To better understand the importance of the President’s move to push forward with relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem one needs to understand the history of Palestine particularly as it relates to the Israelites (historical geography and religious terms) and the historically temperamental role the British played, largely for preservative-economic reasons, in the mock-up of present-day Middle-East.
Today, oddly enough, much of the plenum-in-opposition to a two-state solution maintains the very same preservative-economic motives. Even if resting on the historical and religious arguments it’s quite difficult to substantively object to Israel’s right to a homeland securitized by International endorsement which is, by the way, no less the case for non-Jew’s/Arab’s and while the U.S. has, since 1948, supported and has come to represent the most conspicuous solution-advocate and, we should note, without the kinetic forces of other influential States.
Even though past Administrations have maintained a more ambivalent role, for fear of offending economic interests, and have thus neglected a deliberate move-the-ball-forward approach I believe the current Administrations observes an element of urgency. Given the ascendant role of Iran, it is more important than ever that the World Community get serious and press forward on the Two-State Solution ending the multi-decade long dithering.
The management of Jerusalem will need to be co-administered by both States and with oversight by an Internationally-backed Entity (populated by Delegates appointed by Voting Members of the UN). This requirement is key to a workable solution and the President’s actions illustrates a strategic understanding of the moving parts and the very type of tactical action integral not only for moving-the-ball-forward but also to expose those in opposition to curing this perennial conflict with the hope they will reconsider their priorities.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
