You are here

Worldwide rejection and Washington's overreaction

Dec 23,2017 - Last updated at Dec 23,2017

As the issue of Jerusalem continues to attract regional and international attention and concern, there were different scenarios that could have been followed to avoid the standoff with the US on the holy city. 

Suppose, for example, President Donald Trump declared his intention to relocate his country's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in compliance with what he described as the wish of the US Congress, but stopped short of recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel! Suppose also Trump recognised Jerusalem as the joint capital for both Israel and the Palestinians and finally suppose that the US President also recognised East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. 

None of these scenarios would have necessarily violated the US Congress' stance on Jerusalem but would have saved the US and the entire international community much headache and acrimony. 

Judging by the words of both President Trump and the US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley on the UN action on Jerusalem, Washington has overreacted to the worldwide rejection of Trump's move on Jerusalem. There was really no need or justification for either President Trump or Ambassador Haley to read so much into the UN General Assembly vote declaring the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as null and void, as to interpret it as an open war on Washington. 

At worse, the international community has a divergent perspective on Jerusalem but that does not mean that the world is turning against the US to warrant the utterance of words of threats or intimidation against countries that opposed the US on this particular issue.

Even in interstate relations countries sometimes differ on certain policy issues, but that in itself does not and should not turn their relationship into a hostile one. 

Friendly relations between countries and even allied nations have room for some honest disagreement once in a while but that should not lead to writing down the names of countries that happened to disagree with it on a particular issue for retribution, or condemnation or censorship or the loss of financial or economic support. 

Besides, the main operative paragraph of the just adopted General Assembly resolution merely "affirmed that any decisions or actions which purport to alter the character, status or demographic composition of Jerusalem have no legal effect". 

Arguably what President Trump decided on his own on Jerusalem does not per se alter the character or the status or demographic composition of Jerusalem. 

Trump's decision has no such effect or consequence. It takes more than the US position on Jerusalem of any kind to compromise the character or status or demographic composition of Jerusalem. 

 

There is therefore plenty of room for reconsideration of stances on the issue of Jerusalem with a view to setting the appropriate stage for the very important peace talks to resolve the entire Palestinian conflict on the basis of the two-state solution with East Jerusalem as its capital. 

up
132 users have voted.

Comments

OCCUPATION , BRUTALITY AND IGNORING INTERNATIONAL ORDERS WILL NEVER MAKE PEACE HAPPEN !IT IS A CONSPIRACY AFTER
CONSPIRACY TAKING PLACE ALL ALONG .

OCCUPATION , BRUTALITY AND IGNORING INTERNATIONAL ORDERS WILL NEVER MAKE PEACE HAPPEN !IT A CONSPIRACY AFTER
CONSPIRACY TAKING PLACE ALL ALONG .

No tears and blood need to revisit the thin sliver of land located between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea, between the Hermon Mountain and the Red Sea.

I look forward to the time when only rain, snow and sweat will fertile the land that is so dear to me as a Jew; the time when peace, security, dignity and prosperity will be the lot of all: Arabs and Jews alike.
There is a way to achieve this goal, of course, if the will is there. And, the way to do so, in my humble opinion, within the framework of the fundamental elements of international law and UN Charter that has have been accepted, directly and indirectly, by the parties over the years:

1. San Remo conference decisions, 1920 (international law)
2. League of Nations decisions, Mandate for Palestine, 1922 (international law)
3. UN Charter, article 80, 1945

And, the above can be implemented within the framework of UN Security Council resolution, 242, 1967, which was also accepted by the parties to the conflict.

Will the Arabs finally come to the table and state: Yes, we are willing to talk peace on the basis of the above so that peace, security, dignity and prosperity for all can finally be achieved by all in the country and the region?

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.