Jerusalem Between the Public and the Governments

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Vast crowds poured into the streets across various parts of the world denouncing Trump’s decision to move the embassy, holding Trump responsible for every event and reaction that might follow from his decision.

Crowds took to the streets across the various Arab countries, save for some Gulf states, in solidarity and unity with the Palestinian people, expressing their Arab and Islamic belonging and their commitment to Arab causes, the cause of Palestine foremost among them.

Nor were the crowds of the world stingy with mobilizing against Trump and his decision — they took to the streets in America itself, and in Korea, France, Switzerland, and a great many other countries. Trump’s decision stirred hundreds of millions of people across the breadth of the globe, driving them to stand against this development, which contradicts the UN Charter and the international resolutions issued by the United Nations.

The reactions to the decision contained something that revived the Palestinian cause, restoring it to the forefront of global issues. Global media could not ignore Trump’s decision and the state of global instability it caused, and began pumping out a great deal of information about Jerusalem, the history of the occupation, international resolutions, and the charters of nations.

There was a great contribution to raising global awareness of the cause and the enormous injustice the colonial states and the Zionist entity have inflicted on the Palestinian people. Trump’s decision had a great impact on the international stage that the Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority had failed to achieve over the years.

If we compare the popular mobilization with the positions of officials, whether at the Palestinian, Arab, or Islamic level, we find a great gulf between them. The popular mobilization is far ahead of the positions and reactions of the official authorities.

Many Palestinians had hoped the Authority would withdraw its recognition of the Zionist entity, annul the Oslo Accord, and halt normalization. The masses are angry and seething, harboring a strong desire to protect Jerusalem and the holy sites, ready for sacrifice and self-giving, while the officials are hesitant, fearful, and reserved, phrases of censure, reproach, and condemnation barely escaping their mouths.

This is nothing strange in Arab political life, since we constantly find the general public ahead of the official authorities, the governments, and the heads of state in their national and patriotic positions — indeed, we sometimes find the officials constituting factors that restrain and frustrate the public, even at the expense of rights.

At the Palestinian level, the first reaction came from the Authority’s foreign minister during the meeting of Arab foreign ministers, affirming that the Palestinian Authority continues with what he called the “peace process,” whose failure and futility have been proven over more than two decades.

There was something in this statement that defied the positions and feelings of Palestinians, who were seething with anger at Trump’s decision. Palestinians have come to despise the continuous talks between Palestinians and Zionists, recognizing these talks as nothing but one of the Zionists’ tools for implementing their plans under the banner of seeking peace.

The foreign minister then followed his reaction with another position, saying the Authority would no longer seek United States mediation, since it is not an honest broker. Other Palestinian officials repeated this position. This is a position consistent with the public’s aspirations, but it does not rise to the level of the moment.

Many Palestinians had hoped the Authority would withdraw its recognition of the Zionist entity, annul the Oslo Accord, halt normalization and the establishment of relations with the Zionists, and free the hands of young people to do whatever they see fit in confronting the Zionists and the Americans.

None of this happened, and the Authority went so far as to entrench normalizing behavior when it asked Arabs to follow the example of the Bahraini delegation that came to Palestine normalizing relations — a delegation people prevented from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque, and which the resistance barred from entering Gaza.

The official Palestinian level defied the feelings and aspirations of the masses.

At the Arab level, the situation was no better. The Arab foreign ministers issued a feeble statement, devoid of substance and of any insistence on rights.

States such as Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Iraq, and Lebanon could have withdrawn their recognition of the Arab Peace Initiative issued in Beirut in 2002. This is the weakest form of fighting the enemy.

At the Arab gathering, there are three parties maintaining diplomatic relations with the Zionists — the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, and Egypt — and there are several states normalizing with the Zionists and seeking alliance with them. No one at the Arab League meeting dared challenge this conduct, entirely contradictory to the weeping over Jerusalem.

The falseness of the Arab condemnations and denunciations was clear, and the extent of the lie they carry to the people. Whoever is angered by Trump’s decision must anger Trump, not reassure him that positions toward the Zionist entity remain fixed however much this angers people.

At the level of the Islamic states, the statement issued from their meeting in Istanbul was equally feeble, falling short of popular aspirations, and out of step with the anger of the global and Islamic street alike.

Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan promised to sever relations with the Zionists if Trump carried out his promise to the Zionists. Trump carried it out, and Erdoğan took refuge in silence.

As for Iran, it made no reservation about the statement, and we heard no critical voice from it regarding what the Muslims agreed upon. Perhaps Maduro was the only eloquent one at the conference, having traveled that whole distance from Venezuela to Beirut, believing he would see many Arab and Muslim Bolivarians. We disappointed his expectations.

On another level, states such as Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Iraq, and Lebanon could have withdrawn their recognition of the Arab Peace Initiative issued in Beirut in 2002. This is the weakest form of fighting the enemy.

For the popular movement to continue in the streets of the world’s capitals, it must be nourished by the official authorities. The official authorities ought to take courageous decisions that create crises for the Zionists and the Americans, and encourage people to continue their mobilization.

Government positions bolster people’s resolve, giving them confidence that the official political level will not fail them, and will march with them at the same intensity until Trump’s decision is overturned.

But if the political level falters, as we now see, cowering and withdrawing, people will lose the driving force they possess, and will feel frustration and futility.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “القدس بين الجمهور والحكومات” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.