Turkey's Leadership in the Jerusalem Crisis.

• Author: Kirecci, M. Akif
• Position: COMMENTARY

Introduction

On December 6, 2017, the U.S. President, Donald Trump, officially proclaimed Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He also expressed the commitment of his administration to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move which disturbed many Muslims around the world. Several countries in Europe expressed their reservations about Trump's proclamation. For Trump it was simply a matter of keeping his electoral promise. (1)

Trump's move was based on a controversial regulation of "Jerusalem Embassy Act" of 1995. (2) The U.S. Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act in October 1995, (3) which recognized Jerusalem as the "capital of the state of Israel" and acknowledged that it "has been administered as a unified city" implying the Israeli control. While not mentioning the disputed status of the city of Jerusalem, the Act set the deadline for moving the U.S. embassy there as May 31, 1999. Since 1998, all U.S. presidents opted to use their power to defer the act in order to avoid provoking the already enflamed Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Israel expected that major countries around the world would follow the U.S., which in return would legitimize its claims over East Jerusalem and perhaps the West Bank. While the U.S. support for Israel in the Middle East has been unique and unconditional, based on the notion that the security of Israel is identical with the security of the U.S., such a drastic step was never taken by earlier U.S. administrations. Alienating Saudi Arabia and other major Arab states was something that American presidents avoided. But this time, it seems that the U.S. and to a certain extent Israel convinced the Saudi leaders, Gulf States and Egypt before publicizing the decision. (4) Sources often mention the special tie between Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Trump, and the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who tries to promote himself as a leader who wants to shatter radicalism, modernize the country, and be the friendly face of the Kingdom to the world. (5) A possible reaction, if not a rejection to Trump's move was therefore halted earlier through backdoor diplomacy, personal relations and major weapons deals between the U.S. and the Saudi Kingdom. The Gulf States took similar positions and did not raise their concern publicly to appease the U.S. and Israel.

In his statement, Trump mentioned that the U.S. move was a big step for the peace process, although he did not delineate the details, nor mention who the parties of such a process were. Obviously, the Palestinian side knew little, if any, about the parameters of the peace process that Trump argued was ongoing. (6)

The major issue remains, how much the Initiating of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 would jeopardize the position of the U.S. as a mediator towards the two-state solution. Recent reactions against Trump's decision in Palestine, Israel's insistence on its demands, and the U.S. registration to those demands contribute to the deterioration of the U.S. position to mediate between the two sides. In fact, the U.S. did not seem concerned whether such steps would jeopardize its role as the main mediator or trigger the Palestinian conflict into another set of violence.

When Trump declared that he was going to activate the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 on December 6, 2017, before the end of his first year in office, it brought about a set of reactions from both Muslim and Christian countries. Turkey played a key role in the diplomatic frontline, firstly by calling for an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). Further initiatives were taken to bring the issue to the United Nations General Assembly especially after the U.S. vetoed the Egyptian proposal to reverse the U.S. decision in the United Nations Security Council. So, Turkey focused its efforts on a reversal of the decision in the United Nations General Assembly.

Focusing on the diplomatic efforts of Turkey, this commentary analyzes the processes by which the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem was triggered. During a time of regional disarray, Turkey took up the task of spearheading the efforts to bring the Jerusalem issue in the attention of the OIC, the EU and the world community. The determined efforts brought about a unified reaction on the parts of the members of the OIC, and later a resounding result against Trump's decision in the United Nations General Assembly.

Turkey's Diplomatic Initiatives

It is no news for many that president Erdogan, since his office as Prime Minister, follows the Palestinian issue closely. He encouraged several projects in Palestine and raised concerns over their plights on several occasions. The silence of Arab leaders on the Palestinian issue makes Erdogan's statements more visible and at times the only voice.

Even before Trump made his speech on December 6, 2017, Turkey adopted an action plan to react to the U.S. decision. The sources indicate that President's office prioritized the issue and organized efforts around the objective of reversing the decision of Trump; if this would not be possible, he would try and convince leaders not to support such a decision. Through bilateral discussions--over the phone and in person with the member countries of the EU and the OIC--Turkey emphasized the potential complications and threats that would ensue from the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem and accept Jerusalem as Israel's "undivided" capital.

In all high-level communications, Turkey presented the following arguments. First, the U.S. decision did not fit into the historical, religious and sociological facts on the ground. Second, this decision would do more harm than good to the prospect of peace in the Middle East and the two-state solution. Lastly, Turkish authorities emphasized the sanctity of Jerusalem for Muslims and...