Trump’s Jerusalem move and the Arab League

• The final breakthrough?

Entitlement to Jerusalem, as claimed by Israel, which has been a bone of contention between Palestine and Israel since the existence of the latter, a public law on which four American presidents consistently availed the waiver at their discretion on national security interests, an enactment for which even President Donald Trump initially disappointed the Israeli government, as reported by The Times of Israel, by utilising an embassy waiver on June 1, 2017 has finally been promulgated. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of the United States that was passed by the 104^th Congress back in 1995 has by and by been acknowledged to be implemented soon. Why Donald Trump made this move, what are the by-products of this law’s effectuation and what can the Arab League do in this regard are the three main concerns currently haunting the world politics, in general, and that of the Middle East, in particular.

Recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move asserted by President Trump as “a long overdue step”, is what every Israeli government since its inception has craved for and every American government has refrained from carrying off. A step that is being asserted as pivotal “to advance peace process” was thought to have jeopardised the entire Middle East’s fate. The political pundits are confused whether to tag this recognition as a gambit in the favour of Israel with some hidden feature that will eventually benefit the United States or to accept it as free deal with no trade-off whatsoever. Another state of utter disorder lies in the prophecy made by experts from all quarters – the move will perturb and rock the Arabian Peninsula. But were the tremors too evident to be felt? Did the instability in the region materialise up to the predicted extent? Yes, the protests did claim lives of four Palestinians, but how about gauging the implications of this decision through the barometers of possible and witnessed roles of the Arab League in this regard?

The 22-member League of Arab States, in an emergency meeting of foreign ministers followed by Trump’s announcement, declared the move as a “flagrant attack” on path of settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, therefore, “dangerous and unacceptable”. Ahmed Aboul-Gheit, the secretary general of the League, did not hesitate in calling this decision “against international laws” that, in actuality, “raises questions over American efforts to support peace” between the stakeholders. But what else? Is that it? Similar remarks were passed by political and other renowned figures all across the globe and demonstrations were held by different factions in all Muslim countries but a few to exhibit anger and grief. But is this all what we were or should be expecting from the regional political organisation that was founded with an aim of resolving disputes involving member states without seeking foreign assistance?

Recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move asserted by President Trump as “a long overdue step”, is what every Israeli government since its inception has craved for and every American government has refrained from carrying off

The 1945 Pact of the League of Arab States included a special Annex on Palestine, an excerpt from which has been included for easy reference: “Even though Palestine was not able to control her own destiny, it was on the basis of the recognition of her independence that the Covenant of the League of Nations determined a system of government for her. Her existence and her independence among the nations can, therefore, no more be questioned de jure than the independence of any of the other Arab States. […] Therefore, the States signatory to the Pact of the Arab League consider that in view of Palestine’s special circumstances, the Council of the League should designate an Arab delegate from Palestine to participate in its work until this country enjoys actual independence.” The League’s current take on the issue hardly reflects the passion to win independence for Palestine. Reason? The fact that Palestine now enjoys the status of being a full member of the League cannot eclipse the de facto status of member states revolving around the swivel Saudi Arabia is. Reviewing each bloc’s composition and niche in the League concomitantly is the only way of dissecting and reaching the root cause of limitations.

Syria, Yemen, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, along with its partisans, comprise the four groups. The suspension of Syria’s membership following the Arab Spring’s emergence is a vindication of its rank and influence in the League. Qatar has been ambushed and cornered to the lowest possible diplomatic nook in the region over Saudi-Iran row. As for Yemen, as depicted in Iona Craig’s article titled “Bombed into famine: how Saudi air campaign targets Yemen’s food supplies” published by The Guardian, the Saudi-led military intervention has killed more than 10,000 civilians since March 2015 and made millions of Yemenis incapable of buying food, “forcing them into the more than 75 percent of the population who are in need of humanitarian assistance”. The rest of the members cherish fervent allegiance to Saudi Arabia as was exhibited in choosing sides in the most recent Saudi-Qatar diplomatic strife. The monopoly, therefore, will instruct and the dictate given by it is quite distressing.

Eyeing Mohammad bin Salman as a zephyr who is believed to have swayed away conservatism from Saudi Arabia is one thing, but his role in converging the interests of the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel is not unknown. “His firm anti-Iranian positions make him an important partner” and, therefore, a “good news for Israel and the United States” as stated by Zvi Bar’el in Haaretz. The ostensibly unprecedented relationship that is forming between Saudi Arabia and Israel aims to achieve the existence of coordination and progress between the latter and Arab countries, especially the Gulf States. In other words, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement regarding both the countries simultaneously welcoming Trump’s imposition of new sanctions on Iran puts the entire situation in a nutshell: “When Israel and the main Arab states have one vision, one has to be careful. This means that something important is happening.” Ayoob Kara, Israeli minister of communications, further elaborates: “The relations between the Saudi Sunni alliance and Israel are under the radar, and are not public, because of the culture of the Middle East that is sensitive regarding this matter”. Though not a credible source, but the renowned Saudi blogger ‘Mujtahid’ seems to be convinced on the basis of strong evidence that Saudi crown prince is working to “accept Israel as a brotherly state”. In the given scenario, what could then be expected of the Arab League?

The big picture reveals that Palestinian politics seems to be in a clear state of disarray owing to the uncertainty that has engulfed the Mideast politics thus preventing the announcement from kindling as violent a dispute as has been witnessed numerous times in the past. With the state of Palestine eyeing Jerusalem as its ultimate seat of power and the state of Israel maintaining its primary governmental institutions in the city, the conflict seems to have become more intricate this time. To quote Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American author: “You can’t have a negotiation over how to share a pizza when one side is eating the pizza.” Hence, although Trump has pledged to orchestrate the “ultimate deal” between Israelis and Palestinians, the final breakthrough to end the conflict is yet to be discovered.