Relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem – a Necessary Move
Speaking before the AIPAC Policy Conference yesterday, US Vice President Mike Pence said Trump is still 'seriously considering' moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. In the view of former Israeli Ambassador to the United States David Ivry, this long-time promise by previous US presidential candidates must finally be fulfilled
David Ivry
| 27/03/2017
The US Embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel (Photo: Bigstock)
Having the US Embassy in Israel relocated from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem has been a necessary move for years. Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, and it is appropriate for all foreign embassies to be located in the capital, where the Knesset and most government ministries are located. The present abnormal situation had become the norm, and breaking the norm will constitute a violation of the status quo which would have political implications, especially in times as sensitive as these.
Admittedly, the blunder may be traced back to the days prior to the Six-Day War (1967). The US Embassy should have been established in western Jerusalem back then. An even bigger absurd is the fact that the US Consulate in Jerusalem mainly serves the Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem – not the Israelis.
Over the years, many promises were made by American presidents-elect, democrats and republicans alike, to relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem – mostly in the context of pre-election speeches. The presidents who made those promises had come and gone, but the promise was never fulfilled.
As the Israeli Ambassador to the USA, I was involved in one of many initiatives that attempted to have that promise fulfilled.
The first case occurred pursuant to the failure of the negotiations conducted by Prime Minister Ehud Barak with Chairman Arafat under the auspices of US President Bill Clinton. Back then, in 2000, President Clinton published his "Clinton Parameters" paper that in his opinion should have provided the basis for the establishment of the two states. The failure of those talks had been conceived by the public as something Arafat should be blamed for, and from that moment on it was declared that Arafat was not a partner for peace, while stressing that Barak had gone more than a few extra miles in Arafat's direction. In those days, the international political atmosphere was very pro-Israeli, and at the conclusion of the talks, I spoke with Prime Minister Barak on our way back to Washington, and we agreed that I should initiate a move toward the relocation of the US Embassy. Naturally, many parties within the Democratic-dominated administration torpedoed this move although it is my estimate that President Clinton was very much inclined to make that move as a gesture to Barak and as a "punitive" act toward Arafat.
Immediately thereafter the presidential campaigns began in the USA, and George W. Bush won and was elected president. Bush and his team, which included many friends of Israel, regarded the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem as a necessary move. Indeed, after entering office, preliminary steps were made, such as the review of potential locations and initial planning and specification of the needs for the new embassy – but everything stopped there.
Admittedly, President Bush announced that he had initiated the preliminary steps toward the fulfillment of the promise, but he subsequently evaded such implementation throughout his tenure, citing different reasons.
Today, in the age of Republican President Donald Trump, the issue of the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem is once again being discussed – even more intensively, and the promise appears to be nearing fulfillment. My estimate is that the relocation of the US Embassy to western Jerusalem, and I must emphasize – western Jerusalem – is an appropriate and necessary move. There can be no justification for the fact that the USA does not recognize western Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel. This in no way implies anything regarding the position of the USA on eastern Jerusalem or the rights of the Palestinians.
I am not so naïve as to think that the politicians see justice or logic in front of them, but it is my estimate that the relocation of the US Embassy to western Jerusalem is more justified and less provocative than the annexation of Ma'ale-Adumim. Perhaps it would be right to place both options on the scales, to be decided upon by the leaders of the relevant countries. In my estimate, the Arab side will prefer this option, too, rather than supporting any radical activity on the part of the Palestinians.
***
Maj. Gen. (ret.) David Ivry is the President of Boeing Israel. He served as Ambassador of Israel to the USA, Head of the National Security Council, Director-General of the Ministry of Defense, Chairman of Israel Aircraft Industries, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff, and Commander of the Israeli Air Force.
Speaking before the AIPAC Policy Conference yesterday, US Vice President Mike Pence said Trump is still 'seriously considering' moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. In the view of former Israeli Ambassador to the United States David Ivry, this long-time promise by previous US presidential candidates must finally be fulfilled
The US Embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel (Photo: Bigstock)
Having the US Embassy in Israel relocated from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem has been a necessary move for years. Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, and it is appropriate for all foreign embassies to be located in the capital, where the Knesset and most government ministries are located. The present abnormal situation had become the norm, and breaking the norm will constitute a violation of the status quo which would have political implications, especially in times as sensitive as these.
Admittedly, the blunder may be traced back to the days prior to the Six-Day War (1967). The US Embassy should have been established in western Jerusalem back then. An even bigger absurd is the fact that the US Consulate in Jerusalem mainly serves the Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem – not the Israelis.
Over the years, many promises were made by American presidents-elect, democrats and republicans alike, to relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem – mostly in the context of pre-election speeches. The presidents who made those promises had come and gone, but the promise was never fulfilled.
As the Israeli Ambassador to the USA, I was involved in one of many initiatives that attempted to have that promise fulfilled.
The first case occurred pursuant to the failure of the negotiations conducted by Prime Minister Ehud Barak with Chairman Arafat under the auspices of US President Bill Clinton. Back then, in 2000, President Clinton published his "Clinton Parameters" paper that in his opinion should have provided the basis for the establishment of the two states. The failure of those talks had been conceived by the public as something Arafat should be blamed for, and from that moment on it was declared that Arafat was not a partner for peace, while stressing that Barak had gone more than a few extra miles in Arafat's direction. In those days, the international political atmosphere was very pro-Israeli, and at the conclusion of the talks, I spoke with Prime Minister Barak on our way back to Washington, and we agreed that I should initiate a move toward the relocation of the US Embassy. Naturally, many parties within the Democratic-dominated administration torpedoed this move although it is my estimate that President Clinton was very much inclined to make that move as a gesture to Barak and as a "punitive" act toward Arafat.
Immediately thereafter the presidential campaigns began in the USA, and George W. Bush won and was elected president. Bush and his team, which included many friends of Israel, regarded the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem as a necessary move. Indeed, after entering office, preliminary steps were made, such as the review of potential locations and initial planning and specification of the needs for the new embassy – but everything stopped there.
Admittedly, President Bush announced that he had initiated the preliminary steps toward the fulfillment of the promise, but he subsequently evaded such implementation throughout his tenure, citing different reasons.
Today, in the age of Republican President Donald Trump, the issue of the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem is once again being discussed – even more intensively, and the promise appears to be nearing fulfillment. My estimate is that the relocation of the US Embassy to western Jerusalem, and I must emphasize – western Jerusalem – is an appropriate and necessary move. There can be no justification for the fact that the USA does not recognize western Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel. This in no way implies anything regarding the position of the USA on eastern Jerusalem or the rights of the Palestinians.
I am not so naïve as to think that the politicians see justice or logic in front of them, but it is my estimate that the relocation of the US Embassy to western Jerusalem is more justified and less provocative than the annexation of Ma'ale-Adumim. Perhaps it would be right to place both options on the scales, to be decided upon by the leaders of the relevant countries. In my estimate, the Arab side will prefer this option, too, rather than supporting any radical activity on the part of the Palestinians.
***
Maj. Gen. (ret.) David Ivry is the President of Boeing Israel. He served as Ambassador of Israel to the USA, Head of the National Security Council, Director-General of the Ministry of Defense, Chairman of Israel Aircraft Industries, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff, and Commander of the Israeli Air Force.
