All the adverse
criticism centred on the assumption that Trump had denied Palestinian claims
to Jerusalem, in whole or in part, as the capital of a future state of
Palestine. Is this borne out by what he
said, or indeed intends?
It seems clear that he came into office
determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past. “We cannot solve our problems by making the
same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies,” he said. So
he set up a team charged with looking at the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with
fresh eyes, and with seeking a new approach to solving it.
The
peace team, led by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, set about their task. Meanwhile Trump himself looked at the issue
of Jerusalem.
It was as far
back as 1995 that Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the
federal government to recognize that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and to relocate
the American embassy to that city. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming
bipartisan majority. Yet for over 20 years, every previous American president had
exercised the law's waiver and refused to move the US embassy.
Presidents issued
these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would
advance the cause of peace. But, said
Trump, “the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no
closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It
would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now
produce a different or better result. Therefore, I have determined that it is
time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”
“Those questions,”
he said, “are up to the parties involved. The United States remains deeply
committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both
sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement.”
In short, while
extending US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he left wide open
the possibility of a later recognition of the whole city, or some agreed
portion, as the capital of a sovereign Palestine. It is this vital aspect of Trump’s statement
that has been deliberately overlooked, and is never referred to by those
unwilling to compromise, or who, against every sort of evidence, maintain that
the Jewish people have no historic connection to the Holy Land.
The rejectionists
also close their eyes to the obvious illogicality of maintaining that East
Jerusalem, along with the West Bank. is occupied Palestinian territory, while
denying that West Jerusalem must, therefore, be part of sovereign Israel.
In making his
announcement, Trump emphasised to his global audience: “This decision is not
intended in any way to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to
facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal
for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians.”
Jared Kushner and
his team have been beavering away for nearly two years, building a new peace
deal brick by painstaking brick. They
have announced that it is virtually complete, and are ready to unveil it when
the time seems opportune. Yet without
seeing the deal, or knowing anything of its details, Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas has denounced it as “a slap in the face”, and declared
that he would not participate in any peace effort initiated by the US because
of Trump’s Jerusalem declaration. He ignores
Trump’s insistence that the US has taken no position on the extent of Israeli
sovereignty in the city or the resolution of contested borders.
In short, this is
rejection for rejection’s sake. Taking
Trump’s words at their face value, there is no reason why – to posit one
possibility among many others − a peace deal involving a two-state solution
could not be brokered, with an agreed contiguous state in the West Bank
achieved by mutually agreed land swaps, and also in due course a link to Gaza.
Either the whole of Jerusalem could be a shared capital with Israel, or a
Palestinian capital could be created from a new Al Quds municipality comprising
East Jerusalem and its outlying Arab neighbourhoods.
All that is
needed is a will for peace, and a clear-eyed view of the possibilities on
offer.
Published in the Eurasia Review, 23 July 2018:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/23072018-what-trump-actually-said-about-jerusalem-oped/
Published in the MPC Journal, 24 July 2018:
http://mpc-journal.org/blog/2018/07/24/what-trump-actually-said-about-jerusalem/
No comments:
Post a Comment