The Jerusalem Conniption

Donald Trump, yesterday, fulfilled a campaign promise by formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announcing the beginning of the process to move America’s embassy there. The hysterics began when it was first rumored he would do so, and reached a rapid crescendo in less time than it takes to say “Want fries with that?”

The Guardian declared Trump “defiant.” Al Jazeera observed “Trump ignores warnings with ‘reckless Jerusalem move.'” Slate sought to inform us of “Trump’s selfish reason.” WaPo called it an “extension of a global cultural war.” The Atlantic blared “Jerusalem Is Not the Explosive Device—It’s the Detonator.” CNN gave him credit for fulfilling a promise, but backhanded him by suggesting he did so because of “ever-increasing pressure from the Russia investigation.”

That was the press. The world reactions were similarly aghast or tut-tut. The Pope was not amused. The Saudis were disappointed. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi felt it would complicate things. Hamas declared that the announcement “opens the gates of hell on US interests in the region.” Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Jerusalem a “red line.” Theresa May’s government called it “unhelpful.” Angela Merkel commented that it would interfere with her preferred two-state solution. France rejected what it called a “unilateral” decision. Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “seriously condemned” the announcement.

Jordan’s King Abdullah warned that “this could fuel terrorism.”

Abbas and Erdogan felt this move precluded any future American role in the peace process.

Forgive me for guffawing at the farcicality of these last two bits.

First, some history. In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act by wide, bipartisan margins (93-5 in the Senate, 374–37 in the House). This act not only directed the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem, as its title suggests, but also “called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.” For reasons of constitutional process and separation of powers, the Act included language that enabled the President to issue a suspension should he deem it necessary for national security purposes. This suspension/waiver was to last 6 months, and the President could renew it in perpetuity.

Which is what’s been happening for the past 22 years. Every 6 months, the waiver was renewed. This past June, the Senate “passed a resolution commemorating 50th anniversary of reunification of Jerusalem,” 90-0, and “reaffirmed the Jerusalem Embassy Act.”

Read that again: 90-0. Just a few months ago. Did the Press excoriate all the Democratic senators who supported this measure? I don’t recall reading anything of the sort. This, of course, tells us of the partisan cynicism that has infected everything: they had no problem with a gesture they felt was merely symbolic, but are losing their collective shit now that the President has actually fulfilled the bipartisan will of Congress.

Now, lets talk perspective. This quote, from a prefers-to-remain-anonymous Internet friend of a friend of a friend, says it quite well.

Syria is entering its seventh year of civil war. Yemen is staggering under famine, war, and siege. Egypt is battling an ISIS-related insurgency that slaughters hundreds at a time. Libya is the scene of a thriving slave trade that includes the vivisection of black Africans. Iraq is launching offensives against the Kurds and gestating its next Sunni revolt. Iran has forces in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and is using its proxies to launch ballistic-missile attacks on Riyadh, and anti-ship missile attacks on US Navy vessels at sea. Bahrain is on the brink of revolt. Qatar is besieged. The UAE has expeditionary forces at war. Turkey turns against the West. Hamas continues its open advocacy of genocide; the Palestinian Authority continues its blood-money payments for the murder of Jews.

But sure, this is what’s going to set the region ablaze.

The “peace process” has been going on for my entire adult life. I’m old enough to remember then President Carter in a three-way handshake with Israeli PM Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat, in 1978, as they signed the Camp David Accords. While that peace has endured, the matter of a Palestinian state, and a “peace process” that might lead to one, has carried on across generations.

It’s a sad joke. I hate to call it that, because the death, destruction, and misery of the perpetual state of conflict and terrorism is nothing to mock or laugh at, but there’s no other way to lament the farcicality of continuing to think there is a “peace process.” Not when Hamas, the organization firmly in charge of the Palestinian side of things, has made it obviously clear that no outcome that does not involve the destruction of Israel will ever satisfy. Not when Iran and her puppet Syria continue to beat the drum of Israel’s destruction. Not when Israel’s right to exist remains unrecognized by 25 Muslim nations.

In short, there is no “peace process” in any realistic sense of the phrase. To think that this announcement will derail that which does not really exist is mere excuse making for the expected violent reactions from Arabs and Muslims. Why, though, do we continue to excuse this violence, and almost deem it a “normal” reaction?

I’ve heard some say that violence is a natural consequence of helplessness and powerlessness, that the Palestinians are oppressed and subordinated, and that it’s their only way to “fight back.”

Ponder this map, for just a moment. Ponder a global Muslim population of 1.8 billion people, or 1 person in 4, vs a global population of 14 million Jews. In other words, there are nearly 1300 Muslims in the world for every Jew. There are 50 Muslim nations, and one Jewish nation. How does any rational person conclude that Muslims are the powerless and oppressed group? Furthermore, with all these nations, with all these people, and with all this global presence, why do we accept violent responses or the expectation thereof? There’s clearly a soft bigotry of low expectations at work here, and it’s one that, it seems, is routinely put forth by many Westerners, and is happily accepted by Muslim leaders.

As to the latter, why? The answer is that focusing a populace’s hatred on an enemy is a welcome distraction from poor leadership, sluggard economies, domestic discord, and other failures. Nothing unites a people more than a common enemy, and Israel makes a really, REALLY useful one. Eliminating the Israel scapegoat would mean that populations might turn their eyes inward, and start to demand their leaders do better by them. That’s hard work with no certainty of success, so when compared to the proven strategy of perpetuating Israel-hatred, it’s no surprise few embrace it and move to reconcile with Israel.

America, too. America was dubbed “the Great Satan” by Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1979, and, deserved or not, the attitude has fueled decades of anger and violence. Why, then, would we wring our hands over reactions to a declaration that was authorized two decades ago, that’s proper, deserved, and a long time in coming? It’s not like those who foment hatred against America would have the slights bit of trouble continuing to do so.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until the Muslim world recognizes Israel’s right to exist. There will be no softening of the position that America is “the great Satan” until that happens, either. So, why go non-linear over this Jerusalem announcement? Israel is a friend and an ally, and she is a Westernized, prosperous nation whose values are far closer to our own than the repressive Sharia regimes of the Middle East are. This announcement is long-overdue, and we should welcome it.