How Trump’s Decision on Jerusalem Can Give Momentum to Palestinian Statehood

07.12.2017

The Palestinian response to Donald Trump’s move might take one of two shapes: to give him a chance to develop the “ultimate deal” and present it to the parties in the coming months or to transform the hit into an opportunity to get their right of self-determination in their independent state, writes Walid Salem, lecturer at al-Quds University in Jerusalem.

President Trump’s recent decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem represents a crucial change in the American policy. This change can be described as a shift from the previous biased mediator position to the new position of the partner of Israel in its plans towards the Palestinians.

This shift is not only a violation of the international law and the UN resolutions regarding Jerusalem, but also a violation of the 1993 Declaration of principles, signed in the White House and known as the Oslo Accords. According to that Agreement (Article 5), Jerusalem as a whole, including its East and West parts, will be subject to negotiations between the two sides. The agreement also warned against any procedures to be taken unilatarely in a way that would prejudice against the permanent status issues including Jerusalem. President Trump unilaterally decided to go beyond this Oslo commitment and to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel before an agreement about its borders and its division between the two sides. This is a crucial violation.

Jumpstarting the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Zvi Magen, Vera Michlin-Shapir
A series of diplomatic talks, which took place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, touched on Middle Eastern affairs and specifically on the revival of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process. This had seemed to have been high on President Trump’s agenda, when he met Prime Minister Netanyahu, President of the Palestinian Authority Abbas and the Egyptian President el-Sisi.

Process-wise, this move to unilateralism goes against the multilateral/international concerted efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such, it will give the Israeli government additional motives to increase its unilateral steps to change the landscape of Jerusalem in a way that will leave no place and no space for the East Jerusalem Palestinians in the city. They will face more and more ethnic cleansing and forced migration. Different means will be used in this regard such as evacuation of the Bedouin neighborhoods around Jerusalem, ousting Palestinian communities from the city (such as Kufur Aqab, and Shufat Refugee camps), and identity cards confiscation. 

The response to this American move might take one of two shapes: the first is to give President Trump a chance to develop the “ultimate deal” and present it to the parties in the coming months. Those who adopt such a position say that President Trump referred in his speech to the two-states solution, the preparation for the deal, and that the borders of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem will be decided by negotiations. That is in addition to his call for preservation of the status of the Holy places in Jerusalem.

The second argues that the hopes on the Americans to present a solution is over after 26 years of trial and error in the negotiations since Madrid 1991 conference till today. As such, this response calls for adoption of another path: to get to the Palestinian State in the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. It includes creating a Palestinian nonviolent campaign for independence, establishing Palestinian facts on the ground, especially in area C, Gaza and East Jerusalem, linking Gaza and West Bank together, promoting the Palestinian people’s unity, stuggling for more international recognition of the State of Palestine, and suing occupation in international courts.

The second looks to be a path for the creation of a new momentum towards Palestinian statehood. It advocates that the Palestinians should start this path, and then to ask the international community to support it as a path to their national emancipation.

As such, the second position argues the hit can be transformed into an opportunity for the Palestinians to get their right of self-determination in their independent state.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Related articles

Trump's Declaration and the Palestinian Response
11.12.2017
December 9, 2017 was the 30th year anniversary of the first Intifada. So far the Palestinian responses of yesterday took three tracks: diplomatic, non violent, and violent.

Expert: 
Walid Salem

Category:
Expert Opinions
Jumpstarting the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
26.09.2017
The US effort to break the deadlock in which the peace process has been in recent years had intensified approximately a year ago. This was done in parallel, and possibly as a response, to Russian

Category:
Expert Opinions
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: No New Horizons
26.09.2017
The American administration has time till the end of this year to develop a plan for a solution. This plan might not come out, or it might be less than a required two states solution, and therefore is

Expert: 
Walid Salem

Category:
Expert Opinions