Initially, though I am a proud Zionist, I opposed President Donald Trump’s intention to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and I told my congregation so several weeks ago. I was, and remain, concerned that people, many people, would be killed. Such a statement would be gratefully symbolic, yet inflammatory. To make matters worse, Trump is hardly known for his nuance, and his penchant for adlibs to prepared statements are unsettling.

But Trump delivered a clear and formidable case: There have been 20 years of overwhelming congressional support and 20 years of presidential waivers. The waivers have not produced the desired results. Israel, no different than any other country, chose Jerusalem as its capital, and the United States will not treat Israel like a second-class country. Finally, the status of all disputed territory is for the parties to negotiate, directly. 

It is useful to divide Jerusalem into four areas, starting with:

• East Jerusalem, where the population is overwhelmingly Palestinian-Arab. In any peace deal, it would be Palestinian territory and the Palestinian capital. 

• West Jerusalem. The population is overwhelmingly Jewish. It is Israel’s capital. 

 • Satellite cities around Jerusalem, like Ma’aleh Adumim, (population 40,000). In any peace deal, these lands will likely be swapped for other land. 

• The Old City, location of the holy sites and its four quarters — Jewish, Arab, Christian, and Armenian. How this is settled in any peace deal is unclear. Although Trump did not call the capital “West Jerusalem” when he emphasized the direct negotiations over disputed land, this is what he meant.

What really changed my mind is the gross overreaction by its opponents — political commentators, Arab and Palestinian spokespeople, and European leaders. Nothing the President said had anything to do with disputed land (unless we include the most radical view that all of Israel is Arab). While Arab anger may be genuine, it is fanned by leaders who should be responsible; if they are not, what confidence can we have in their leadership for genuine peace? 

But the most egregious critics are the very people who have pushed to award, through the United Nations, disputed land unilaterally to the Arabs / Palestinians / Muslims: the shameful Resolution 2334 unvetoed by the United States last December and also the UNESCO’s acceptance of only the Arab names, Al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Haram al-Sharif, rather than Temple Mount or Beit ha-Mikdash. Each ignored Jewish historical/religious claims to holy sites. 

So here it is: The “responsible,” “moral” and “peace-loving” world leaders, particularly the Europeans, cry foul when the U.S. President recognizes non-disputed land as Israel’s capital, but proudly endorse awarding disputed land to the Arabs / Muslims / Palestinians.

Some suggest Trump should have used this as a bargaining chip. The flaws are twofold: If so, why didn’t the previous administrations that waived recognition do so? It is a weak defense of status quo preventing recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. And what exactly do you want the Israelis to do in exchange for this bargaining chip?

While it is true that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is far less inclined to negotiate than even previous Netanyahu governments, let alone other Israeli governments, the reason remains that the Palestinians have still not coalesced into a credible peace-making nation. Their demands remain excessive, they view legitimate compromise as capitulation and fear their radicals; they do not recognize Jewish claims in disputed territory; financially support terrorists, praising them as heroes; and fail to educate their youth, the generation that will have to make and sustain peace, to recognize Jewish historical claims to the land. 

How can one negotiate in good faith when the other side seeks to destroy you? Israel will elect governments to make peace with a people who will recognize their legitimate historical claims and who will not incite violence against them.

I am still concerned by the potential violence. David Makovsky, on a live webcast shown at a meeting last week in St. Louis, urged Trump to speak directly to the Arab people in Arabic. That is a great suggestion. 

But overreaction and with violence is how the Arab world reacts to any support of Israel, and Europe reacts to potential Arab violence by opposing and placating. Jewish claims need to be suppressed to maintain peace. 

And American opposition, including the State Department, is similarly consistent. In 1948, President Harry S Truman defied the state department, Arab rage, and European timidity, when he recognized Israel, the Jewish State. Trump was Trumanesque and history will so remember him. As he formally recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, we need to recognize the truths, and recognize him for his courage.