The Anti-Zionist Lexicon continues to evolve in sinister ways.
The term “settlers” once only referred to Israelis who moved to remote new “settlement” locations. The term then was modified to only apply to Israeli Jews, not Israeli Arabs who moved into new settlements. Later it was adjusted by anti-Zionists to target any Jew (Israeli or not) who moved into EXISTING homes and towns east of the Green Line (EGL), so an Israeli Arab and Israeli Jew could be living next to each other in an apartment building in Jerusalem, in which the Arab is called a “resident” while the Jew is called a “settler.”
Nuts. And it gets worse.
Yesterday, on the solemn Jewish holiday of Tisha B’Av which marks the destruction of the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem as well as other Jewish tragedies, many Jews from around Israel went to visit the Jewish Temple Mount during normal Sunday visiting hours. The Palestinian Authority, Al Jazeera and a number of anti-Zionist publications decried the visit of the “settlers.” The sub-headline from Al Jazeera read:
“Palestinians accuse Israeli forces of launching tear gas, rubber bullets at Palestinians as Israeli settlers enter Al-Aqsa compound.“
These were regular Israeli Jews – not people who lived in remote locations in the “West Bank” – who came to visit Judaism’s holiest location on a Jewish holiday during regular visiting hours. But the language chosen was alarmist, as the Palestinian Authority is demanding a return to the anti-Semitic situation imposed during the nineteen years of Jordanian control of Jerusalem, in which Jews were not only barred from living in the city but could not visit or pray there as well.
The mobilization of redefinitions is gathering steam in the anti-Zionist press. Al Jazeera posted much the same on May 23rd in article titled “Backed by Israeli police, Jewish settlers enter Al-Aqsa compound,” talking about Israeli police beating Muslims to “make way for Israeli Jewish settlers to storm the compound,” in an effort to inflame a global holy war against the Jews.
This is the evolving regressive approach of jihadist extremists and their enablers. They are working to change language to change the narrative that any and all Jews entering the Jewish Temple Mount are unwanted and illegal invaders of purely Islamic holy site. Yesterday, the Israeli Islamist party Ra’am said so specifically, that the Temple Mount is “solely the property of Muslims, and no one else has any right to it.“
Islamist extremists are attempting to label any Jew who visits Judaism’s holiest location as an illegal invader in an attempt to draw support for a global jihad against the most persecuted people in the world. They should be loudly rebuked for doing so.
Judaism is the only religion which is tied to a specific land, the land of Israel.
Judaism created the very notion of “promised land,” not as an aspirational dream as commonly used today, but as an actual piece of land passed as an inheritance for generations.
Only Jews consider the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem as their holiest location.
Jews are the only people who pray facing Jerusalem, regardless of where they are.
Only Jews are commanded to visit Jerusalem three times per year.
Jerusalem is the most mentioned city in the Hebrew bible.
Jerusalem has been the focal point of Judaism for over 3,000 years.
Israel is the only country whose national anthem is all about its capital city.
Jews have been the largest group of residents in Jerusalem continuously since the 1860’s. There is no other capital where Jews are the majority.
Israel is the only Jewish State.
Israel is also the only country:
which is not recognized by dozens of countries at the United Nations
whose capital city is not recognized by the majority of the members of the UN
which is singled out as a routine part of the UN’s Human Rights Council
where Jewish and non-Jewish residents in the eastern part of the capital are attributed different names of “settler” and “resident” in the non-Jewish world
Jerusalem and Israel are unique and special to Jews. The passion of its lovers and haters regarding the exceptional Jewish connection to both says more about their overall attitudes towards Jews than the locations themselves.
When the Children of Israel were walking through the desert on their way to the Jewish holy land, they complained to Moses that they lacked good food and drink (Numbers 20:1-13). God commanded Moses to take his staff and to go with his brother Aaron to gather the people and speak to a rock to produce water. Moses grabbed his staff and instead of speaking to the rock, he hit it with his staff which shot forth water. Despite producing the desired result of delivering water, Moses and Aaron were punished with not being able to enter the Jewish promised land. The site became known as Mei Merivah, Bitter Waters.
On its face, the difference in Moses’ action seems minor, hitting versus speaking to the rock. The end result was that water came out and the Jews were happy. It begs the question why God punished Moses and Aaron so severely.
When God commanded Moses to take the staff when he stood before the Jewish people, it was to show that he was acting as an agent of God. The staff was a symbol of Moses acting on God’s behalf. However, Moses used the staff as a tool with which to strike the rock. The Jews witnessed Moses producing the water with his strike of the implement upon the rock, rather than internalizing that God had produced the water. Yes, the Jews got what they wanted but they attributed the benefit solely from the hands of Moses and Aaron rather than acknowledging the actual source of the blessing.
Mistaking a symbol as a tool goes on in Israel today as well.
Jerusalem Day is a wonderful celebration which commemorates the reunification of Jerusalem which had been divided when the Jordanian army invaded and illegally annexed half of the city. For 19 years (1949-1967), the Arabs forbade Jews from living, visiting or praying in the Old City and at the Jewish Temple Mount and Western Wall. The anti-Semitic edicts changed in June 1967 after Jordan attacked Israel again but this time lost, a true cause for celebration by human rights activists everywhere.
During the Jerusalem Day festivities, some Israeli nationalists have a Flag Parade where they march through the streets of Jerusalem, including the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, waiving Israeli flags as they demonstrate that the area is under Israeli sovereignty. The group often taunts the Palestinian and Israeli Arabs as they sing the Israeli national anthem and practice their Arab curse words.
Like their ancestors of 3,300 years ago, the Children of Israel got what they want but sometimes miss the important message: the Israeli flag and national anthem are symbols of Jewish sovereignty once again in their holy land. To use them as tools to provoke Arabs undermines the blessing.
The reunification of Judaism’s holiest city should be marked on holidays and every day with Jews walking, praying, learning and living in every corner of Jerusalem. Proudly wearing Jewish symbols and speaking holy words will enable all of the Children of Israel – including Moses and Aaron – to be present in Judaism’s eternal capital.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres spoke to the General Assembly on May 20, 2021 as the latest battle between HAMAS and Israel was coming to a close. He spoke of the status of Jerusalem several times:
“I am also deeply concerned by the continuation of violent clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinians across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, where several Palestinian families are under the threat of eviction.”
“I urge Israel to cease demolitions and evictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in line with its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law. All settlement activities, including evictions and demolitions, are illegal under international law.”
“Jerusalem is a holy city for three world religions. I underscore that the status quo at the holy sites must be upheld and respected.”
“We must work towards a resumption of negotiations that will address the status of Jerusalem and other final status issues, end the occupation and allow for the realization of a two-State solution on the basis of the 1967 lines, United Nations resolutions, international law and mutual agreements, with Jerusalem as capital of both Israel and Palestine.”
Note how the UNSG switched between “East Jerusalem” and “Jerusalem.” He referred to it as an actual place when connected to the “occupied West Bank” but conceded that it is a single city otherwise.
When it came to East Jerusalem, he stated that Arabs have rights to live there while Jews have none. Any house where a Jew lives was transformed into a “settlement” even a building which he owns and where his ancestors lived.
As it relates to the “status quo at the holy sites” which currently includes a ban on Jewish prayer at their holiest location of the Jewish Temple Mount, Guterres wants that ban to remain in place. He also appears to want the Arab squatters in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood which refuse to pay rent to the Jewish owners, to be able to remain. However, he seemingly wants to see all the Jews living in “East Jerusalem” to be expelled from the city, as they are doing so illegally “under international law.”
Guterres also called for resumption of negotiations between the parties but simultaneously called for the outcomes favored by the Palestinians: that the negotiating position starts from “the 1967 lines” and that Jerusalem will be the “capital of both Israel and Palestine,” positions not favored by Israel.
The various positions show inconsistency in application, unless viewed as seeking outcomes favored by Arabs.
If the United Nations favors the “status quo” on matters like the ban of Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount and protecting the residence of Palestinian squatters, it implicitly recognizes all Jews already living in East Jerusalem and should no longer call them “settlers.” If the UN seeks coexistence between Jews and Arabs, it should support full equal rights for Jews on the Temple Mount, and for Arabs and Jews to live together freely as they choose throughout Jerusalem. Lastly, if the UN wants the two parties to negotiate a peace, it should allow the parties to do so without prejudging an outcome on particular issues.
But the UN doesn’t truly support the status quo, coexistence or a peace negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians. The UN only backs the Palestinians, its adopted wards, which makes it impossible for the organization to play a constructive role between the parties. It also underscores the importance for the United States to remain squarely behind Israel.
Progressive politicians and the left-wing media are using three terms interchangeably regarding Arab residents of Jewish Israeli-owned homes in the Sheikh Jarrah section of Jerusalem. Doing so is not only inaccurate but inflammatory.
Here is a primer to understand the difference of the terms:
Eviction is the act of removing a single entity (person/ family) from a single location.
Expulsion is the act of removing a single entity from an entire region.
Ethnic Cleansing is the act of removing an entire ethnic/ religious group from an entire region.
The situation in Sheikh Jarrah is an eviction. It pertains to Arab squatters who have not paid rent to their landlords for several years. These tenants are not being forced from the neighborhood and are free to move into adjacent apartment buildings inside of Jerusalem. The Israeli courts, which have jurisdiction on the matter whether someone believes that the eastern section of Jerusalem is Israel or believes Israel is responsible as the “Occupying Force,” ruled that the evictions are legal.
This case is discrete. Israel is not involved in a massive expulsion of Arab residents from Jerusalem. As proof, from 1980, the year Israel formalized Jerusalem as its eternal undivided capital in its Basic Laws, until 2019, the Arab population in Jerusalem grew 3.4 times, dwarfing the Jewish population growth rate which was only 1.9 times over that period. The number of households (homes/ apartments) for Arabs rose 188% since 1990 compared to just 64% for Jews. Further, all Arab residents can apply for Israeli citizenship and these past few years have seen a spike in Arabs becoming Israelis.
In sharp contrast, an example of ethnic cleansing can be seen by what the Jordanian Arabs did to Jews in Jerusalem from 1948 to 1954. First they invaded Israel and killed or expelled all of the Jews from the “West Bank” region they illegally seized. They destroyed 58 synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem and barred any Jews from even visiting their holiest location during their duration of illegal rule. And they annexed the entire area including eastern Jerusalem, passed a law making it illegal to sell land to Jews and granted citizenship to anyone “not being Jewish.“
That’s actual ethnic cleansing, which is a very different dynamic than Arab residents of Jerusalem have experienced under Israeli rule.
But the alt-left is doing its utmost to paint Israel as racist:
Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) said that Israel “is practicing ethnic cleansing.“
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said “This [Jerusalem] deputy mayor is describing ethnic cleansing here, yet everyone is [sic] the West is pretending that’s not what’s happening to Palestinians.“
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke about “the expulsions of Palestinians.“
The New York Times wrote about “the plight of six Palestinian families facing expulsion from their homes.“
These lies have inflamed the passions of radical jihadists. Hundreds of people have died and millions of dollars of damage has been done in large part because of the incitement.
Progressive politicians and the far left media have a direct hand in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of Arabs and Jews in and around Israel over the past weeks. While their lies and smears caused horrific damage thousands of miles away, it is a price the alt-left is willing to pay to boost their bona fides with anti-Zionist extremists who support them and keep them in positions of influence.
On November 10, 1975, the United Nations went on an anti-Zionism tear. There were two disgraceful resolutions passed on that day, UNGA 3376 and 3379. UNGA 3379 was known as the “Zionism is Racism” resolution which uniquely defined the national aspirations of Jews to reestablish their homeland as racist. It took until 1991 for the United States to successfully repeal that resolution.
However, UNGA 3376 still lives and threatens. It established the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” The committee granted special “inalienable” rights only to Palestinian Arabs, that they alone had the right to “national independence and sovereignty.” Do the Kurds have that right? What about Yazidis? How about Nevadans? No one has the right to an independent state, only to self-determination.
The committee also enshrined “The exercise by Palestinians of their inalienable right to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted.”
If the United Nations maintains the position that Palestinians have the “inalienable right” to move into homes that ancestors lived in during the 1940’s (even if they were just renting or the homes no longer exist), that same logic demands that Jews must be able to move into the homes that they own and lived in the Sheik Jarrah section of Jerusalem before being expelled by the invading Jordanian army. Either the UN must support the eviction of the Arab squatters in Sheik Jarrah today or nullify the right of return for all Palestinians.
The US may have prevailed at eliminating a single “Zionism is Racism” resolution in 1991, but the Biden administration is seemingly fine with the UN still treating the Jewish State with utter contempt and complete hypocrisy as it manufactures special rules uniquely for Palestinian Arabs.
Anti-Israel people and organizations throw around pernicious smears that Jews are “colonial invaders” that engage in “ethnic cleansing” of Arabs, and other attacks which have no basis in fact, in an attempt to win points, money, land and other goodies from Israel and pro-Palestinian supporters.
So let’s review actual numbers rather than a narrative of an upset Arab shopkeeper talking to CNN.
As of 2019, the population of Jerusalem was 936,400. It stands as the largest city in Israel, twice the population of Tel Aviv with 460,600 people.
The breakdown in Jerusalem was 355,300 in western Jerusalem, which was 98.6% Jewish, and the northern/eastern/southern section of the city with 581,100 people, of which 39.1% were Jewish. Overall, the city was 61.7% Jewish and 38.3% Arab. The 61.7% Jewish population was the lowest percentage in the city since 1946. Jerusalem has had a continuous Jewish majority since the late 1860’s.
When Israel officially annexed the eastern part of Jerusalem and declared the unified city as its capital in 1980, there were 407,100 people in the city, of which 74% were Jewish. From 1980 to 2019, the population of the city grew 2.3 times, with the Jewish population growing 1.9 times and the Arab population growing 3.4 times. To state that Israel is committing “ethnic cleansing” in Jerusalem while the growth of Arabs dwarves the growth of Jews is patently absurd.
In every year since 1978 (with the sole exception of 1990), the growth rate of Arabs in Jerusalem exceeded the annual growth rate of Jews. That fact is also true of the growth rate of Arabs in the country generally. The sole year of exception, 1990, saw a huge influx of Jews from Russia which accounted for the anomaly.
The growth of Jews has principally come as a result of natural population growth. The fertility rate of Jewish women in Jerusalem now stands at 4.3 children, up from 3.7 in 2000. That compares to the fertility rate of Arab women in Jerusalem which has been in decline, down to 3.2 in 2019 from 4.3 in 2000. Jewish women crossed the Arab fertility rate in 2012 and have continued to outpace Arab fertility rates since then. The change has led to a slowdown in the Arab growth rate which grew at annual rates of 3.6%, 3.1% and 2.6% for the periods 1990-2000, 2000-2010 and 2010-2019, respectively.
Not surprisingly, the death rate for Jews exceeds that of Arabs as the Arabs have a higher percentage of youths.
The lack of affordable housing has been the main issue driving a net negative migration of Jews out of Jerusalem. In 2019, over 20,000 Jews left Jerusalem to places like Beit Shemesh, Tel Aviv and Beitar Illit. That compared to fewer than 12,000 Israeli Jews who moved to Jerusalem from Bnei Brak and the cities mentioned above. Jerusalem trailed all major cities in the construction of new apartments (37% between 2017-2019), including in the cities of Rishon LeZion, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Petah Tikva.
Both Jews and Arabs have freedom to move within Jerusalem. In 2019, of the 52,390 people who moved homes within the Jerusalem municipality, roughly 67% were Jews, close to the 62% of the city’s population. In 2018, the percentage of Jews moving within the city was lower at 60% and the Arabs at 40%.
Even while the population of Arabs in Jerusalem skyrocketed relative to Jews, the density of Arabs in their homes was cut significantly. In 1990, there was an average of 2.3 Arabs living in each room in Jerusalem; that number was cut to 1.8 Arabs per room by 2019, an improvement of 22%. Over the same period, the density of Jews in homes barely moved from 1.1 to 1.0 people per room. The overall improvement was driven by two factors: increased housing for Arabs and construction of larger apartments.
In 1990, there were 23,600 Arab households in Jerusalem, a figure that grew 188% to 68,000 in 2019. The total number of Jewish households increased a relatively modest 64% in comparison over the same timeframe. The second factor of bigger apartments in the city is a recent trend. Since 2017, over 30% of new dwellings have more than five rooms, reversing a historic trend which saw more smaller apartments. As recently as 2016, 64% of new apartments were built with four rooms; in 2020, 62.4% were built with five or more.
After Israel took eastern Jerusalem from the Jordanians in a defensive war in 1967 and then annexed it, the Israeli government afforded all of the Arab residents to apply for citizenship. While few did so in the early years, over the past ten years, roughly 400 Jerusalem Arabs were granted Israeli citizenship annually. That number spiked to 1,200 people in 2019, as the Israeli government put more resources into expediting the citizenship review process.
The charges of Jewish “colonialists” committing “ethnic cleansing” against Arabs in Jerusalem are not simply outrageous lies but a disgraceful cover-up of the actual attempted mass Arab genocide of Israeli Jews right after the Holocaust, and the actual ethnic cleansing of the Jews from their holiest city of Jerusalem by Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs.
The anti-Zionist New York Times is accelerating its attacks on the Jewish State with a narrative that Jewish Israelis are racists as it moves towards accusations of apartheid. It would seem that the Gray Lady is newly interested in evictions when it comes to illegal Arab squatters as opposed to Jewish families thrown out of their homes in their most holy city.
On May 8, 2021, the Gray Lady printed an article “As Court Decision Nears, Battle over Evictions in East Jerusalem.” The article noted that the Israeli Supreme Court will soon rule on whether to evict Arab residents of Jerusalem (the Times calls them “Palestinians of East Jerusalem”) who moved into homes “vacated” by Jews in the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. The article failed to state that Jordan (and four other Arab armies) invaded Israel in that war, evicted all of the Jews from Judea and Samaria including the eastern portion of Jerusalem in an act of ethnic cleansing, illegally annexed the region in 1950, and then granted Jordanian citizenship to all Arabs in 1954 while specifically excluding Jews in a further highly anti-Semitic action.
Instead, the Times said that “Jordan captured the area, including East Jerusalem in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948” making East Jerusalem sound like an actual city rather than the fact that Jordan invaded Jerusalem and seized the eastern half CREATING “EAST JERUSALEM,” an entity that existed until Jordanians attacked Israel again in a war that resulted in Israel reunifying the city.
The paper had the temerity of calling the Jews who moved back into their homes in the reunified capital as “settlers.” Recasting people moving back into their homes nineteen years after being evicted in a brutal act of ethnic cleansing as new foreign interlopers, is something that only an alt-left anti-Zionist can explain.
To support its jaundiced narrative, the Times quoted an Israeli who said that Jews have an ancient connection to the city so they have a right to keep the city Jewish, making the Jewish claim to the area seem ancient and fanatical. The Times statement was designed to be inflammatory and distracted readers from the legal property rights of the Jewish owners. If the paper wanted to add historical context to the story, it could have added the fact that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for over 150 years. Jews living in the eastern part of the Jerusalem is not recreating a 2,000-year old factoid, but a continuation of Jews living – and being a majority – in the city for centuries.
Jerusalem Day, a holiday marking the reunification of the city divided by war, is also a moment to celebrate the end of the anti-Semitic Arab ethnic cleansing in Judaism’s holiest city. This year, it should also be celebrated with writing to The New York Times at firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com to demand the paper stop its misinformation campaign regarding Israel, ignoring Jerusalem’s Jewish majority since the 1860’s and the eviction of Jews from the eastern half of the city at the hands of invading Arabs. The false narrative promoted by anti-Zionists is the basis for outrageous declarations like UNSC Resolution 2334, which advocate for a Jew-free “East Jerusalem,” and a reinstitution of the ethnic cleansing program of 1949 to 1967.
On December 21, 2020, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) spoke about Israel building houses for Israeli Jews in an area it calls “East Jerusalem,” an entity that had a shelf life of just eighteen years (1949-1967) in the city’s 4,000+ year history. The stale name recalls the period when Jews were evicted and barred from the eastern half of the city is both non-factual and insulting to Jews.
The insults and hypocrisy continued throughout the discussions.
Nickolay Mladenov, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process stated “that a two-State solution is not only necessary, but still possible. There is no other way to resolve the conflict in a way that is just for both peoples. Israel must preserve its nature as a Jewish State, while ‘the Palestinian people will not go anywhere, this is their home.‘” But he then went on to call for additional funds to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which is caring for 5.7 million Palestinian Arab “refugees” until they move into Israel. How Mladenov squares the circle of encouraging nearly 6 million Arabs to move into Israel while simultaneously wishing for Israel to “preserve its nature as a Jewish State” is beyond comprehension.
Several countries spoke about Israeli “settlement” activity and bemoaned Israel’s building homes for Israeli Jews, even in “East Jerusalem.” The inanity is despite the fact that the Arab population in Jerusalem was only 26% of the city in 1967 when Israel reunited the city and grew to 36% of the population by 2016. If the 1967 “status quo” is the most important dynamic for the UN, perhaps the UNSC should demand that no new Arab housing be permitted in the city until a peace agreement is signed by the two parties.
Mladenov and several countries also voiced concern that more settlements “undermine the prospect of a two-State solution.” It is a curious proposition. If the concern is about territory, the 1949 Armistice Lines/ The Green Line left Israel with a strip of land even more narrow than a new Palestinian state would have if Israel annexed an area called “E1” up to, and including Ma’ale Adumim. If the concern about “viability” is related to the number of Jews living in an Arab State, why do these same UNSC countries continue to fund UNRWA and encourage Arab “refugees” that they will move into Israel which already has 25% non-Jews living in the country? Why is viability of a Palestinian State surrounded by tens of millions of Arabs a greater concern than a small Jewish State?
Further, Mladenov finally began calling out the “indiscriminate launching of rockets and mortars towards Israeli civilian population centres by Hamas [and] Palestinian Islamic Jihad,” but the speakers (with the exception of Niger) refused to speak about the attacks. Each country picked up the Mladenov themes about settlements, UNRWA and Gaza, but fell silent on the massive attacks against Israel.
The United Nations continues to show it has no concerns about the security and basic human rights of Israelis. Until it can clearly condemn HAMAS and discuss the rights of Jews to live and pray in Jerusalem, there is no reason for the Jewish State to heed an iota of criticism as the global body has shown it has no interest in the peace or security of Israel.
The Trump Administration moved the United States embassy to Israel to Jerusalem in 2018 in compliance with the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. Since that time, the U.S. has encouraged other countries to move their embassies, and Guatemala moved theirs shortly thereafter. Honduras announced plans to have their embassy in Jerusalem by the end of 2020, and Serbia and Malawi announced their intentions to do move their embassies in the near future.
A country establishes an embassy in a foreign country to facilitate in person meetings with that government’s people. Typically the vast majority are located in that country’s capital where most government buildings and offices are located. However, there is no obligation to set up an embassy in the capital city. For example, several countries (like Oman) have opted to not place their foreign dignitaries in Canberra, Australia’s capital, because it is a relatively small city in a pretty remote part of the world. There are also several countries (including Andorra, Comoros and Maldives) that locate their embassies to the U.S. in New York City rather than Washington, D.C.
A new Biden administration should continue to push all countries to move their embassies to Jerusalem for very practical and environmental reasons: it would take hundreds of cars off the road every day.
Currently, most countries have their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv, about 42 miles from Jerusalem. Tel Aviv is is a great city on the Mediterranean Sea with fantastic restaurants and night life (often ranked with Barcelona among the greatest cities in the world) and is close to Israel’s major international airport. However, the hour drive to Jerusalem is often snarled in terrible traffic as is the route back. By relocating embassies to Jerusalem, not only will thousands of miles of unnecessary travel and wasted time be saved, but the burning of fossil fuel and amount of pollution will be dramatically reduced.
As there is no obligation to keep an embassy in a capital city, a relocation to Jerusalem is not a formal acknowledgement of the city as Israel’s capital, an action which may or may not accompany such relocation. What is without question, is that moving embassies to Jerusalem will improve the quality of life on the planet.