Political manipulation in Jerusalem

The decision by the Trump administration to move the U.S. embassy to the city of Jerusalem may seem like a drop in the ocean, but it creates waves and currents—some with the kinds of undertows that aren’t always evident at first glance.

In her article called “Celebration in Jerusalem, Bloodshed in Gaza (2018), Emma Green highlights the disparity between the revel and the anguish felt by many in and surrounding Jerusalem the day the embassy moved.

On the surface, it seemed as if the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants were fully accepting of the decision to move the embassy. Support for Trump was plastered all over the city; from busses to street lamps to buildings and more. Furthermore, people had spent the whole day before celebrating. However, this vision of an excited, optimistic Jerusalem is more complicated than it may seem.

Once you learn that the signs were printed, distributed, and hung by Christian evangelical groups and that the celebrations the day prior were in observance of a Jewish holiday (Yom Yerushalayim), the authenticity of the atmosphere surrounding the move is called into question. The Trump administration has a history of trying to manipulate public perception into something for favorable for the home team- i.e., the Trump administration (example; avoidance of tax return, crowd size at 2016 inauguration, etc.).

While the movement of the embassy seemed to have garnered considerable public support, many local people were more or less apathetic about the whole thing. The move was mostly symbolic, as it didn’t really affect the functioning of the Israeli government. In fact, the real celebration for many was Yom Yerushalayim, not the embassy opening.

It’s possible that the current U.S. administration purposefully planned the official movement of the embassy to coincide with local Jewish celebrations in order to create an illusion of greater public support. This would require the help of certain evangelical groups in the region, groups like Christians United for Israel (yes, the same group who actually did administer the signs!). CUI would be working closely with the Trump administration in order to coordinate and carry out the elegant plan.

Lending credibility to this idea, both Robert Jeffress (a Trump advisor) and John Hagee (the head of the lobbying group CUI) were present at the embassy-opening ceremony in Jerusalem that Monday. Going deeper, the embassy-opening coincided with another local day of observance, the nakba.

Nakba is the Arabic word for ‘disaster’, a word given to the secular Israeli Independence Day, which just so happened to fall as the same day as the embassy opening. While local Jewish support was high (as they would have you believe), close by, Palestinian rejection was rising. Many saw the move as an act of provocation and aggression. They felt the move delegitimizes Palestine, some even going so far as to label the move an “infamous hostile act against international law” (Green, 2016).

As celebrations carried on in the city of Jerusalem that night, just a few miles away, bloody, violent protests were carried out along the border with Gaza. Hamas organized protests coinciding with the day of the embassy move left thousands injured and many killed. No one seemed willing to recognize the disparity between groups that night, as Israelis enjoyed the euphoria of their upswing and the Palestinians endured the pain of their downswing.

The Trump administration’s decision to move the embassy was comparatively small when standing next to the city’s history, but this act makes waves. The recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel agitates Palestinian opposition just that much more, while the seemingly blatant move to manipulate public perception of the event aides in the clouding of public knowledge. If similar provocative acts of diplomacy continue to take place, it’s only a matter of time before the waves get too big, the currents too strong, and something unimaginable happens.