Jerusalem decision has Democratic support
President Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that the United States formally recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and that the U.S. embassy would be moved to that multiethnic and multifaith city once again places the United States at odds with the rest of the international community. No other government in the world formally recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital or has its embassy there, instead basing their diplomatic offices in nearby Tel Aviv.
Trump’s announcement, however, is the culmination of years of pressure on the White House by a large bipartisan majority of Congress and leaders of both political parties. It represents the fulfillment of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which mandates that the United States move its embassy to Jerusalem, though the bill allows a president to waive that requirement every six months if deemed in the national interest.
In the Senate, that bill was co-sponsored by California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, as well as such leading Democrats as Joe Biden and John Kerry. Only one Democrat (the late Robert Byrd) voted no. On the House side, just 30 out of 204 Democrats voted no, including Bay Area Democrats Ron Dellums and George Miller, along with independent then-Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Since 1995, every president has taken advantage of the waiver to prevent such a provocative move, despite continued bipartisan pressure from Congress. As recently as this past June, just days after Trump issued his first waiver of the requirement, the Senate — with the support of Feinstein and Sen. Kamala Harris — voted 90-0 in favor of a resolution reaffirming the 1995 law and calling on Trump “to abide by its provisions.”
For decades, the platforms of both the Republican and Democratic parties have called for recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In 2012, then-Los Angeles mayor and now California gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa violated party rules by inserting an amendment into the Democratic Party platform recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital without the requisite two-thirds majority. In the 2016 party platform, presidential nominee Hillary Clinton successfully pushed for language declaring that Jerusalem “should remain the capital of Israel.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had been openly encouraging Trump to move the embassy and previously criticized his “indecisiveness” on the issue. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, despite supporting the 1995 bill mandating the move, has challenged the circumstances and timing of Trump’s decision, though Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and many other senior Democrats support it.
Such positions fail to acknowledge that Jerusalem has also long been the commercial, cultural, educational and religious center of Palestinian life. The Palestinian Authority does not object to the Israelis having West Jerusalem as their capital as long as East Jerusalem can be the Palestinian capital and there is freedom of movement and equality for both the city’s Jews and Arabs.
Democratic backing for the embassy move is not due to demand from their constituents. A recent poll shows that 81 percent of Democrats oppose moving the embassy while only 15 percent approve. And polls show there is not strong support for such a move among American Jews, either. This may be one of the more extreme examples of how out of touch many congressional Democrats are from their constituencies on foreign policy issues.
Observers familiar with this volatile issue agree the decision further reduces the chances of Israeli-Palestinian peace and raises serious questions in relation to international law.
The near-universal opposition to Trump’s decision by much of the military, intelligence and foreign policy establishment is not out of concern for the fate of the Palestinians or for its legal ramifications. Rather, they fear that effectively recognizing exclusive Israel control over the third holiest city in Islam will provoke a backlash throughout the Islamic world.
Trump’s dangerous and provocative move regarding Jerusalem — like so many of his reckless policies both abroad and at home — requires strong, broad-based opposition. It is unfortunate that, at least in this case, there is no real opposition party.