Trump’s Jerusalem justice for Jews
What ails strategic and political thinking along with the rigmarole of the diplomatic parlance and practice? The recent vituperation by the Indian thinkers and so-called intellectuals of the Israel-Palestine problem leaves a lot to be desired along with the warped analysis. The fundamental premise of the Arabs about Palestine is not a wrongly placed notion, but the issue that misses the academic point is that where we place the plight of the Jews as they have always been part of the obscurantist sequesters. Broadly speaking, the targeted Jews had to fight a lonesome battle surrounded by all and sundry West Asian nations. The tale of the Jews’ suffering has never been permitted to become a telltale narrative, which it ought to have become part of the myth, lore and practice of West Asia and the larger international system. It has always been a warped and one-sided narrative which quintessentially pits the United States of America as the tailor-made interventionist and the far-off laughing international actor and the Israeli establishment as a den of “tyrannical entrepreneurs”.
Admittedly, it has been part of the standard American policy that they have been supportive of Tel Aviv’s diplomatic and strategic standpoints both on and off the United Nations Security Council’s heady portals. We seldom deliberate upon the rites of passage which the Jews had to undergo after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and under the aegis of the Third Reich. Who can forgive the fortitude of the Jew community while being incarcerated in the Sobibores and Auschwitz of the World War II lore, pain and suffering too. This is not woolly sentimentalism.
The regulating US has always been the mediator nation par excellence with its superior military muscle, diplomatic refrain and economic reach. Though the American efforts have not yielded practical gains in the context of the Israel-Palestine question, the one ought not to relegate the strivings of President Jimmy Carter and his Camp David accords in the times of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat along with the stately efforts of President Clinton in 2000. The road-map approach in the early years of the twenty-first century too need not be kept out of the deliberation loop. In fact, if the Americans want they can spawn their own narrative where in American interest and strivings with the West Asian counterparts can initiate a solution for the Israel-Palestine quagmire. Apart from the talk surrounding the kidnapping of Harriri of Lebanon and the question of the Yemeni strife, the status of Jerusalem has once again come into to the limelight. A two-state solution might be the ideal solution for both the Israeli nation and the Palestine regions marked by West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the ruling denominations of Hamas and Fatah.
President Trump once offered to mediate between India and Pakistan, which was parried off by New Delhi but an American redo as negotiators with other nations can serve the cause of peace and stability in the West Asian region. The surprising lurch and search of some of the leaders and their stooges all across the international system has been the systemic sideling of the American nation as negotiators and stake holders in the region. But when it comes to ousting a leader and or a ruling outfit in the form of President Bashar-Al-Assad in Syria, Washington is expected to serve as a benefactor and provider nation par excellence. This amounts to a deplorable duplicity which needs to be corrected auspiciously which has made the deliberations on the Israel-Palestine quagmire as a strict no-no in Third World states and particularly in the developing segments of the World Polity. Delivery of global justice need not be one sided and singularly fenced.
It was part of the campaign trail heralded by President Trump in 2016 that the resolution of the status of Jerusalem city was advanced a foreign policy premise. In a way, President Trump has delivered on his campaign trail’s foreign policy promises. The decision to shift the American Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv has thus been advanced by President Trump as his “reaction” to the talk on the America’s West Asian premise in the contemporary context. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu called the decision as advancing peace and being “historic” in nature and implementation. One media portal reports about the historicity of the rationale why Israel’s capital should shift to Jerusalem and thus decrease the nightmare in this regional hotbed of conflict. President Netanyahu has commented, “The Jewish state would maintain status quo at the holy sites ensuring freedom of worship for Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is a historic day. It’s been the capital of Israel for nearly 70 years. Jerusalem has been the focus of our hopes, our dreams, our prayers for three millennia. It has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years. It was here that our temples stood, our kings ruled, our prophets preached.”
Fredrico Mogherini, the chief diplomat of the European Union, and other progressive leaders have expressed “serious concern” about the Trump’s proclamation to designate Jerusalem as the novae capital of Israel in an interesting diplomatic demarche very characteristic of the American supremo.
According to the New Testament also, Jerusalem happens to be the place of Abhramical sacrifice; so Jerusalem attains extreme significance for the Israeli nation. Germany has attempted to stick to the ideational two-state solution, where in the status of the holy city of Jerusalem can be decided only under the framework of the two-state solution. Even after the worldwide gamut of protests and the Israeli bombing of targets in West Bank and Gaza strip, President Trump remains at his defiant best in the context of his Jerusalem decision. According to a Guardian report, President Trump said, “My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”
The Atlantic says, “The Palestinian militant group Hamas called for three ‘days of rage’ to protest the decision. Many people answered that call.” Emma Green writes in the Atlantic, “The divided city is one claimed by both Israelis (in West Jerusalem) and Palestinians (in East Jerusalem) as their capital, and American Presidents have typically treated its status as an issue to be resolved through negotiations. In the wake of Trump’s announcement, people in the Palestinian half of the city are angry, but few seemed eager for the new intifada or uprising that some Muslim leaders are calling for.”
No one might be yet prepared for the Naqba in the forties, the Galilee war in the sixties or the Yom Kippur war in the seventies. A common refrain in the affected region is that Hamas and Fatah will forget the American proclamation after a few days and everything will be back to normal.
(The writer teaches International Relations at Indian Institute of Public Administration, Delhi)
- Attributes of a true parliamentarian 16 Aug 2018 | Devender Singh | in Oped
- Adverse effects of e-commerce 16 Aug 2018 | Kota Sriraj | in Oped
- Imran: A pawn in the hands of troika 16 Aug 2018 | Anil Gupta | in Oped
- Political gamble 16 Aug 2018 | Pioneer | in Edit
- Turkish cold 16 Aug 2018 | Pioneer | in Edit
- Early proposition 16 Aug 2018 | Pioneer | in Edit
- The curious case of Demchok 16 Aug 2018 | Claude Arpi | in Edit
- Contest the real contest seriously 15 Aug 2018 | Kalyani Shankar | in Oped
- It’s a long-term strategy 15 Aug 2018 | Gwynne Dyer | in Oped
- India’s dynamic growth story 15 Aug 2018 | Hima Bindu Kota | in Oped