Israel
On December 6th, 2017, Mr. Donald Trump declared that the US would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the U.S.-Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv, the previously acknowledged capital, to Jerusalem, the disputed capital. This action fulfilled the campaign promise made by Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush. For the Israelites who now hold a US supported claim to Jerusalem, this was great news. However, the Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and greater international community were not as pleased. What that truly means for the future of international relations is as of yet undetermined.
Stating Jerusalem as Israel’s capital clearly defined the U.S. as being on the side of Israel therefore ruining the longstanding pretense of achieving a compromise. “Th
e visible pursuit of peace, if not its achievement, has long been the mechanism by which the United States reconciles its alliances with Israel and with ostensibly anti-Israel Arab states,” was how the Washington Post’s Marc Lynch put it. Most of the world has long been aware of the US’s preference for Israel, but officially breaking their long held neutrality endangers the US’s status as a viable peace broker.
The United States display of bias endangers the strength of many Arab leaders seeking a peaceful resolution. Whatever beliefs these leaders hold at the political level, their people’s faith in them is already tenuous. Overall, the region does not look very favorably at the US as a result of past dealings. Since the latest election, faith in the American president to do the right thing has dropped even further in a study done by the Pew Research Center; in Lebanon, for instance, the perce
ntage dropped 21 points to 15%. With the US now displaying a clear preference for Israel, it is difficult to justify negotiating with the US in what Palestinians perceive to be an American-Israeli plot against Arabs. Thus, to the larger Arab community the US can no longer be trusted as a true mediator with the best interests of both sides in mind.
Conceding Jerusalem to Israel evaporated what was intended to be a major bargaining chip. Granting the holy capital to Jerusalem could have been leveraged in exchange for Palestinian refugees, border concessions, or other settlements. Jerusalem’s identity as a holy place for so many different peoples makes it a very controversial issue that was supposed to be set aside for negotiations during the final stages of peace.
However, in actuality aside from losing a bargaining chip there has been little other damage to the future of peace relations and some theorize it’s been a possible boon to negotiations. The world has long been aware of which country America sides with. Previously unwilling to act on their preference, US monitored peace talks have been at a stalemate for an alarmingly long time. Now that the US is enacting a definitive and more forward movement the other governments holding stakes in Jerusalem could be encouraged to make forward movement of their own.
Analysis of Swedish Student Survey Results
Of the three topics (Net Neutrality, Daca, and the US embassy in Israel), the Swedish students have been most split on this one. Many different opinions were brought up
with different reasonings. They all did, however, agree on two things: it is essential for the US to remain a neutral party in international negotiations, and they were not surprised the US broke this neutrality. “Not with Trump in power,” was the comment from many students. Students were vehement about the US’s neutrality; “It is very crucial since the US is undoubtedly the most powerful nation in the whole world.” When the US showed favoritism to Israel in the placement of their embassy, every group said something different about whether or not it was a positive decision. “No, because they will be losing a bargaining chip but also the relationship between America and the Arabs will be damaged,” said one group. Alternatively another group argued “Although it’s a controversial issue, it could benefit America economically.” A third group believed “It doesn’t really matter where the embassy should be located, as long as it does not break ties with other major nations with different political values.” The experts on this issue are similarly split; it’s a big issue with many sides and factors to be considered. America is a big country “whose decisions could affect a lot of people in a lot of countries,” making any decision difficult.
There was more cohesiveness regarding the morality of the decision. “No, because Israel becomes superior to other countries due to its support from America. . .therefore [causing] the Arabs to feel worried.” This taken into consideration with how “fragile” the country is concerned many student groups. “It’s legal and nothing wrong in it but no due to the fact that America shouldn’t do it.”
Swedish Student Survey and Results*
- Is moving the embassy to Jerusalem the most beneficial decision for America?
- For the country [of] America [it] is not a good decision due to the fact that there’s more Muslims than Jews in the world, so more people would be against the purpose.
- If they have said that Jerusalem is the capital, then they should have an embassy there to be able to have control.
- We think that moving the embassy to Jerusalem is not the most necessary decision that should be made. It doesn’t really matter where the embassy should be located, as long as it does not break ties with other major nations with different political values.
- Although it’s a controversial issue, it could benefit America economically.
- No, because they will be losing a bargaining chip but also the relationship between America and the Arabs will be damaged.
- Is moving the embassy morally correct?
- Both yes and no, yes because it’s legal and nothing wrong in it but no due to the fact that America shouldn’t do it.
- No, because the US should not be the ones deciding what the capital of another country is. It should be the country itself which decides.
- If moving the embassy is for the sake of historical purpose, we indeed suggest that it is morally correct. Jerusalem has been a central city for all three major religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and religiously and historically speaking, this has been an important city that could potentially unite the different religions and make peace.
- No, because the country seems kind of fragile at the moment.
- No, because Israel becomes superior to other countries due to its support from America, and therefore causes the Arabs to feel worried.
- Would Sweden have made the same decision? Would Sweden have made a similar one?
- No! Because more people would be against it.
- They would not have sided with Israel. Although, in 2014, Sweden recognised Palestine as an independent country, which is the exact opposite of what the US is doing.
- Sweden would probably not do such decisions since we would not gain anything beneficial from it, though it might cause an outrage.
- No, because Sweden isn’t that corrupt.
- No, because Sweden is to careful when making big decisions, like this one, to avoid being partial to one side.
- Does this event surprise you when you consider Americas typical political behavior?
- Nope.
- Not at all, they like to poke their noses into other countries’ business.
- Not at all, since the president of the US has more supreme power (veto right) than his own people, it is not unusual to think that the president can do such radical decisions.
- No, since Trump is the present president.
- No, not with Trump in charge.
- How important do you believe it is for America to be a neutral entity?
- Very important.
- It is very important because America is the (most) powerful country in the world and them siding with one part is unfair since the other part has little to no chance to conquer.
- It is very crucial since the US is undoubtedly the most powerful nation in the whole world. If the US were to go through with an important project, other major countries would probably be affected by this.
- It is very important, because America is a big and influential country whose decisions could affect a lot of people in a lot of countries.
*Swedish teens aged seventeen who had completed up to second year high school public education were asked in their English classroom to read through the above article and answer the listed questions in small groups. No other information about the topic was provided to them inside the class.
Sources Cited
https://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/2017/12/08/the-interpreter?nlid=80007820
part-time swede 