Why the Silence on Erdogan’s Jerusalem Embassy Move?
Most of the arguments against the US opening an embassy in Jerusalem — although all of them are wrong — fall into the following categories:
1) Jerusalem is a final status issue, and no unilateral moves should be allowed.
2) The UN Security Council once recommended that all diplomatic missions to Jerusalem be closed; and
3) We should maintain the status quo in such a sensitive spot.
On Sunday, according to Reuters and many other outlets, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that he intends to open an embassy in East Jerusalem.
And since then….silence.
The Europeans — who stumbled over themselves to condemn Trump — are silent on Erdogan. The UN and NGOs aren’t saying anything.
This, despite the fact that all of the arguments against the Trump declaration apply even more so to the Erdogan declaration.
How can this be?
How can the Europeans allow Erdogan to violate the very principles that they so loftily defended in the Security Council two weeks ago?
A cynical reason could be a latent undercurrent of antisemitism that no one cares to admit. But I don’t think you even have to play that card here.
The main difference between Trump’s and Erdogan’s words is that no one threatened violence if Erdogan somehow managed to open an embassy, while leaders of hundreds of millions Arabs “warned” (i.e., incited) violence if Trump did so.
So, the three reasons that are often given against the US embassy move are simply justifications after the fact.
In reality, there is only one rule that matters: “Don’t piss off the Muslims.”
The enlightened world knows this, viscerally.
Muslims perform terror attacks. Muslims riot. Muslims threaten the world. Therefore, taking the Muslim side in any matter is the only position that these moralistic, ethical world bodies can consider — because they don’t want to be on the opposite side of Muslim wrath.
Try this exercise yourself:
Choose any human rights imperative — being anti-apartheid, being against genocide, supporting women’s rights, being pro-democracy — literally anything.
Now, look at how Western nations act towards Muslim nations concerning any of those topics. Is there a consistent message being given to Muslim nations about these human rights issues? The answer, of course, is no.
When Western nations deal with Muslim-majority countries, they do not apply any single moral, ethical or political rule consistently. But the one rule that is entirely consistent across Western nations dealing with Muslim nations is the maxim: Don’t anger the Muslims.
That is the only rule that you need to know in order to rise in the ranks of the world’s diplomatic community.