Donald Trump’s Jerusalem statement is an act of diplomatic arson. By Jonathan Freedland
Not content with
taking the US to the brink of nuclear
conflict with North Korea, Donald Trump is now set to apply his strategy of
international vandalism to perhaps the most sensitive geopolitical hotspot in
the world. With a speech scheduled for later today that’s expected to recognise
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and reaffirm a pledge to move the
US embassy to the city, he is walking into a bone-dry forest with a naked
flame.
For the status of
Jerusalem is the most intractable issue in what is often described as the
world’s most intractable conflict. It is the issue that has foiled multiple
efforts at peacemaking over several decades. Both Israelis and Palestinians
insist that Jerusalem must be the capital of their states, present and future,
and that that status is non-negotiable.
But it’s not just
important to them. The Old City of Jerusalem contains the holiest site in
Judaism and the third holiest mosque in Islam, to say nothing of its enormous
significance to Christians, meaning that even the slightest move there is felt
by billions. It is a place where diplomats have learned to tread with extreme
care. There is a reason why no US administration, no matter how pro-Israel, has
changed its policy toward the city in the nearly 70 years since Israel’s
founding.
But here comes Trump,
oblivious to precedent and indeed history – even in a place where history is a
matter of life and death – stomping through this delicate thicket, trampling
over every sensitivity. The risk is obvious, with every Arab government –
including those loyal to Washington – now issuing
sharp warnings on the perils of this move, almost all of them using the
same word: “dangerous”.
Let us be clear. Most
advocates of an eventual two-state solution believe the only way to resolve the
Jerusalem issue is for it to serve as the capital of both states: East
Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Then, and only
then, would be the right moment to start moving embassies and issuing
statements of recognition. Until that day, any act that pre-empts an agreement
between the two parties on the city’s future is reckless and needlessly
incendiary..
read more:
