The Guardian – The relish with which Donald Trump signed the declaration recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel left me with a sense of cold resignation at the obduracy of the man. He was almost gleeful; the power he now wields enables him with the stroke of a pen to bring about historical changes to our suffering world. But I was neither surprised nor angry – those emotions having long since been spent.
I have lived under Israel’s occupation for 50 years and listened to many empty declarations while witnessing the Jewish settlements expand, destroying our beautiful landscape and rendering us Palestinians strangers in our own land. Israel has never had to be concerned about the formal positions that the US observed, which considered it an occupier of the territories, including East Jerusalem, it has held since 1967, nor by the oft-repeated position that the Israeli settlements are illegal. This was because these formal positions were never followed by any implementation on the part of the US.
Last week, our neighbours came to visit. Inevitably, all we talked about were the events of the day. Vera described how the protesters near Damascus Gate in Jerusalem were gathering peacefully when they were struck with tear gas and rubber bullets. She wondered whether there would be a repeat of the tactics used during the mass protests in the summer over the new Israeli measures at the al-Aqsa mosque compound when protesters simply prayed in the streets in large numbers. Their peaceful protests succeeded in stopping Israel from installing the electronic gates.
But it did not seem likely. Each killing and wounding inflames tempers and causes an escalation. There is also pent-up anger from years of Israeli repression. At times like these, the despair about the future that many of the young here feel emboldens them and drives them to put their lives at risk.
Saturday 9 December was the 30th anniversary of the first intifada. Just three weeks ago, the Institute for Palestine Studies commemorated this anniversary with a conference intended for the education of the young. But the audience was mainly older men and women who had experienced first hand the events of the time. But the young may still get their own direct experience of another intifada.
The long-held US positions regarding the conflict have been largely consistent with international law on occupation. This holds that the fourth Geneva convention applies to the territories Israel occupied in 1967 and that Jerusalem constitutes a corpus separatum whose final status should be determined through negotiations between the two sides, Israelis and Palestinians. When David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, stated that he thought that the “[Jewish] settlements are part of Israel”, the US state department published a denial saying this “should not indicate a shift in US policy”.
And yet in defiance of these positions, the US Congress has consistently voted to reward Israel with funds. The US also gave unconditional diplomatic, political and military support to its ally and has insured that its nationals remain immune from legal proceeding even when their actions violate international law. Recently, the opening of the PLO’s diplomatic mission in Washington was made conditional on the Palestinian Authority not initiating a judicially authorised investigation or actively supporting such an investigation at the International Criminal Court at the Hague “that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.” What difference, then, would another declaration make like the one that Trump has just signed?
Sadly, the declaration does mark a new development that will likely prove to be a great obstacle for the state department in pursuing a role as peace broker in the Middle East’s most fundamental conflict.
At the signing ceremony, Trump congratulated himself on fulfilling an election promise, saying that “while previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today I am delivering”. Clearly he was being more attentive to the US public than to international policy considerations. The recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel should be a foreign policy matter. But in the US, Israel, it seems, is a domestic concern.
There has long been this in-built contradiction. The state department does not have a free hand with policies affecting Israel. Its hands are tied by Congress and sometimes, as was the case with Friedman, by its own representatives, who have their own interest in appearing to be fully supportive of Israel.
It’s true that there was little consistency in the US actions towards Israel/Palestine; the declared policy pointed in one direction, the implementation another. Yet it is important in politics that a facade of fair play and even-handedness be preserved. Trump has blasted this by so blatant an act as declaring a position that cannot be subject to interpretation and does not yield to diplomatic ambiguity. This now leaves scant opportunity for the US to continue its role as mediator between the two sides.
The loss is Israel’s as much as it is Palestine’s. With this decision, the US, Israel’s closest ally and the country on which it depends, loses the clout that it could have employed in service of furthering the prospects of peace. It is not as though only Palestinians under occupation and in refugee camps in surrounding countries need it. Peace is just as important for the Israelis. The only possible good that could come of this declaration is that, with the US discrediting itself as a sponsor for negotiations, the European Union might take up its responsibility as a signatory of the fourth Geneva convention. Yet there seems little possibility of this happening.
It was quiet on Friday morning when I was writing. By the end of the day, thousands of protesters in Jerusalem, Gaza and here in the West Bank had taken to the streets. At least two Palestinians were killed and 100 wounded by Israeli soldiers. Protests also took place in many countries around the world. Trump’s declaration had sparked a violent response that put Jerusalem back on centre stage.
Even as I spoke with our neighbours, much was happening at the checkpoint near the settlement of Beit El, north of Ramallah. Nearby is the City Inn hotel, which was badly damaged during the second intifada. The owners had just finished refurbishing it and were ready to open for business. It is unlikely now that they can do so. Another neighbour, now a grandfather, reminisced how during the second, more violent intifada, 17 years ago, he used to go the checkpoint “with other mothers” to try to persuade his 17-year-old son to stay away from the line of fire.
For many in Palestine, like me and my neighbours, who have already lived through two uprisings with no positive change, the prospect of a third is disquieting. For there can be no assurances whatsoever that it would be different this time round. But then with the world abandoning us, what other options are left?
