U.S. President Donald Trump's Jan. 3 tweet, in which he wrote, "Jerusalem, the toughest part of the negotiation, off the table, but Israel, for that, would have had to pay more," was apparently not intended to emphasize his perception that Jerusalem had in fact been removed from the political agenda, but rather as a reminder of what he considered to be a grand gesture toward Israel. In return, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government was supposed to repay Trump with political capital. The Palestinians, however, with their boycott of American mediation, have relinquished that possibility.
Even if Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel was intended as an important gesture toward Israel, his assessment the move would remove the issue from the political agenda was far from a reflection of reality. The very fact that he noted his declaration did not relate to the borders of the city meant the issue was, from his standpoint, up for negotiation.
The need to discuss the future of Jerusalem stems from Israel's and the Palestine Liberation Organization's signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords. No Israeli government, and that includes the current government, has ever canceled the deal, and Israel is therefore just as beholden to it as the PLO. Article 5 of the agreement pertains to a number of issues, such as refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders and cooperation with neighboring countries, but Jerusalem is the first item that appears on the list.
While it is true that then-U.S. President Bill Clinton hosted the Israelis and the Palestinians at a signing ceremony of the declaration of principles, neither the U.S. nor any other country has the authority to dictate to both sides the addition or removal of a subject for discussion within the framework of a permanent agreement. Only the two parties to the agreement can do that, and the fact is that up until now, they have abstained from doing so.
Moreover, even if a U.S. president could remove Jerusalem as a subject of negotiations toward a permanent status agreement, it would not solve the demographic challenge presented by the city. When 40% of the city's residents are Palestinian, the prospect of turning the unified capital of Jerusalem into an Arab city is only too real. Had the Palestinians in east Jerusalem taken advantage of their right to vote in this year's municipal elections, they could have established the city council's largest political bloc and played a significant role in deciding who was elected mayor.
Left-wing doves propose dividing the city between its Jewish neighborhoods, including those situated in east Jerusalem, and Arab neighborhoods, and allowing the Palestinians to establish their capital in the eastern part of the city. Right-wing hawks are slicker in their approach: They suggest removing Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods from its municipal territory while maintaining Israel's sovereignty over those areas. Either way, it seems Jerusalem will be on our minds in the near future.
