The arguments against moving our embassy to Jerusalem don't stack up

Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and head of the Catholic Church in the UK, said it would be “seriously damaging to any possibility of lasting peace in the region”. He said: “the city must be shared as a common patrimony, never becoming an exclusive monopoly of any party”.

The Muslim Council of Britain said it could have “many destabilising repercussions”.

The Director of Communications of the leftwing Yachad group wrote: “I cannot emphasise this enough: if the UK moves its embassy — for the political gain of a British leader — Israelis and Palestinians will suffer the consequences.” When Lord Wolfson asked what “consequences have been suffered as a result of the Americans moving their Embassy to Jerusalem”, she could not provide an answer. So much for not being able to stress it strongly enough.

Yachad attacked the Board of Deputies because its President supported the idea and then launched an email campaign which looked more like a recruitment exercise than a serious contribution to the debate.

Let’s deal with these arguments in turn.

First, it is unacceptable to suggest moving the embassy could result in violence by Palestinian groups, as these warnings could make attacks a self-fulfilling prophecy. Israel and the UK would then be blamed for attacks on Israelis when we know that Hamas and other militant groups are itching to cause violence anyway. Instead, everyone should be saying there is never any justification for violence or terrorism.

It also absolves Palestinians of any responsibility and deprives them of agency for their actions. It treats them like children, pretends that everything they do is someone else’s fault and gives Palestinians and others that incite hate and violence against Israel a free pass.
The arguments about undermining the two-state solution hold no water either. Anyone who knows anything about Israel’s history, the conflict or previous rounds of negotiations knows there are no circumstances in which Israel’s capital would not be in Jerusalem or that West Jerusalem would not be in Israel as part of any future settlement.

Like every other country, it is for Israel to decide its capital. Jerusalem has been the capital since 1948, long before the 1967 war which resulted in the occupation of East Jerusalem.
This is why the recognition of West Jerusalem would not harm the prospects of peace and could actually leave open the option of recognising East Jerusalem as a future Palestinian capital.

It is also why there is no question of the city no longer “being shared as a common patrimony” or “becoming an exclusive monopoly of any party” which were the other issues Cardinal Nicholls warned against.

The status of Jerusalem, precise borders and issues like settlements, leases and land-swaps have to be dealt with through dialogue, negotiation and compromise and would not be affected by the UK locating its embassy in West Jerusalem.

Predictably, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh attacked the proposal, claiming it would “undermine” the potential for a two-state solution — a little rich considering the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations that might bring this about.

The UK’s consulate general which deals with the PA is already in East Jerusalem, and no one has ever suggested that is a barrier to the peace process or that it must be located in Ramallah until a two-state solution has been negotiated.

And finally, consider the politics of this. Those who oppose the move are, no doubt, also deeply concerned about Netanyahu winning enough support in the forthcoming elections to become Prime Minister again.

Has it not occurred to them that moving the embassy might help Lapid — who recently recommitted Israel to a two-state solution — win support from Netanyahu amongst right-leaning Israelis?

Let’s by all means have a vigorous debate. It is legitimate to try to influence government decisions. But let’s do so on the basis of facts — and without using language that might justify violence or exploiting the issue to make political capital in the UK.