I Support Israel. The Jerusalem Capital Declaration Was Wrong

Trump’s December announcement that the U.S. would move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognize the city as Israel’s official capital reversed decades of U.S. policy and has yielded more questions than answers. Even though the administration still claims to value the possibility of a two-state solution, this declaration is a clear statement of one-sided support. As American supporters of Israel—and Israelis themselves—praise these decisions, it is important to understand that the political consequences of the statement’s rhetoric can be harmful both to the global perception of Israel and to the United States’ role in the peace process.

In my view, there are three arguments for why Trump made this decision. The first argument is that Trump seeks to remain loyal to those who elected him. Trump’s temperament is dictated by how he believes he is perceived, so it makes sense that he would appeal to his right-leaning evangelical base. But while this argument is sound, it does not really get us anywhere.

The second argument for this decision is that it would promote peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president’s speech following the announcement indicated that he believes this. He claimed that, “After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.” It takes no genius to see why this argument is flawed. Of course, America’s current policy approach to Israel has not yielded progress, but there is no reason why this decision would yield any more. To believe that rupturing the policy norm will aid the peace process, only because our historical strategy has not worked, is the purest example of logical fallacy.

[pullquote]To believe that rupturing this simple policy norm will aid in the peace process because our historical strategy has not worked is the purest example of logical fallacy.[/pullquote]

The third, and most interesting, argument is that Trump’s declaration is a show of support to one of the United States’ key allies. But is preserving our allied relationships truly a priority for Trump? It certainly doesn’t seem to be. On the foreign policy front, Trump has strained some of our nation’s most important diplomatic relationships by blaming Mexico, bashing NATO, and clinging to Russia. It would be one thing if Trump decided to support Israel to reflect a pattern of strong commitment to supporting our allies, but this is not the case. Trump’s unilateral support of Israel as an ally to the United States in this instance is not consistent with his foreign policy strategy to date.

Why is this announcement so important? While the fate of Jerusalem is by no means uncontested, U.S. policy on the subject has simply been a norm for decades. Until this decision, recent debates on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the dividing fences, and Israeli military policy have taken precedent as the most pressing issues against Israel in the peace process. The decision of the US to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s undisputed capital, however, is a strongman move that will not yield positive policy change. Regardless of the specificities involved, the rhetoric of this announcement suggests that neither the U.S. nor Israel has any interest in the peace process; the 67 percent of Israelis that support U.S. leadership under Trump certainly seems to support this notion. Trump took a political norm—a status quo of sorts—and turned it into a contentious issue. His declaration has already generated frustration and anger among Israel’s neighbors. With Jordan, for example, Vice President Pence’s late-January meeting with King Abdullah indicated a difficult way forward in the peace process.

[pullquote]Trump took a political norm—a status quo of sorts—and turned it into a contentious issue.[/pullquote]

In sum, this change in U.S. policy is detrimental for all parties involved. It is bad for the Palestinians because it promotes the idea that Israel and the U.S. are working against them and do not seek to make peace; this sentiment has the potential to further incite radicalism in the region and increase anti-Semitic sentiments. It is bad for Israel because it fuels the global narrative against it and challenges its relationships with other nations; it puts Jordan, Israel’s friendliest neighbor, in a difficult position as an important broker within the effort to promote peace. Finally, it is bad for the U.S., as it threatens the American role as a global diplomatic power. This decision does not accomplish anything productive, nor does it represent a true valuable policy shift.

I will conclude by reiterating that I am a supporter of Israel, and I do recognize its right to exist. As a Jewish state at the crux of the world’s Abrahamic faiths, however, Israel is routinely under more scrutiny than its neighbors. Although the Israeli right undoubtedly embraces this recognition from the U.S., Israel must tread lightly. The man in charge of this decision is proud of his ability to make deals, but this deal is a bad one. It would be shortsighted, particularly for supporters of Israel, to celebrate it.

Ryan Mendelson ’19 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences and is a staff writer for WUPR. He can be reached at ryanmendelson@wustl.edu.