Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently announced that Australia would recognize "West Jerusalem" as Israel's capital with the understanding that "East Jerusalem" would eventually be the Palestinian capital under a two-state solution.
This ignores the fact that Palestinian claims to the eastern portion of Jerusalem are at best spurious. Jerusalem was never a Palestinian capital, and when given the chance to establish a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital between 1948 and 1967, neither the Palestinians nor their Jordanian occupiers did so.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded that Canberra's announcement was "a step in the right direction."
There may be doubt as to whether this really would be a step in the right direction, given that the direction may be down the road to hell, as often happened in the past.
In 1983, South Africa's apartheid government established a new tricameral parliamentary system that comprised separately elected mixed-race "coloured," Indian, and white houses of parliament into the legislature. Black South Africans were not included in this arrangement. In reality, this arrangement was a farce designed to "reform" apartheid or "separate development." Many saw this as "a step in the right direction." Of course, apartheid could not be reformed, only abolished, no matter how it was dressed up. It remained just that: apartheid.
While there is no connection between apartheid South Africa and Israel, whose Arab citizens enjoy full human and civil rights, the notion of "a step in the right direction" can be ill-conceived.
At the time, most opponents of apartheid maintained that the tricameral parliament was "a step in the right direction." From zero representation to limited representation in a separate parliament seemed a good idea. It was better than nothing, as many well-meaning people thought. Over 66% of white South Africans thus voted for this in the referendum. In fact, it brought about more violence and hastened the end of apartheid.
What people failed to see was that the tricameral system further alienated black South Africans. Further, hopes and expectations ran higher than what the reality could absorb. A lesson from history that revolutions sometimes occur when conditions and people's lives actually improve (such as in France and Russia) was lost on those with a linear view of the world. Well-meaning decisions could in fact boomerang.
Australia's recognition of "West Jerusalem" may therefore not be a step in the right direction as it entrenches the idea of divided cities, such as Berlin and Belfast, that never worked in the past. In addition, it inappropriately imposes a solution rather than leaving the parties to decide the outcome themselves.
By linking recognition of Israel's capital to a Palestinian capital in the same city, Australia unwittingly endorsed a situation that could exacerbate violence. Surely Morrison would know that when "East Jerusalem" was under Arab control for 19 years, there was no freedom of worship for Jews, regardless whether they were Swedes, Swiss or South Africans, let alone Israelis. He would also surely know that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated that Jews "with their filthy feet" would not be allowed to worship on the Temple Mount. The PA and its supporters in the international community regularly deny any historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem – a denial that Australia, to its credit, consistently votes against. Morrison also knows the PA pays "martyrs" to kill Jews regardless of whether the victims live in east Jerusalem, west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
No doubt, Morrison was trying to please everyone with "balance" but in fact formulated a poorly considered policy that similarly did nothing to diminish Arab violence even after the Oslo Agreement of 1993 – if anything, it actually increased. Oslo was also meant to be a step in the right direction, but resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands of Israelis through Arab terror.
By advocating a "West and East Jerusalem" (whatever that means) as future capitals of Israel and Palestine, Morrison overstepped his role and prejudged an issue that should have been left to the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate. On the other hand, his statements criticizing the U.N. mistreatment of Israel are courageous, maintaining that foreign policy should be based on moral clarity – a message that should be especially heeded by the EU countries. However, in this instance, Morrison would have better followed the American example that simply recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital while stipulating that recognition did not negate an eventual negotiated final outcome.
It is puzzling to understand what "a step in the right direction" actually means for Australia and whether prejudging a final settlement's negotiated possible outcome is wise. History shows that good intentions often result in unintended consequences.
