A Jerusalem embassy? Liberals shouldn’t worry
The western part of the city is part of Israel any way you cut it
President Donald Trump appears to be taking steps to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; the White House confirmed this past weekend that it is in the early stages of preparing for relocation. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat seemed confident enough to announce assurances that “the embassy move [will be] done seamlessly and efficiently.”
I applaud the president and believe those who share my progressive credentials should as well.
Moving the embassy to Israel’s capital is not some right-wing apocalyptic scheme designed to sink the possibility of Middle East peace, as suggested by some. In fact, not only has the move to Jerusalem enjoyed broad bipartisan support for decades, but it began as a liberal initiative. I should know, as I am honored to have played a small but meaningful role in its development.
The year was 1972, and George McGovern was the 500-to-1 long-shot liberal candidate campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. As early supporters of his candidacy, my friend Hilly Gross and I were asked at a meeting of key advisers to help hammer out elements for a McGovern Middle East program. We drafted an outline of principles, one of which was that the United States should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy there. Soon thereafter, McGovern enunciated this policy as his own.
That summer, Democrats nominated McGovern and adopted the following statement in the party’s platform: “The next Democratic administration should: recognize and support the established status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, with free access to all its holy places provided to all faiths. As a symbol of this stand, the United States Embassy should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”
It was the first time an American political party adopted such a proposal. Soon thereafter, Republicans adopted it as well.
In 1995, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed to fund the relocation of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of Israel. The legislation included the ability of the president to waive the requirement of moving the embassy – a waiver that has been exercised by presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That, however, was envisioned as a safeguard available to the president in the event negotiations were at a particularly sensitive moment; it was never intended to be the default policy of the US, certainly not during a time when negotiations were not even taking place.
When Congress reconvened this past January 3, a bill was introduced by Nevada Senator Dean Heller along with Florida’s Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz of Texas. The Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act would require the US to act on the 1995 law and eliminate the waiver option. It should pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law.
Critics of relocating the embassy will argue that it will drive the Palestinians from the peace negotiations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The embassy would be placed in west Jerusalem, a part of the city that under any peace plan will remain part of Israel, as it has been since the country’s birth in 1948.
Placing the embassy in west Jerusalem in no way prejudices final-status negotiations over east Jerusalem, where both Israel and the Palestinians have made claims.
The real reason Palestinians object to an embassy move to any part of Jerusalem is that they still do not accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, which is what truly hinders prospects for peace.
How else to explain the consistent unwillingness by Palestinian leadership to negotiate with Israel – even when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to freeze settlement construction for a year and release Palestinian prisoners? Or the continued refusal by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to recognize Israel? Or the rejected offers by Israeli prime ministers in both 2000 and 2007 to relinquish up to 97% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority?
If moving the embassy to an undisputed section of Jerusalem is sufficient “provocation” to derail any chance for peace, we must be honest with ourselves and concede that such a chance was an illusion to begin with. Real peace requires reality to be recognized. Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem is part of that reality, and moving our embassy there confirms that fact.
As the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem becoming a united city draws near, now is the time that the US should take this long overdue step of placing its embassy there.