The location of the US Embassy has a lot to do with terrorism for the simple reason that the status of Jerusalem is a major bone of contention between the Israelis and Palestinians, and Palestinian opposition to Israel has in many cases and over a long period of time taken the form of terrorism. In addition, the support for Palestinians by many Leftists throughout the world has in my opinion involved turning a blind eye towards Palestinian terrorism because it is generally directed against Israel. So basically anything the USA does that involves Palestinian-Israeli issues necessarily involves terrorism. Put differently, the reason that Palestinian-related issues are on the world’s radar screen is mostly because of Palestinian terrorism. Anyway, I am not familiar with all the terms of those prior agreements you cite but I was not aware that they specify where foreign embassies are to be (do they?).
Anyway, I am not familiar with all the terms of those prior agreements you cite but I was not aware that they specify where foreign embassies are to be (do they?).
The agreements themselves may not specify where foreign embassies are to be located, but the language of those agreements effectively drives the legal and diplomatic decisions in many countries that have embassies in Israel (including the U.S.). The U.S. has a long-standing policy, for example, of refraining from placing an embassy in disputed and/or occupied land, and the language of those agreements I referenced leaves the status of Jerusalem in a state of uncertainty. I suspect most other countries have similar protocols, since no other country that recognizes Israel has an embassy there. Even some nations that previously DID have embassies in Jerusalem moved them to Tel Aviv for political/diplomatic reasons related to the uncertain legal status of the city.
Because of the uncertainty of the legal status of Jerusalem, putting an embassy there is like building a house without having a clear title to the property. Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing.
I agree with the first part of this statement, but the second part doesn't logically follow it.
This is an ongoing problem that will only be solved if the principals involved -- namely, the Israelis, the Palestinians and neighboring countries directly affected by it (Jordan, for example) -- sit down and figure out how to solve it. The U.S. has nothing to gain by inserting itself into that process in anything other than the role of an intermediary, and in that case only as long as all of those involved are on board with it.