Jerusalem is the red line of Muslims

The political mind, human values and rationality of the US are not commensurate with its power. Unfortunately, because of its brute power, the sphere of influence it occupies in the world produces no hope for humanity, no positive expectation. Every step it takes, because of its brute power, stirs and affects world politics. But in recent times this effect has always been destructive, never constructive.

The mere fact that the Trump administration voiced the matter of moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem has inflamed world politics, starting with the Islamic world. A great anger has been directed at the US administration from the Muslim world.

Our President, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, also said that he will absolutely not remain a spectator to a decision the US administration might take in this direction, and that he has not the slightest hesitation in taking all necessary measures.

Turkey is at the same time the term chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Erdoğan said that if such a step were taken he would convene an OIC leaders' summit in Istanbul within 15 days; that the process could go as far as the severing of diplomatic relations with Israel; and he warned the US in categorical terms not to take such a step.

The President's statement "Jerusalem is our red line," which reflected the feelings of the entire Islamic world, was important for reflecting the resolve of both Turkey and the Islamic world. These words echoed throughout the day in all the media of the Islamic World like a call of hope.

From this hour on, whether the US will move its embassy to Jerusalem is of course a matter of curiosity, but it should not be overlooked that this matter has a prehistory. Moreover, this matter has a past that goes back far earlier than the Trump administration.

The agenda concerning the moving of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem has probably been among the strategic goals and plans of Zionism since the day Israel was founded. It is one of the files that has never left the hands of the Jewish lobbies in America. Indeed, the first steps on this matter were taken in the 1990s during the presidency of Clinton. The decision known as the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which passed the Senate on 23 October 1995 and the House of Representatives on 24 October 1995, envisaged the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem, but the political conjuncture of the time did not permit the decision to be implemented. However, there was also no new regulation that repealed the decision.

The decision in question, after stating that Jerusalem had been the capital of Israel since 1950 but remained divided until 1967, that Jerusalem became unified after the 1967 War, also known as the Six-Day War, and that in 1996 Israel would celebrate the 3,000th year of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem following King David's entry into Jerusalem, envisaged the moving of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem no later than 31 May 1999.

G. W. Bush, who took office after Clinton, also made the promise during his campaign to implement this regulation, that is, to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. But just like Clinton, once Bush launched the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process as a token of US world hegemony and of his own role over the system, he did not implement the decision during his presidency on the grounds that it could negatively affect the process. Likewise, in the Obama period too, although this 1995 regulation came up from time to time, there was no possibility of its being implemented.

So there is a prehistory to Trump's raising this issue during his presidential campaign. Tricky matters such as Trump's announcement that he would withdraw from the nuclear agreement reached with Iran, the cutting of funding for the UN Human Rights Council, which constantly adopts decisions against the US (and Israel), and the promise to withdraw from UNESCO membership of course whetted the appetite of the Netanyahu government in Israel to support Trump, but the most serious motivation was provided by Trump's promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem as soon as he became president. So much so that as soon as the election results were announced, Netanyahu made a statement, first congratulating Trump and then saying that he had made certain promises concerning Israel during the election campaign and that they expected these promises to be fulfilled as soon as possible.

At the present point, it can be said that Netanyahu's expectations have been largely met. Whether the Jerusalem decision can be implemented, we will see. However, although we do not have very clear data, we can for now note the rumors that this matter is also one of the points of disagreement between the Pentagon and the Trump administration.

In sum, the plan to move the US embassy to Jerusalem is neither a new development nor will it be the last of the Trump administration's Palestine policy. It is not hard to say that our next topic of discussion will be the "one-state solution process." The crisis in the region is becoming permanent, institutionalized. It seems the strategy that Bush's National Security Advisor C. Rice and the social scientists around her called "creative chaos" will begin to be implemented in the region.

But first, it must be noted that this creative chaos is gradually turning into a fire that engulfs the US itself, and that the US is burning its own throne in world politics.

Second, it may even be unnecessary to say at this stage that, in the Palestinian question conducted through the US, not a barleycorn's length of progress has been made toward a solution. Third, how the new-axis politicians in the Islamic World, who seek a political prosperity for themselves in normalizing relations with Israel, will find what they are looking for in this turmoil, or what kind of prosperity what they will find will prepare for them, will be an important question on the agenda.