TO: United States Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson
FROM: Kristen Fontaine
DATE: 2 March 2018
SUBJECT: Recognition of Jerusalem as
Capital of Israel
SUMMARY:
President Trump’s public recognition of Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel on December 6, 2017 was a diplomatic mistake. Trump
should have continued in the footsteps of his predecessors in waiving the
Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. However, now that he has publically announced
his position, he should rescind his declaration and work towards diplomatic
negotiations between Israel and Palestine.
CONTEXT:
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, largely pushed
by the growing Pro-Israel Lobby, called for the United States Embassy of Israel
to be moved to Jerusalem by 1999 and for Jerusalem to be an undivided city. The
Act, however, allowed for the President to sign a six-month waiver of action
and to renew the waiver every six-months based on “national security concerns.”
The six-month waiver was repeatedly utilized by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and
Obama throughout the entirety of their terms. On December 6, 2017, President
Trump defied the tradition of his predecessors and publically recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel and called for the United States Embassy to be moved
there, despite the continued lack of peace in the city between Israel and
Palestine. Trump later signed the waiver under the Act again, but has
instructed the State department to begin preparations. Although the decision
clearly garnered support from Pro-Israel lobbying groups, it also sparked a
series of protests in the region and denunciation from American allies in the
UN.
ALTERNATIVE:
Although President Trump has already publically
recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, he still has the option to
rescind his recognition and side with our UN allies on the issue. Instead of
pushing preparations for moving the US Embassy of Israel to Jerusalem, the
Trump Administration should continue to sign the Act Waiver and keep the
Embassy in Tel Aviv. The United States should work with the UN to promote multilateral
negotiation between Palestine and Israel to promote peace and unity in the city
of Jerusalem before any outside actions are made.
MAIN
ARGUMENT: Ultimately President Trump’s decision
to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US Embassy from
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has more negative consequences than it does positive. Clearly,
Palestine is severely alienated by the decision, and is now going to be opposed
to any potential peace negotiations for a period of time, specifically if the
United States is involved. President Trump declaring America’s position in the
situation automatically discounts us from any neutrality in future multilateral
diplomacy between the two countries. It is also clear that President Trump’s
decision was driven by the Pro-Israel lobby and to appease his support base in
Evangelical Christians. Ironically, however, the decision was extremely
unpopular with the American Jewish community. In a 2017 survey conducted by the
American Jewish Committee showed that only 16% of the American Jewish community
supported the Embassy’s move to Jerusalem, whereas 44% completely opposed the
embassy’s move and 36% supported moving the embassy “at a later date in
conjunction with progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks” (AJC 2017). As
the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated in response to President Trump’s
declaration, “It is only by realizing the vision of two states living
side-by-side in peace, security and mutual recognition, with Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel and Palestine, and all final status issues resolved
permanently through negotiations, that the legitimate aspirations of both
peoples will be achieved.” Although President Trump’s foreign policy expounds a
theme of “America First,” this decision has little advantages for the United
States and only intervenes in what should be a bilateral decision between
Palestine and Israel.
CONCLUSION:
Overall, President Trump should rescind his
recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, and should not move
forward this preparations to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem. The decision is unnecessary intervention, defies the stances of our
allies in the UN, and has resulted in less of a chance for peaceful
negotiations to take place between the two nations.
Although I do agree that President Trump's actions to move the Israeli Embassy to Jerusalem was a very risky decision to make, I am curious if there is any strategy behind it.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the entirety of his short tenure in office Trump has made it abundantly clear that he is willing to go to extreme lengths to counteract any form of terrorist activity. By moving the embassy to Jerusalem, could the United States potentially use this as a bargaining chip with Palestine? Palestine may not be one of the biggest terrorist threats facing the US, but they do have many terrorist organizations within their borders. By moving the embassy, the United States could promise to move it back to Tel Aviv if the Palestinians are willing to crack down on the terrorist activity within their borders.
Although Trump has been known to act irrationally and without thought during his campaign and presidency, he is still a business man. Being a business man means that he will not take a risk that does not have the chance of a serious reward. This could be a very well thought out decision, or it may not. I think it would be interesting to look into possible motivations that Trump has for moving it.
I have to wonder whether President Trump has been all that different in terms of his rhetoric and meaning when it comes to this. If you go back and look at every single President from Clinton through Obama, they have all said that it is their desire and that they intend to move the embassy. I disagree with all four of them, but is President Trump not just fulfilling a promise that the previous President's only gave lip service to?
ReplyDeleteOn top of this, I do have to agree that it is a grave mistake because of the situation that currently exists in the Middle East. Stability does not exist, and at a time when Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are either closing in on breaking points or are there already, why inflame tensions? Given that since Syria is becoming an issue that has been solved by Iranian and Russian intervention, many in the intelligence community believe that the next step could be a move towards Israel, and this action does nothing but make that more likely.
I think an important question here is not necessarily President Trump and his specific action, but rather the broader scheme of American foreign policy on this issue. We tend to have a blind eye for all that Israel does, and we reward them for whatever they may do. We defend and go with whatever they want despite what the ramifications may be.
I have to wonder whether President Trump has been all that different in terms of his rhetoric and meaning when it comes to this. If you go back and look at every single President from Clinton through Obama, they have all said that it is their desire and that they intend to move the embassy. I disagree with all four of them, but is President Trump not just fulfilling a promise that the previous President's only gave lip service to?
ReplyDeleteOn top of this, I do have to agree that it is a grave mistake because of the situation that currently exists in the Middle East. Stability does not exist, and at a time when Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are either closing in on breaking points or are there already, why inflame tensions? Given that since Syria is becoming an issue that has been solved by Iranian and Russian intervention, many in the intelligence community believe that the next step could be a move towards Israel, and this action does nothing but make that more likely.
I think an important question here is not necessarily President Trump and his specific action, but rather the broader scheme of American foreign policy on this issue. We tend to have a blind eye for all that Israel does, and we reward them for whatever they may do. We defend and go with whatever they want despite what the ramifications may be.