peacefare.net

Next year in Jerusalem?

A SETA Foundation panel on Tuesday discussed the impact of the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. The SETA Foundation’s Kilic B. Kanat moderated a panel comprised of Geoffrey Aronson (The Mortons Group), Lara Friedman (Foundation for Middle East Peace), Ghaith al-Omari (Washington Institute), and Kadir Ustun (SETA Foundation) to analyze this historic development and its impact on the Middle East.

Aronson connected the embassy move to the Balfour Declaration. In both cases, the world’s pre-eminent power of the time lined up behind the Jews. It also acknowledges reality: in the case of the Balfour Declaration, it was the staying power of the Zionist movement and in the case of the embassy move, the staying power of the settlements. Both the declaration and the embassy move claimed it would not offend other parties, yet this has been shown to be untrue. Aronson believes that, at least in theory, Israel could pay a price later for the embassy move. However, at the moment, Arab leaders see the costs and benefits of not obstructing the embassy move as acceptable for the sake of focusing on Iran. The reality is Arab states are at one of their weakest points in history with few assets to bring to the diplomatic table. Arab states are forced to accept these shifts.

Friedman believes the embassy move confirms the end of the Oslo Era and that we must take Trump at his word. His policies may be reckless, but they are in fact coherent. Trump’s advisors see US and Israeli interests as identical. With Jerusalem off the table, chaos has been injected to reframe the concept of Middle East peace and stability based on a US-Israeli version. Expect Kushner’s plan to be utterly unacceptable to Palestinians and to lay out new US positions on permanent status issues. With Israel’s religious right emboldened, there will be real or perceived threat to sacred space in Jerusalem. This will lead to instability and force Arab leaders and people to take action.

Al-Omari focused on how, at an official level, the embassy move has forced Arab leaders to take hardline stances and limit their diplomatic maneuvering. Although the Palestine issue has become dormant among many Arab publics, no Arab leader wants to cast aside the issue for fear it could re-emerge. The move also shows limits to the anti-Iran coalition, the unspoken alliance between the US, Israel, and several Arab states about confronting Iran. Some lines, like the Jerusalem issue, cannot be crossed. If the Arab states try and cross that line, the Palestinians, with a strong sense of nationhood, will call them out and force them to focus on the issue.

Ustun took a different approach from Al-Omari. He argues that the unspoken anti-Iran alliance is a strong regional dynamic and Arab states are in practice more focused on confronting Iran as opposed to Israel-Palestine issues. Any statements or public lines they take on recent Palestine developments are therefore hollow and meaningless. Countries outside this anti-Iran grouping are putting more serious effort into the Israel-Palestine issue and the issue matters more in countries with some type of electoral process (like Turkey) than countries without one (like Saudi Arabia). In the long-term, Ustun believes lack of attention on this issue could undermine the legitimacy of the states that do not focus on it.

The US decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem has negated its ability to act as an honest, objective peace-broker. It is up to other countries such as European ones to continue the push for a negotiated, acceptable two-state solution and to continue to uphold international law, organizations, and norms. American Jews, led by increasingly vocal and progressive youth, are troubled by Trump’s stances and actions on the Israel-Palestine issue, especially in context of his other reckless decisions. It remains to be seen how the increasing anger of the American Jewish community can be used to promote positive change.