Don’t Move the Embassy to Jerusalem; the Downsides Are Too Great
By Aaron David Miller
The New York TImes
I have worked for half a dozen Republican and Democratic secretaries of state, and when it came to the issue of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, my advice was always the same: Don’t.
The main reason? There is simply no compelling American national interest that would justify the possible risks and downsides.
First, Israel deserves to have its capital in West Jerusalem where its Parliament, Supreme Court and seat of government are located. Indeed, it’s the only nation in the world where the U.S. doesn’t maintain an embassy in the host government’s preferred capital. The problem is that Israel has extended its law over the entire city — east and west — and since 1967 expanded the municipal boundaries of what it calls its “eternal capital.” Moving the embassy to Jerusalem risks validating and recognizing Israel’s claim to the city in its entirety and prejudging Palestinian claims — supported by the Arab world — to a capital in the east. And with the backdrop of Israeli settlement activity in and around Jerusalem in recent years, that’s precisely how such a move would be read.
Second, the so-called peace process may be dead, but it’s not yet buried. There’s a serious risk that moving the embassy will strip away any hope of managing the conflict through a negotiating process and likely kill U.S. credibility as a mediator — a role the president-elect has expressed an interest in playing. There is also the real risk of more violence and terror as Palestinians rise to defend Jerusalem — a possibility that is already worrying Israeli security professionals. Compared with other parts of the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian arena has been relatively calm. It is hard to see what overriding American interest would compel a new administration to risk pouring gasoline on a fire.
Finally, the issue of Jerusalem goes beyond the sensitivities of Israel and the Palestinians; it affects hundreds of millions of Arabs and more than a billion Muslims and Christians too. The reaction of key Arab states is hard to predict. But at a time when Israel’s relations with Egypt and the Gulf states are closer than ever and a new administration is eager to build an anti-Islamic State coalition and reassure its own Arab allies, it’s hard to understand why anyone would want to inject the volatile Jerusalem issue into the mix.
If the new administration wants to reassure the Israelis and demonstrate a break with U.S.-Israeli tensions of the Obama administration, there are other less risky and encumbering ways to do so. Having danced around the Jerusalem issue for a half century, my advice to a new president is to keep on dancing.
