Saturday, August 13th | 16 Av 5782

December 19, 2016 11:04 am

Relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem — A Litmus Test

avatar by Yoram Ettinger

US President-elect Donald Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Facebook.

US President-elect Donald Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Facebook.

President-elect Donald Trump’s promises to terminate the US State Department policy referring to the whole of Jerusalem as an international (not Israeli) city, recognize unified Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, all represent a litmus test of his resolve to Make America Great Again — by defying Arab/Muslim pressure and threats, as well as overruling the politically-correct establishment of the Department of State.

Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem is also a litmus test of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intent to leverage the unconventional Trump-Pence worldview, which abhors domestic and international political correctness, respects firmness and the defiance of odds, recognizes Israel as a unique ally in the battle against the Ayatollahs and Islamic terrorism and is aware that US national security interests transcend the Palestinian issue.

The decision to relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem will usher in the Trump era, setting President Trump apart from his predecessors, underscoring the independence of US unilateral – rather than multinational – action, distinguishing him from the domestic and international foreign policy establishment and setting him apart from the UN worldview, while simultaneously reflecting the state-of-mind of most Americans.

Establishing the US Embassy in Israel’s capital will signal Trump’s determination to resurrect the US posture of deterrence, which has been eroded in recent years, underlying a realization that succumbing to pressure and threats fuels violence, while defying them deters rogue elements and advances security and the prospects of peace. For example, in 2011, the State Department warned the White House against vetoing a UN Security Council condemnation of Israel’s settlements policy, lest it fuel terrorism. Contrary to the December 1988 US recognition of the PLO and the 1993 Israel-PLO Oslo Accords – which intensified Palestinian terrorism and hate education – vetoing the UN Security Council resolution was not followed by bloodshed.

Related coverage

August 12, 2022 3:41 pm

New York Times Cuts Ties With Gaza-Based Reporter Who Said ‘Jews Are Sons of the Dogs’

The New York Times said on Friday that it had terminated its relationship with a Gaza City “fixer” who has a...

While moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem would not undermine or prejudge the peace process – since the location of the Embassy is in pre-1967 Israeli western Jerusalem – a failure to implement the law will further radicalize the Arabs, who cannot afford to be less demanding than the US, thus presenting more obstacles to the pursuit of peace.

The relocation of the US Embassy to Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem, will implement US law, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 — legislation which enjoys massive support on Capitol Hill and beyond, but was not implemented by presidents who abused national security as an excuse for non-compliance.

Relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem will also be consistent with the worldview of the early pilgrims and the US founding fathers, as reflected by the existence of America’s 18 Jerusalems and 32 Salems (Shalem was the original name of Jerusalem), and by the spelling of JerUSAlem.

Jerusalem was central to the agenda of Israel’s founding father and first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion. In December 1949, at the end of Israel’s War of Independence, he declared western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, in defiance of brutal pressure from the US, and notwithstanding harsh opposition by Israeli President Chaim Weizmann and Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, who predicted costly diplomatic, economic and military consequences. Resisting the US call to refrain from annexing and constructing in western Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion relocated government offices and the Knesset from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and built new neighborhoods all the way to the ceasefire lines, thus enhancing the stature of Jerusalem and Israel.

However, in 1995, I heard from a frustrated Senator Daniel Inouye – who was Israel’s leading supporter on Capitol Hill – that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin collaborated with President Bill Clinton in pressuring US senators to insert a waiver provision into the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which enjoyed a veto-proof majority, that enabled presidents to suspend implementation of the act.

Similarly, in July 1999, Prime Minister Ehud Barak asked then-Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl to heed President Clinton’s request to shelve an updated edition of the Jerusalem Embassy Act – supported by 84 senators – which would revoke the waiver provision and prescribe a $100 million deduction from the State Department budget upon non-implementation. Barak contended that the initiative was “ill timed,” and would amount to sacrificing the peace process on the altar of Jerusalem. However, Barak’s slap in the face of Israel’s friends on Capitol Hill – and his proposed unprecedented, reckless concessions to Arafat — sacrificed Jerusalem on the altar of a failed peace process, further radicalizing Palestinian expectations, and therefore dooming the peace process.

Recent months suggest that President-elect Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu realize that the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem is their litmus test.

President-elect Trump has demonstrated his politically-incorrect vigor to learn from the past by avoiding presidential errors, to relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem and to bolster the US posture of deterrence, while projecting his own compliance with the US law of the land.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will not sacrifice the unique potential of the Trump-Pence team on the altar of political correctness, and therefore will follow in the footsteps of Ben-Gurion, who would not sacrifice Jerusalem on the altar of “doomsday assessments.” He realizes the critical geo-strategic impact of his attitude toward Jerusalem on Israel’s power projection, deterrence of its enemies and cooperation with the politically incorrect soon-to-be inaugurated President Trump.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.