Opinion: How do Arab countries counteract Trump’s decision on Jerusalem?

CAIRO – 8 December 2017: As soon as American President Donald Trump announced his decision of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to the city of conflict, there were a myriad of responses and reactions from Arab countries and from all over the world.

Protests sparked in Palestine; Israeli security forces are now on full alert in preparation for confrontations. The significance of the American decision and its implications can be of help when considering the possibilities of Arab and international action to counteract the American action which violates international legitimacy according to the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice.
The following lines explain how:

Trump’s announcement:

Trump’s announcement of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was an execution of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which was issued by Congress and stated that a U.S. embassy was to be established in Jerusalem by the year 1999.
However, the execution of the act has been delayed by numerous presidents because of the status of peace negotiations as well as the issues of the borders and of the refugees.

Some believed the Congress Act, issued under pressures from Benjamin Netanyahu and his allying lobby inside the U.S. was an attempt to undermine the Oslo Accords.
U.S. presidents have since delayed the execution of the Act for six months as per article 7 in section (B) of the Act, the president has to notify Congress as to the reasons for delaying. All U.S. presidents consistently used the United States’ national security as the reason for delay; Clinton, George Bush Jr., and Obama have all previously delayed the Act. The American motive behind the execution delay was to avoid anything that could have undermined the peace process and consequently, harm or threaten American interests.

In executing the Jerusalem Embassy Act, Trump’s administration turned a blind eye to whatever consequences the decision may lead to, be it riots and unrest in Jerusalem, or sabotaging any chances of realizing peace. Some attribute the decision to reasons that have to do with the internal affairs of the U.S.

International community:

Throughout the years of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, no agreement was ever made concerning Jerusalem. Since the conflicting parties could not reach an agreement, the United Nations did not take sides or attempt to impose solutions, and therefore the Jerusalem issue remained unresolved until the concerned parties would reach an agreement.

In that sense, establishing embassies or any similar official move by any of the international community parties was considered a violation of any chance for political settlement in the future, and therefore such moves were avoided by all parties.

In recent years, the international community has not acknowledge the single sided Israeli moves in Eastern Jerusalem, nor did it concede to what Israel calls ‘facts on the ground’ which Israel created by expanding its settlements.

International legitimacy resolutions concerning Jerusalem: “Security Council, United Nations and International Court of Justice, article no. 78”:

The UN resolution 181 in 1947 recommended the creation of a special international regime in Jerusalem; resolution 252 in 1968 affirmed that any acquisition of territory by Israel by means of conquest is inadmissible; resolution 465 in 1980 declared all Israeli activities in Jerusalem a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which resulted in closing a number of embassies in Western Jerusalem (Jerusalem does not have any representational offices for other countries).

Last year’s UN resolution condemned the settlement-expansion activities and demographic changes exercised by Israel; and finally, the resolution of the International Court of Justice concerning the Israeli West Bank barrier stated that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal", arguing that all the lands acquired by Israel during the 1967 war are deemed occupied lands, including Eastern Jerusalem.

Thus, and owing to the aforementioned facts, we conclude that the legal status of Jerusalem according to resolutions of international community and international legitimacy is that of ‘occupied land’, and therefore a single-sided American move cannot change the internationally acknowledged legal status of Jerusalem.

Arabs’ options:

Global reactions condemn and reject the American decision on account of the fact that it obstructs the path of negotiations. Egypt called upon the Security Council to hold an urgent meeting. Likewise, a meeting was arranged for the Arab Ministers of Foreign Affairs to study the situation. Since the American decision reflects its complete alignment with Israel the following considerations should be taken care of:

1. The necessity of calling up and coordinating the efforts of international organizations, especially the United Nations General Assembly, in affirming the international community’s rejection of Jerusalem’s annexation to any state as per the resolutions of international legitimacy.

2. Coordinating with European partners and activating their role in all upcoming peace negotiations. As President Sisi announced before, the Palestinian situation should be resolved in accordance with the Arab and French initiatives.

3. Discounting the American partner on accounts of taking sides. It is also noteworthy that Palestine’s success in attaining the status of a UN Observer by collecting the votes of member countries only means the support of the international community to the two-state solution, let alone European countries’ recognition of Palestine as an independent state, and the growing number of boycott campaigns of Israeli products that come from settlements.

All these efforts affirm the international community’s approval of the two-state solution, and therefore any transgression on Jerusalem’s status is a hindrance to any resolution going in that direction, which means that European countries will probably not take the same approach recently taken by the U.S.

Hence, Arab-European efforts should be well-coordinated in international circles to affirm the status of Jerusalem in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions in order to achieve what is known as ‘soft balancing’ in international relations. In other words, other powers challenging the single-sided decisions of the U.S. in international assemblies would internationally delegitimize the U.S. decis