Trumping Erdogan’s ‘red line’ on Jerusalem
This week U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The Palestinians, most of Europe, the U.N. Secretary General, the Arab countries and many others railed against the move. Turkish president Erdogan in particular had described Jerusalem as a “red line” for Muslims, and several days ago sternly warned Mr. Trump to make no such move. Yet Mr. Trump ignored just about everyone and went ahead with the fulfillment of his campaign promise to move the American embassy to Israel.
The United States should have actually moved its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem in 1949, when the Israelis declared the city their capital. Every other state in the world gets to decide where their capital is, and neither the United States nor Europe ever claimed that the western part of Jerusalem that Israel controlled from 1948 onwards wasn’t a recognized part of Israel.
As Einat Wilf explains in the Atlantic magazine, “The United States recognized the State of Israel upon its independence, so it should have been straightforward for the U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to establish its embassy there. If anything, it is the Jordanian annexation of the Old City and the way Jews were denied access that should have led to international consternation (it didn’t).”
At the time, the U.S. and the rest of the international community was wedded to the idea, enunciated in the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan for Palestine, that Jerusalem would be an international zone governed by the international community. Wilf describes the result: “This fiction never existed anywhere but on paper. It never existed because the Arabs rejected the partition proposal and started a war to prevent it from being realized. When they lost that war, Jerusalem west of the armistice line became Israel’s, and Jerusalem east of the line came under Jordanian occupation and entered an extended period of disputed claims. So the U.S., while recognizing Israel within the armistice lines, chose a policy that held the status of Israel’s capital hostage to a fiction that never had a chance of existing.”
After Israel captured the Jordanian-occupied part of the city in 1967, including the Old City and the sites holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians, the policy of the international community (or at least that portion of the community that even recognizes Israel in the first place) became to keep their embassies in Tel Aviv until Israel settled its disputes with the Arabs and agreed upon a final border demarcation. East Jerusalem would presumably become the capital of a future Palestinian state in this scenario, and no other state ever recognized Israel’s annexation of the parts of Jerusalem it captured in 1967.
This is where Trump made an error. To his credit, he did state that “We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.” He should have gone further, however, and specified that he is moving the American embassy to West Jerusalem. He could have even added that he “looks forward to opening an American embassy to Palestine one day, in east Jerusalem.” This is, after all, American policy as well – recognition of a two state solution based on the 1967 borders. The Czech Republic did just this on December 6th, hours after Mr. Trump’s announcement: they said, however, that recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel [emphasis added]. They went added that “The Czech Republic together with other EU member states, following the EU Foreign Affaires Council Conclusions, considers Jerusalem to be future capital of both states, meaning the State of Israel and the future State of Palestine.”
Why was the U.S. recognition of Israel’s capital such a big deal for anyone but the Israelis and Palestinians, however? Why did Turkey’s president speak in such dire terms about the move, describing it as violating a “red line” for Muslims? Surely non-Palestinian Muslims’ concerns should be about access to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem rather than objections about the location of embassies in Israel? Muslims have full access to Jerusalem’s holy sites today, as do Christians.
On the issue of access to holy sites, Israel actually has a much better record than the previous Jordanian rulers of the Old City: Since 1967, the Israelis kept Muslim sovereignty and management over Judaism's most holy site (the Temple Mount, known as the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims). The Jordanian Waqf was left in charge of that site since the day Israel captured it, and non-Muslims aren't allowed to pray there to this day. Jews can get no closer to pray than the Western Wall, at the base of Temple Mount. Given how the Jordanians managed it from 1948 to 1967, banning access to Jews and using the Western Wall as something akin to refuse dump, the Israelis should get a little more credit for their approach.
The Israeli approach also contrasts markedly with Mr. Erdogan’s approach to comparable sites such as the Aya Sophia Church in Istanbul. During this columnist’s last visit to Aya Sophia, Mr. Erdogan and his followers were busily taking over Aya Sophia again for Muslim prayers, as if Istanbul has no other mosques for them.
One must then wonder what exactly is the objection, the red line, of people like Erdogan regarding Jerusalem? Since the United States is moving its embassy to West Jerusalem and, in Trump’s own words, the Americans are “…not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders,” then why are people so angry? Could it be that Mr. Erdogan and others cannot even contemplate a hint of recognition of the fact that the Jews have historic ties to Jerusalem as well? Do these Jewish ties to the city not go back three thousand years? Are they not mentioned in the Quran itself?
David Romano has been a Rudaw columnist since 2010. He holds the Thomas G. Strong Professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University and is the author of numerous publications on the Kurds and the Middle East.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
The United States should have actually moved its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem in 1949, when the Israelis declared the city their capital. Every other state in the world gets to decide where their capital is, and neither the United States nor Europe ever claimed that the western part of Jerusalem that Israel controlled from 1948 onwards wasn’t a recognized part of Israel.
As Einat Wilf explains in the Atlantic magazine, “The United States recognized the State of Israel upon its independence, so it should have been straightforward for the U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to establish its embassy there. If anything, it is the Jordanian annexation of the Old City and the way Jews were denied access that should have led to international consternation (it didn’t).”
At the time, the U.S. and the rest of the international community was wedded to the idea, enunciated in the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan for Palestine, that Jerusalem would be an international zone governed by the international community. Wilf describes the result: “This fiction never existed anywhere but on paper. It never existed because the Arabs rejected the partition proposal and started a war to prevent it from being realized. When they lost that war, Jerusalem west of the armistice line became Israel’s, and Jerusalem east of the line came under Jordanian occupation and entered an extended period of disputed claims. So the U.S., while recognizing Israel within the armistice lines, chose a policy that held the status of Israel’s capital hostage to a fiction that never had a chance of existing.”
After Israel captured the Jordanian-occupied part of the city in 1967, including the Old City and the sites holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians, the policy of the international community (or at least that portion of the community that even recognizes Israel in the first place) became to keep their embassies in Tel Aviv until Israel settled its disputes with the Arabs and agreed upon a final border demarcation. East Jerusalem would presumably become the capital of a future Palestinian state in this scenario, and no other state ever recognized Israel’s annexation of the parts of Jerusalem it captured in 1967.
This is where Trump made an error. To his credit, he did state that “We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.” He should have gone further, however, and specified that he is moving the American embassy to West Jerusalem. He could have even added that he “looks forward to opening an American embassy to Palestine one day, in east Jerusalem.” This is, after all, American policy as well – recognition of a two state solution based on the 1967 borders. The Czech Republic did just this on December 6th, hours after Mr. Trump’s announcement: they said, however, that recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel [emphasis added]. They went added that “The Czech Republic together with other EU member states, following the EU Foreign Affaires Council Conclusions, considers Jerusalem to be future capital of both states, meaning the State of Israel and the future State of Palestine.”
Why was the U.S. recognition of Israel’s capital such a big deal for anyone but the Israelis and Palestinians, however? Why did Turkey’s president speak in such dire terms about the move, describing it as violating a “red line” for Muslims? Surely non-Palestinian Muslims’ concerns should be about access to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem rather than objections about the location of embassies in Israel? Muslims have full access to Jerusalem’s holy sites today, as do Christians.
On the issue of access to holy sites, Israel actually has a much better record than the previous Jordanian rulers of the Old City: Since 1967, the Israelis kept Muslim sovereignty and management over Judaism's most holy site (the Temple Mount, known as the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims). The Jordanian Waqf was left in charge of that site since the day Israel captured it, and non-Muslims aren't allowed to pray there to this day. Jews can get no closer to pray than the Western Wall, at the base of Temple Mount. Given how the Jordanians managed it from 1948 to 1967, banning access to Jews and using the Western Wall as something akin to refuse dump, the Israelis should get a little more credit for their approach.
The Israeli approach also contrasts markedly with Mr. Erdogan’s approach to comparable sites such as the Aya Sophia Church in Istanbul. During this columnist’s last visit to Aya Sophia, Mr. Erdogan and his followers were busily taking over Aya Sophia again for Muslim prayers, as if Istanbul has no other mosques for them.
One must then wonder what exactly is the objection, the red line, of people like Erdogan regarding Jerusalem? Since the United States is moving its embassy to West Jerusalem and, in Trump’s own words, the Americans are “…not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders,” then why are people so angry? Could it be that Mr. Erdogan and others cannot even contemplate a hint of recognition of the fact that the Jews have historic ties to Jerusalem as well? Do these Jewish ties to the city not go back three thousand years? Are they not mentioned in the Quran itself?
David Romano has been a Rudaw columnist since 2010. He holds the Thomas G. Strong Professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University and is the author of numerous publications on the Kurds and the Middle East.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.