported the plan to partition Palestine, an unfair decision in violation of international law, and in particular the law of self-determination of the majority Palestinian nationality.
Specifically, at the end of the First World War in Palestine there were only 65,000 Jews among a total of 700,000 Arabs. In addition, despite the steady flow of Jewish settlers to Palestine in 1948 among a total of about 2 million Arabs, only one-third of the population were Jews, according to Malcolm Yapp in The Near East from the First World War: A History to 1995.
It must be said here that the Soviet Union also supported United Nations Resolution 181 because it wanted to eliminate the British influence in the region. Many Jewish settlers came from the Soviet Union and its satellite countries.
Let’s move to the so-called internal variable.
Internal variable in US-Israel relationship
It is well known that millions of Jews who live in the United States maintain important government positions, and they have remarkable economic influence. In order to demonstrate how important their presence is for domestic politics we may recall that in 1947, US president Harry Truman supported the Palestine partition plan because he wanted to secure Jewish support in the crucial mid-term congressional elections in November 1946.
Afterward, Jewish presence in the United States, especially in the northern states, forced Truman to recognize de facto the Jewish state because he wanted to safeguard their electoral influence in the presidential election 1948. When one of his foreign-policy advisers told him that doing so would affect US relations with the Arabs, Truman replied, “Unlike the American Jews, I do not have thousands of Arabs among my voters.”
The question raised here is whether Trump recognized Jerusalem because of internal calculations. Of course, there is a secondary question: Why did the previous presidents vote against this by using the deviation clause? It does not seem that Trump made this decision solely because of pressure from the Jewish lobby.
Additionally, we must note that in July 2016, the Republican Party approved a declaration in which there was no reference to a “two state” solution, overturning decades of tradition. That decision was welcomed and adopted by President Trump in February 2017.
What we should emphasize, however, is that the so-called evangelical or religious right, from which Trump drew many votes in the 2016 election, has long been in favor of Israeli interests. It should be noted that US Vice-President Mike Pence is a champion of these positions.
Evangelical Christians or Zionist Christians believe that unwavering support for the Jewish state and its decisions is a biblical imperative, regardless of Jewish refusal to accept the Christian faith. At the same time, they are ardent supporters of illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas. The paradox of the whole situation is that there are many anti-Semites among the Christian right. However, some of them support Israel for geopolitical reasons.
Jerusalem and the rational model
From any angle, Trump’s decision appears misguided and irrational and does not promote US national interests. From a narrow international perspective, it violates international law, as well as the international consensus reached in 1966 when it was decided that the final status of Jerusalem would result from a viable and comprehensive peace agreement between the parties.
Trump’s decision violates the so-called “rational choice” model, which teaches us that states base decisions on a cost-benefit analysis, that is, they are prevented from taking any action that could potentially harm their national interests.
Is Trump’s decision compatible with US national interests? According to our humble opinion, it is not. Specifically:
- It creates the conditions for greater tension and instability in the region.
- It casts doubt among the Palestinians as to whether the US is an honest mediator and undermines the resumption of the peace process that Trump’s son-in-law is supposed to restart.
- The decision insults the religious feelings of all Muslims, leading logically to a “clash of civilizations.”
- It creates the conditions for the resurgence of religious terrorism.
- Finally, Trump’s decision isolates the United States in the international community by demonstrating that the government of the strongest country in the world is prejudiced against one party to the conflict. In other words, Trump and his advisers do not seem to realize that America’s greatest strength is not the example of its power but the power of its example.
Some historical and demographic data
At this point we will briefly refer to some historical facts about Jerusalem. Israel’s political sovereignty is derived from Resolution 181 of 1947, whereby Palestine was divided into a Jewish and an Arab state. Jerusalem would be placed under an international regime, and therefore neither of the two newly born states would place it under sovereignty.
When the UN plan was rejected by the Arab side, conflict erupted between the Palestinians and Israelis, and subsequently the first Arab-Israeli War in May 1948.
The end of the war found Israel occupying West Jerusalem, and Jordan the east side. During the second Arab-Israeli War in June 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and then annexed it. In 1980 it proclaimed Jerusalem as the “complete and united capital of Israel,” an act deemed illegal by the international community and in particular by UN Security Council Resolution 478.
Jerusalem is considered to be of great religious significance for both Arabs and Jews. The Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state, consider Jerusalem the third most holy city for Islam after Mecca and Medina. They believe that the Prophet Muhammad was taken to heaven by Burak, a winged horse, on the “night journey” of Muslim tradition. The Israelis believe that the foundations of the temple of Solomon are there. Jerusalem symbolizes for them vindication after a prolonged period of hardship and exile.
In essence, Trump’s decision recognizes Jewish occupation of the city in violation of UN resolutions, which, like the Oslo Accord, provide that Jerusalem’s status will be clarified after negotiations between the two sides.
We must mention that in East Jerusalem reside 250,000 Palestinians and 200,000 Jewish settlers, while the West is purely Jewish. Also, one must take into account that apart from the city of Jerusalem there is also “Greater Jerusalem,” where Israel has established big settlements.
Further, we need to highlight another parameter. In 1967, when the second Arab-Israeli war broke out, 85% of the land of Jerusalem belonged to Palestinians, while today the proportion i only 13%. In addition, while the Israelis accounted for 10% of the population in 1967, now they make up 45%.
Saudi-Iranian rivalry
We may come back to our primary question of why the US president has made this controversial decision. In addition to the domestic reasons we have already set out in the article, apparently Trump had in mind that the confrontation of Shiite Iran with Saudi Arabia would act as a catalyst for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
How is this going to happen? Probably Trump wrongly believed that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, embroiled in security competition with Tehran, would accept the Jewish position for Jerusalem in exchange for US aid to neutralize or weaken their Iranian rival. In other words, Trump sought in this way to exterminate the weak part of the conflict, the Palestinians in order to change the dynamic of the conflict by imposing already existing realities, thus the Jewish occupation of East Jerusalem.
Of course, what he succeeded in doing is quite the opposite, and possibly the Iranians could gain from this move, once again appearing as defenders of the Palestinians. But also the resurgence of a protracted conflict helps no one, since it affects the prospects of resolving the problem on the basis of a “two states solution,” the only realistic way, in our opinion, to solve the problem.
Nick Panayiotides I suppose there is no point in waiting for any further response.
Shame.
Nick Panayiotides I guess you are travelling again.
Nick Panayiotides Second Part:
10) “in violation of international law “
YOU SAY THE WORDS!! NOW BACK THEM UP WITH FACT!!! Provide a link to this “international law” that you allege was violated. I maintain that you ignore my challenges because you CANNOT FACTUALLY support your OPINIONS. I have no problem with your expressing opinions, that you clearly identify as such. But when you suggest that your opinion is actually FACT, I will protest.
11) As you said: “Article 77 (1) provided that the League mandate system should be placed under the UN trust sheep system by means of an agreement between the mandatory power and the UN General Assembly….”.
Then, you MISSTATE: “article 80 (1) of the UN Charter made it clear that the terms of these Mandates remained in effect pending their placement under the UN trusteeship system”
No!
Article 80
. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and UNTIL SUCH AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
And as you correctly noted: “….British government never concluded the agreement”.
So:
“ Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19896
11) “In sum, the principle of Self-Determination was violated in Palestine. “
There is NOTHING in the Covenant of the League of Nations that would identify the Arabs of the lapsed Ottoman Empire as “peoples” or “communities”. The Arabs of the Mandate for Syria, or the Mandate for Mesopotamia were similarly lumped together, and then artificially divided into countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Kuwait. The Arabs of the original Mandate for Palestine were given their “self-determination” in Trans-Jordan. The remaining 20% of the Mandate for Palestine was left for the self-determination” of the Jewish People, a truly distinct, indigenous community.
12) “The TWO STATE SOLUTION Biil Billek will provide this.”
I appreciate that this is your opinion, shared by many in the “international community”.
For my part, I maintain that the Arabs of historic Palestine already have their one state. They have repeatedly been offered and repeatedly rejected a SECOND state in the remaining 20% of historic Palestine. As is clear from the people and their leadership, as recently as Abbas’ speech last week; as is clear from the experience of a Jewish- free Gaza since 2005, they still reject any suggestion of any national rights of the Jewish People in any part of their ancestral homeland.
PLEASE! I urge you. Go back and take each of my points and refute them based on FACTS. (I am fully cognizant that facts can be interpreted in different ways, especially in the field of international law. That is why God made lawyers.) I am open and ready to be convinced that the Arabs of mandatory Palestine have LEGAL rights to another state; and that creating such a state under conditions which you will hopefully outline in your response, will finally resolve the issue.
I will wait.
Nick Panayiotides First part:
As in all my responses to you (and others), I try to take your exact words, show why I disagree based on fact, and pose a question.
YOU NEVER WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, but prefer to spin, and pivot to some other issue.
1) “Jordan is another state do not forget this! Do not disorientate!”
No “disorientation”. Just statement of FACT that (Trans)Jordan was carved out of the original Mandate for Palestine (the original mandate being proposed in 1920 as the place for the re-establishment of the “national home for the Jewish People”). Instead, at least partially in response to Arab violence of the 1920-21 riots, in an effort to placate them, they were given 80% of the territory of the original Mandate. The same “Palestinian people” that you identify as such today populate the state of Jordan, as a 75%-80% majority – ergo a “Palestinian state” in all but name.
2)” Abbas comments came amid Trump’s – and his advisors- unwise decision. It should be seen i the context of legal defense”
If “legal defense” includes anti-semitism…
““I don’t want to discuss religion or history because they are really excellent in faking and counterfeiting history and religion. But if we read the Torah it says that the Canaanites were there before the time of our prophet Abraham and their [Canaanite] existence continued since that time, this is in the Torah itself. But if they would like to fake this history, they are really masters in this and it is mentioned in the holy Quran they fabricate truth and they try to do that and they believe in that but we have been there in this location for thousands of years.””
http://www.israellycool.com/2017/12/13/watch-mahmoud-abbas-vile-must-watch-mahmoud-abbas-vile-antisemitism-and-historical-negationism/
3) “Very few decisions in International Politics come under chapter VII of the Chapter”
Correct. Because, hoping to learn from the failure of the League of Nations, the founders of the UN decided to greatly limit the LEGAL force of the UN, in favor of “consensus” and “international opinion”. (Hasn’t worked out that well, has it?) Nevertheless, the FACT remains that the overwhelming majority of UN resolutions as a result, are simply expressions of opinion and recommendations which have no force in law (other than “peer pressure”) and are NOT legally binding. You may not like it, but that is a FACT.
4) “4) I recommend you read again vey carefully my article!” I have, many times.
And I recommend that you read ALL my point-by-point responses, and provide your own FACTUAL refutations specifically, and to the point, and avoid what you do best – dissembling.
5)” What i must underline though is that the majority of Democratic States agree with my opinion-that there is occupation- there and violation of basic human rights. So this is enough for me!”
“The majority of democratic states” averted their eyes to the Holocaust; to the desecration of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem in 1949; to the slaughter in Rwanda, genocide of the Armenians, etc., etc.
No! “Opinion” is not “enough for me”.
6) “ paragraph 4 of article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant recognized the people of Palestine as “provisionally independent nation”.”
Absolutely NOT!
The exact wording, as you correctly quote:
“Certain COMMUNITIES formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations….”
The Jewish People were just such a community. And it is THAT community that was referenced in the Mandate for Palestine 1922, as the ONLY community to be afforded national and political rights in Mandatory Palestine, with social and religious rights (but specifically NOT “political or national rights” )for the “non-Jewish communities”.
7) “One can easily detect that this particular phraseology went further “
You can “detect” what you like, (once again, that is your OPINION) but the words say what the words say. Remember, “Scripta manent, verba volent”.
8) “They were the indigenous inhabitants of the country “
There was never any Arab “country”, and the definition of “indigenous” is as follows:
“originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.”
there were the Jewish People, indigenous to the land for the last 4000 years long before there were any Arabs there; (unless you can provide factual support for the claim that the Arabs there today were originally the now-extinct Philistines and Jebusites).
9) “fulfilling the provision of “ Balfour Declaration of 1917””
Please cut and paste the part of the Balfour Declaration that you allege says anything about, or “provides for” “immigration”.