Among his numerous campaign promises, U.S. President Donald Trump’s pledge to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem continues to reverberate across domestic and international politics.
“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel,” declared Trump during a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference last March.
In a subsequent television interview with CNN, Trump followed up his remarks by explaining that the act would happen “fairly quickly” upon his assuming the Oval Office.
For nearly two decades, U.S. presidential candidates from both parties have stated their intentions to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, but such comments ultimately amounted to rhetorical talking points and unfulfilled vows. The issue remains highly controversial, as it would signify official U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel despite Palestinian petitions for East Jerusalem to serve as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
As a matter of U.S. policy, Congress formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital when it passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. The legislation mandated moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but allowed the president a waiver if American national security interests superseded doing so. Since then, each U.S. President – Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – has exercised the waiver and the U.S. embassy in Israel remains in Tel Aviv.
The status of Jerusalem – namely whether the city (and possibly its holy sites) will be split between Israeli and Palestinian authorities or will stay unified under Israeli control – is one of the core issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Throughout the years, negotiations between the two sides have been based largely around the parameters of a two-state solution, which would create an independent Palestinian state that would coexist side-by-side with Israel. The last genuine negotiations occurred in 2008 and since then, the peace process has appeared dead in the water.
“The so-called peace process is not ready for prime time,” explains Aaron David Miller, Cipher Brief expert and Vice President at the Wilson Center who has advised Republican and Democratic administrations on Arab-Israeli negotiations. “Neither side is prepared to make decisions on the core issues. There is very little confidence and interest.”
But the peace process goes far beyond the question of Jerusalem; Israelis and Palestinians are divided on territorial borders, how security within a Palestinian state would be managed, and the status of refugees, amidst various other concerns. Furthermore, leaders on both sides still struggle to put forth consensus positions from within their own constituencies or deliver any meaningful, new propositions.
“You need leaders on both sides who are masters of their political houses and willing to take significant risks,” says Miller. “You don’t have it on the Israeli side and you don’t have it on the Palestinian side.”
Last Sunday, President Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and extended him an invitation to visit the U.S. in February. In addition to discussing matters such as Iran, terrorist threats, and Israeli security, rumors swirled that Trump may have broached the subject of the U.S. embassy with Netanyahu, but White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer dismissed those claims, saying there’s been “no decisions” and that the administration is “at the very early stages of that decision-making process.”
Many Israeli officials have welcomed the possibility of a U.S. embassy relocation, including Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, who stated that the move “should have happened a long time ago” and would “send a strong message against the de-legitimization of Israel.”
On the other hand, Palestinian leaders such as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, have warned the Trump Administration against taking such action, posturing that it would “destroy the two-state solution” and may result in the Palestinians “reversing recognition” of Israel. Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization that governs the Gaza Strip, released a statement saying that it would “open a new chapter of conflict” and “add fuel to the fire.”
Nonetheless, some believe that a jolting maneuver, such as the opening of a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem or even the proposal of an alternative to the two-state solution, could jumpstart negotiations and further solidify U.S. commitment to its longtime ally and critical democratic counterpart in a region flush with turmoil, violence, and human rights abuses.
“It is time for a different approach,” writes Ambassador Gary Grappo, Cipher Brief expert and former Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet Representative in Jerusalem. “Donald Trump, the most unconventional man to occupy the White House in modern presidential history, may be just the president to take on the region’s most enduring conflict from outside the box.”
Others, however, have cautioned against taking such drastic steps if a two-state solution is still the primary objective.
“Let’s be clear, if the embassy is moved to Jerusalem, you can probably hang a closed-for-the-season sign on the peace process for a while,” says Miller.
In the end, though, it is up to the two parties on the ground to resolve many of the longstanding disputes and build to a more fruitful future.
“Every breakthrough that has been achieved in this conflict occurred without American knowledge or participation,” offers Miller. “It was only after the parties themselves owned the negotiation or the understandings that they had launched secretly with one another that the U.S. was then able to build on that foundation.”
Bennett Seftel is deputy director of editorial at The Cipher Brief. Follow him on Twitter @BennettSeftel.
