Respected media outlets and journalists, you are all familiar with the situation in Jerusalem and the colonisation and Judaisation measures and policies to which it is being subjected by the Israeli government, including attacks on its Arab, Muslim and Christian landmarks. There are also continuous attempts to displace and expel Palestinians living in Jerusalem by means of harassment, especially in the form of revoking their residency permits, prohibiting them from living in the city and banning them from all forms of construction, including rebuilding and renovating their homes and places of worship. The Israeli occupation authorities have also refused to issue permits to educational, medical and services institutions, all the while continuing to implement policies aiming to change the Arab identity of this holy city.
In this same context, and in conjunction with these policies and violations, the extremist Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to pressure the new US administration to issue a presidential decree to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The Israeli occupation government’s success in obtaining such a decree poses a danger to the future of the Palestinian cause, because it would mean that the US, and the major power it represents in international politics, is blatantly in favour of Israel’s unilateral, illegal annexation of Jerusalem. It is also a rejection of the international resolutions relating to this, including UN Resolution 242, and the first step towards allowing Israel to disregard the Palestinians’ right to a state with Jerusalem as its capital.
We at the Palestine International Forum for Media and Communication (Tawasul), in recognition of the danger posed by such a move on the Palestinian cause and on our Arab and Muslim nation, invite all media organisations and our esteemed journalists and colleagues to take a strong and clear position on this. We also call on them to make a qualitative and intensive effort against this distinctly pro-Israel move, in defence of religious, political and civil rights guaranteed to the Palestinians under the relevant international resolutions, laws and conventions.
In this context, we present to our colleagues and fellow organisations some ideas for media content and policies that we suggest should be adopted when addressing this issue. We have also included a fact and information sheet on the topic. We look forward to your cooperation and working together in support of the justice of the Palestinian cause.
Yours in humanity,
Hisham Qasem
Director-General
Palestine International Forum for Media and Communication
Media policies
- Focus on the Arab and Muslim aspects of Jerusalem, as this is a cause that goes beyond the borders of historic Palestine in its symbolism and significance.
- Encourage public opinion, political parties and civil society to take action on all levels to defend Jerusalem.
- Utilise our media discourse to push Arab governments, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Al-Quds Committee to bear their responsibility to put pressure on the Trump administration to prevent the issuance of a decree to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
- Use our various media relations to activate the cause among foreign and supportive elites, by informing them of the sensitivity of this issue and the importance of them urging their governments to use their influence to stop any US measures in this regard.
- Adopt a progressive media policy as a pre-emptive priority for the current phase by creating experiences and programmes in order to create an interactive media, civil and official reality with Jerusalem.
Media discourse content
- Emphasise that Jerusalem is a part of our religion and a symbol of our civilisation and identity, and that any harm to it will be considered a direct attack on our Arab and Muslim nations.
- We, as Muslims and Christians, are united in trying to prevent this step, as it is a blatant violation of our religious, human and civilisational rights.
- Any US measure of this kind is considered a flagrant violation of all related international charters and resolutions and a rebellion against the foundations upon which the UN and international relations are supposed to be built.
- If Washington does this, it will further complicate the regional scene and will result in negative reactions from numerous and varied parties. The US will bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for this.
- Justice and fairness dictates that Washington reconsiders its biased position in favour of the Israeli occupation and its Judaising policies practiced in Jerusalem, instead of encouraging Israel to commit more crimes and violations against the Palestinian people and the Muslim and Christian sanctities.
- The Palestinian cause requires effort and cooperation on everyone’s part in order to bring to an end the last discriminatory colonial occupation, which is a disgrace to the entire free world.
Facts and information on moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
Foreword
Given the fact that the Israeli occupation authorities announced the establishment of their state on Palestinian land in 1948 and confiscated large parts of Jerusalem (84.1 per cent of its area at the time), this city has entered a new phase of religious and political conflict with the Palestinians and Arabs on one side and Israel and its allies on the other.
The June 1967 War was a major turning point in this conflict. After the Israelis occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem, Jewish demands to declare Jerusalem to be the “undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish people” emerged. This was approved formally by the Knesset (Israeli parliament) in 1980, a move that the international community and UN refused to recognise.
The current dispute regarding Jerusalem’s standing is a critical issue in the Palestine-Israel conflict, as the Palestinians consider it the capital of their state, as noted in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (issued in Algeria on 15 November 1988). The Palestinian Authority has also called for the declaration of occupied East Jerusalem as the state capital of an independent Palestine, while the Israelis regard the city as their undivided capital and act accordingly.
The UN recognises the east part of Jerusalem as an occupied territory subject to the clauses of the Fourth Geneva Convention and refuses to recognise Israeli sovereignty over it. The same goes for the US, which officially refuses, along with the rest of the world, to recognise Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem since 1967.
Trump’s promise
Since the late 1960s, America’s positions on the Palestine-Israel conflict included providing great support to the latter that would guarantee its military superiority and distinction in the Middle East. This has occurred regardless of who the US president has been.
After Donald Trump won the presidential election in November last year, a number of fears emerged from within Palestinian circles, especially regarding the new US president’s promises to make serious changes in his country’s policy regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict. He has made these promises after his repeated statements regarding his intention to move the US embassy in Israel from its current location in Tel Aviv (in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948) to Jerusalem.
His statements regarding the embassy move began during his election campaign, specifically on 21 March 2016, when Trump promised in his speech before AIPAC, one of the strongest pro-Israel Lobby groups putting pressure on the US Congress, to move Washington’s embassy to what he called “the eternal capital of the Jewish people”. Israeli officials are now calling for this promise to be fulfilled and have asked Trump to change the status quo in Jerusalem.
Dates
- The US recognised Israel in 1948, but it did not recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when Israel declared this in 1950.
- On 23 October 1995, the US Congress passed a law known as the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999.
- The American president at the time, Bill Clinton, issued a presidential waiver thus semi-annually suspending the implementation of the law based on national security concerns, as have his successors to-date.
- The US abstained from voting on resolution 478 issued by the UN Security Council in 1980 with the approval of 14 countries. This resolution considers Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem to be a violation of international law.
- After the aforementioned Security Council resolution 478 was passed, 13 countries, the majority of which were Latin American, moved their embassies from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.
- 25 September 2016: US Presidential candidate Donald Trump pledged to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided” capital.
- 30 September 2016: The White House left out “Israel” when listing Jerusalem in Obama’s eulogy to ex-President Shimon Peres.
- 22 January 2017: The White House announced the beginning of discussions regarding moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and studying all the consequences of this on various levels.
- 23 January 2017: The White House said that President Trump has not yet made a decision regarding moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Israeli applause, Palestinian warning and international concern
Trump’s promise pleased the Israeli occupation authorities, who considered this to be a harsh blow, not only to the Palestinians, but also to the Israeli left who refuse to recognise Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Trump’s repeated statements regarding the embassy move have led Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to describe this move as “great”.
However, the US promise was met with Palestinian rejection on all official, popular and factional levels. Palestinians see it as an attempt to further ignite the area and as a violation of international resolutions and charters that regard East Jerusalem to be occupied territory and reject its annexation under Israeli sovereignty.
The danger of this issue lies in the fact that it is basically a final recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This could ultimately end the peace process and have destructive effects on the security and stability of the region, according to official Palestinian narratives.
The PA and PLO (the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) have expressed on numerous occasions their rejection of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. This is because such a move would “eliminate any hope of reaching a peace agreement to resolve the conflict.”
The PA has also reiterated its intention to intensify its efforts on the diplomatic level, in conjunction with popular movements on the ground, in order to put pressure on the Trump administration to back down from its decision.
US reactions to the promise of moving the embassy
Trump’s promise did not receive praise or encouragement from his predecessor, Barack Obama, who believed moving the embassy to Jerusalem could have “explosive” results. Obama also expressed his concern that the chances of a two-state solution were dimming. During his last press conference as President of the United States, on 19 January 2017, Obama said, “When sudden unilateral moves are made that speak to some of the core issues and sensitivities of either side, that can be explosive.”
Arab and international reactions to the promise of moving the embassy
The US effort provoked angry international reactions. While French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault spoke on behalf of the ministry (15 January 2017), and described the suggestion to move the US embassy to Jerusalem as a “provocation”, Arab circles warned against the “adverse consequences” of Trump going through with his promises. Other parties have refrained from commenting on the issue as a form of failing to dignify it, believing, it is claimed, that Trump would not go through with his threats that were just part of his plan to win the elections.
Jerusalem and foreign diplomacy
On 30 July 1980, the Knesset passed the “Jerusalem Law” that made the Israeli declaration of Jerusalem as its capital city and the annexation of its eastern half under Israeli sovereignty a basic law, i.e. a constitutional principle.
After this date, most of the foreign embassies relocated from Jerusalem to other Palestinian cities, such as Tel Aviv, in protest against the law; the exceptions were El Salvador and Costa Rica.
Since then, the US embassy has remained in Tel Aviv. The US has nothing in Jerusalem other than a consulate headed by diplomat Donald Blome. This consulate does not deal with the Israeli government, but rather with the PA, and it receives its orders from the US Department of State in Washington, and not from the embassy in Tel Aviv. This is to prevent any hint at all of America’s de facto recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Jerusalem in UN resolutions
The following are some resolutions concerning Jerusalem, issued by the UN General Assembly and Security Council:
- General Assembly Resolution 181 of 20 November 1947, which stipulated the end of the British Mandate in Palestine and its separation into two states with economic union between the two. It also stipulated that Jerusalem and its surrounding suburbs shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.
- General Assembly Resolution 273 of 11 May 1949, which stipulated Israel’s acceptance as a member of the UN.
- General Assembly Resolution 303 of 9 December 1949, which restates that Jerusalem should be placed under a permanent international regime.
- General Assembly Resolution 2253 of 4 July 1967, which calls upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken to change the status of the Jerusalem, and to refrain from taking such action in the future.
- General Assembly Resolution 2254 of 14 July 1967, which expresses deep regret and concern of the non-compliance by Israel with resolution 2253 and the measures it has taken to change the status of Jerusalem.
- General Assembly Resolution 2851 of 20 December 1971, which calls upon Israel to rescind all measures and to desist from all policies and practices such as the annexation of any part of the occupied Arab territories or the establishment of settlements on those territories.
- General Assembly Resolution 2949 of 8 December 1972, which reiterates the UN’s grave concern at the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Arab territories since 5 June 1967, and calls upon all states not to recognise any changes and measures carried out by Israel in the occupied Arab territories and invites them to avoid actions, including actions in the field of aid, that could constitute recognition of that occupation.
- General Assembly Resolution 35/207 of 16 December 1980, which strongly condemns Israel’s aggression against Lebanon and the Palestinian people and reaffirms its strong rejection of Israel’s decision to annex Jerusalem.
- Security Council Resolution 250 of 27 April 1968 that calls upon Israel to refrain from holding a military parade in Jerusalem.
- Security Council Resolution 251 of 2 May 1968 which deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the said military parade in Jerusalem.
- Security Council Resolution 252 of 21 May 1968, which urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.
- Security Council Resolution 267 of 3 July 1969 which, once again, urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all measures it has taken which may tend to change the status of Jerusalem and to refrain from doing so in the future.
- Security Council Resolution 271 of 15 September 1969 which condemns Israel’s desecration and profanation of the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque and calls on Israel to rescind all measures and actions taken by it designed to alter the status of Jerusalem.
- Security Council Resolution 298 of 25 September 1971, which deplores the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions adopted by the UN concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the City of Jerusalem.
- Security Council Resolution 465 of 1 March 1980, which includes urging Israel to dismantle the existing settlements and to cease the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
- Security Council Resolution 476 of 30 June 1980, which declares that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel that purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity.
- Security Council Resolution 478 of 20 August 1980, which decides not to recognise the Jerusalem “basic law” and calls upon all Members of the UN to withdraw diplomatic missions from Jerusalem.