The Jerusalem gambit
The calculated risk of calling it Israel’s capital
President Donald Trump on Wednesday declared that the United States now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and will begin the processof moving the U.S. Embassy there fromTel Aviv.
Various factors were behind his decision — domestic American political pressure and/or a calculation of the state of play in the long, seemingly endless negotiations that, in principle, one will day lead to a two-state resolution of a now 69-year-old problem, with a state for the Israelis and one for the Palestinians. It was nonetheless a move that caught world attention. Many of the Israelis loved it, the Palestinians and many other Arabs hated it, world leaders including Pope Francis condemned it, and many Americans, including those of Jewish faith, are puzzled.
The complexity of the problem reflects the nature and history of Jerusalem. It is not clear that Mr. Trump or those whose advice he listens to understood that complexity. Whoever holds Jerusalem holds it in trust. It is a holy city to Jews, Muslims and Christians with sacred shrines of all three faiths, and it has been such for centuries. So Mr. Trump can deem it the capital city of the Jewish state if he wishes, but Jerusalem is still the holy city of many that it is, whatever political entity rules over it at any given time. That makes it different from Rome,Istanbul, Mecca and Medina.
What is much more significant at this time is whatever impact Mr. Trump’s declaration has on two different, more current political phenomena. One of these is its effect on whatever progress can be made toward a sustainable resolution of the hoary but sensitive Israeli-Palestinian issue. The second is the potentially explosive reaction of whatever is left of the once-kinetic “Arab street,” stimulated by the Palestinians,to what Mr. Trump has done.
The answer to the first question could be interesting. It has been an article of faith for years that the fate of Jerusalem — part of which the Palestinians, too, want for their capital — canonly be settled in the context of the resolution of all the knotty problems that stand in the way of Middle East peace. Mr. Trump has just pulled out one of those blocks, but having kept the pieces of the problem in one pile has not resulted in a solution of the overall problem as long as it has been beingcontested.
Will pulling one piece out now change prospects for an overall settlement now? It would appear not, but it is hard to know. Perhaps Mr. Trump, having given the Israelis the recognition of Jerusalem they earnestly desired, now will use it as a hammer to leverage progress in the peace process. If the Palestinians sense this may be the case, their reaction, in deed if not in word, may be more mutedthan anticipated.
Which begets the second question: What explosion might occur in the streets in reaction to Mr. Trump’s declaration, will emerge in the next few days or potentially down the line if Palestinians or other Islamist extremists choose to bring their fury to bear in the United States or at an American public orprivate installation overseas?
A bottom-line question is whether Mr. Trump intended by his declaration to try to bring new focus to the various international and other effortsto resolve the long-term problem, or whether he sought instead to try to put the issue on ice during his mandate by enraging the Palestinians beyond their endurance in seeking to legitimize the Israelis’ hold on partly occupiedJerusalem.