Recently
there has been a controversy when State Department spokespeople refused
to say
what they thought to be Israel’s capital. To understand this issue we
need to understand that there are two different issues involved: that of
1947 and that of 1967.
I’m
not going to discuss ancient history, religious factors, and the merits
of varying claims here but will merely point out some simple facts of
practical diplomacy.
The
U.S. embassy, like others, is located in Tel Aviv. When diplomats need
to meet with Israeli officials they pile into their vans and drive up to
Jerusalem. There are also restrictions on just where these diplomats
can go and under what conditions, to avoid any implication that they
recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights or east Jerusalem.
Presidents
have repeatedly promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem but have
never made the tiniest move toward doing so because that would make
Muslims and Arabs angry. In his speeches to AIPAC, President Barack
Obama has said—to thunderous applause—that Jerusalem was the capital of
Israel and should remain undivided. But of course this was a totally
cynical gesture.
One
could—as Obama no doubt hoped his audience would do—interpret this as
favoring Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Under that
interpretation, Obama was taking a position on the “final status”
negotiations. What Obama probably really meant is that after a two-state
solution is implemented there should be no wall or
closed border within Jerusalem. (That’s a nice idea though how it would
be implemented is a puzzler.)
There
is a genuine diplomatic problem for the United States here but there is
also a reasonable way around it, if any future American president
wanted to avail himself of that option.
In
1947, the UN partitioned the British mandate of Palestine into three
parts: A Jewish state; an Arab state; and an international zone to
control all of Jerusalem. The Jews accepted partition; the Arabs,
including the Palestinian Arabs, rejected it. But both agreed that they
were against Jerusalem being occupied and run by foreigners.
At
the end of the 1948 war, Israel held west Jerusalem and made that city
(or portion of the city if you wish) its capital. Jordan captured the
eastern part of the city and annexed it. King Hussein, however, dropped
his claim to east Jerusalem and the West Bank—which only Britain and
Pakistan had recognized--in 1988.
It
is important to understand that the official position of the United
States is still stuck in 1947. In other words, though this isn’t often
mentioned and State Department spokespeople don’t even seem to
understand that, American policy is that Jerusalem should be under
international control.
This
fact is confused by the 1967 issue. In
1967, after Jordan entered the war, Israel captured the eastern part of
the city. While Israel then annexed that section and reunited the city,
this was not accepted internationally. Almost all Israeli government
buildings remain in the western, pre-1967 Israel part.
When
Israel and the PLO signed the “Oslo agreement” in 1993, the future
status of east Jerusalem was one of the issues left for a bilateral
agreement. This is the main point that State Department spokespeople and
U.S. officials cling to.
The only relevant mention of Jerusalem in the agreement occurs in Article Five paragraph 3:
“It
is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues,
including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements,
borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other
issues of common interest.”
The
United States has repeatedly, though not always publicly, recognized
that Israel makes a sharp distinction between Jerusalem and the West
Bank (or, to use Israeli nomenclature, Judea and Samaria).
For
example, in 2009 the Obama Administration made a secret agreement with
Israel to distinguish between construction on West Bank settlements and
construction in east Jerusalem (or in other places, empty in 1967, where
Israel has extended the city
borders on the north, south, and west sides of the city). This was part
of Israel’s agreement to freeze construction for a nine-month period to
see if the Palestinian Authority wanted to negotiate. (It didn’t.)
Vice-President Joe Biden broke that agreement when he threw a tantrum
about a low-level Israeli zoning board approving some future
construction in the city. But that doesn’t change the fact that the U.S.
government has accepted a distinction.
Now
let me be very pragmatic here. As I noted above, it is true that the
Oslo agreement said that the future status of Jerusalem will be decided
in negotiations. Therefore, the United States has a legitimate rationale
for not recognizing a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
In
the Camp David negotiations of 2000 and the Clinton plan later that
year, in proposals approved by Israel’s government, Israel indicated its
willingness to give up most of east Jerusalem as part of a full peace
agreement. Since the Palestinian Authority rejected that offer it is not
binding.
Yet it is not true that any agreement precludes a simple alternative for U.S. policy that nobody has ever noticed or discussed:
There
is absolutely nothing to prevent the United States from accepting west
Jerusalem, pre-1967 Jerusalem as capital of Israel while maintaining
that the status of east Jerusalem is to be determined by future
negotiations. The U.S. embassy
could be moved to west Jerusalem, with the existing U.S. consulate
there continuing to serve east Jerusalem and the West Bank, which means
also dealing with the Palestinian Authority.
To
be completely honest, such a move would provoke anti-Americanism in
Arab and Muslim countries and it would be distorted by radicals, some of
whom have been helped into power by the Obama Administration. It is
possible that U.S. embassies would be attacked. One should not gloss
over that fact. Yet so many pretexts are found on a regular basis to do
such things, a new decision on Jerusalem would be only one of many.
At
times, the White House and State Department spokespeople don’t seem to
be aware of U.S. policy on
Jerusalem and the basis of it. There is no question that Jerusalem is
and will remain the capital of Israel. The only real issue are its
precise boundaries, to be determined by negotiations.
There
is a reasonable alternative to a policy that is about 65 years out of
date. Recognize Jerusalem—that is, the Jerusalem that the United States
and everyone else already recognizes as part of Israel—as Israel’s
capital. That's an option America's next president might seriously
consider.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
-- 
No comments:
Post a Comment