Do you support Donald .....'s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem?

As for me, Yes, I do. Basically, I think that every country should be able to decide where to locate its capital and considering that no one disputes that Israel is going to keep the Jewish-majority parts of Jerusalem in any final peace treaty, it makes sense for the U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital as long as it also makes clear that this does not rule out the possibility of giving the Palestinians some or all of the Arab-majority neighborhoods of Jerusalem in the future.

Maybe the U.S. should have gotten something in return for this move, but at the same time, I'm not sure that Israel would have actually been willing to make significant concessions in order to achieve this outcome.

Also, this move on .....'s part would fulfill a law which the U.S. Congress enacted back in 1995. Considering that the U.S. Congress was so overwhelmingly eager to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital back in 1995, and considering that the security situation in Israel has significantly calmed down in recent years, I think that it is only fair for the U.S. President to finally execute the U.S. Congress's will in regards to this issue. After all, the U.S. Congress should learn that when it votes for something, it should expect what it voted for to become a reality.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Gaius Julius Civilis said:

Should every country also be able to locate its capital outside of its internationally recognized borders, more specifially: in occupied territory and in violation of international law?

Click to expand...

That depends--is there going to be a consensus that the country involved is going to be able to keep at least some of this territory in any final peace settlement?

Also, if we're going to talk about international law, shouldn't all of Israel's settlements beyond the 1967 lines--including East Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Pisgat Ze'ev--also be dismantled?

Jerusalem is a divided city, of which East Jerusalem (including the old city) is considered illegally occupied and annexed under international law. The current US administration has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, without making any reservation about West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem and Palestinians rights. Hence, your argument is pretty much void.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it would have probably been best for the U.S. to indeed make such a reservation. AFAIK, though, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley actually does appear to have made a reservation along these lines:

PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News

No, obviously I don't support this decision. There's a good reason why the countries that previously had an embassy in Jerusalem, have moved them in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 (which unequivocally condems Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem and calls upon UN members to withdraw their diplomatic presence from Jerusalem). This was of course to put pressure on the occupying power and to keep the options of a negotiated solution for the city open.

Click to expand...

This pressure doesn't appear to have been working very well, though. After all, it's been almost 40 years since the East Jerusalem annexation and there's still no peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is disgraceful and completely irresponsible. Apart from the legal implications, what it does is reward and further embolden a country that is a systematic violator of human rights and which in recent years has escalated its settlement enterprise and brutal occupation in the West Bank, which is characterized by ethnic cleansing, colonial dispossession and de facto apartheid rule. The US has been a dishonest broker in the conflict and an enabler of Israeli crimes for decades and this move certainly fits the pattern. As expected, it has already led to new violence. It also further undermines Palestinian rights and the chances of achieving a fair and lasting peace deal based on a two-state solution. The fact that the new US embassy in Israel is partially located on occupied land says enough really.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see a link which states that this move led to new violence.

Also, as for your last sentence here, is this a reference to the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem?

In addition to this, Yes, I do think that the U.S. should put more pressure on Israel to either withdraw from most (90+%) of the West Bank or to grant the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank Israeli citizenship. I also agree that the U.S.'s efforts to make peace in the Middle East have resulted in a lot of show and not much substance and that Israel used the last 25 years as an opportunity to significantly increase its presence in the West Bank. I also wonder if it is particularly wise for the U.S. to continue giving Israel a lot of aid. After all, if Israel isn't going to make serious efforts towards peace (especially now when the security situation in Israel is relatively calm), why exactly should the U.S. continue to fund them? This would be especially true given Israeli attitudes towards the U.S. in the past. For instance, President Obama didn't cut U.S. aid to Israel and even released Jonathan Pollard, and yet Israel's PM humiliated Obama in a speech in front of the U.S. Congress where he criticized Obama's Iran deal in 2015!

Who do you think should be the new broker in MidEast peace negotiations? The E.U.? Russia? China? Canada? Australia?

JaddHaidar said:

According to the UN security council resolution 2334:
"The establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace "

As has been said before, the fact that Jerusalem, the designated Israeli capital, partially consists of Palestinian territory, the occupation of which has no "legal validity" and is a "flagrant violation" according to the united nations says more than needs to be said on the subject.

Click to expand...

By that logic, all Israeli settlements should be dismantled, no? Thus, Israel is going to need to abandon all of the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as well.

Also, why exactly did the international community allow Israel to keep its territorial conquests from 1948-1949? Was it because Israel was generous enough to give citizenship to the Arabs in these territories?

It's quite interesting, isn't it--had Israel captured all of Jerusalem in 1948-1949, I doubt that the international community would have objected to this. Heck, had Israel captured all of the West Bank in 1948-1949, I doubt that the international community would have objected to this either as long as Israel would have granted citizenship to all of the Arabs who stayed there.

I wonder what changed between 1949 and 1967. After all, if the international community was going to allow Israel to set its own borders in 1949, why not also apply that logic to Israel in 1967 as long as it gives citizenship to all of the Arabs in the territories that it annexes?