Nasser al Qudwa, former PLO representative to the UN and nephew of Yasir Arafat, was interviewed by Fateh News about what the reactions might be to the US embassy move to Jerusalem.
..This is will be very dangerous and will have consequences.... It means abandoning the interests of many existing states in Jerusalem, and abandoning the idea of having the holy sites and abandoning the idea of a divine religions linked to this place. Such a step constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law and the fourth Geneva Convention in particular, and a violation of UN security Council resolutions including the latest resolution, which was adopted in December last year and which clearly says we should not recognized by any change in the borders, including Jerusalem, except through an agreement between the parties.Essentially, the Palestinians are saying that they will ignore the US and concentrate on getting other nations to pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions without any concessions of their own. Their own sense of self-importance, evaporating quickly in the Arab world, is all they have to hold onto.
That such a thing would constitute a violation by the United States to international agreements, including the declaration of general principles in 1993 Oslo agreement as it represents a violation of previous pledges from the United States, including the letter of guarantees provided by the US government to the Palestinian side before Madrid.
As for the Palestinians, this will be a flagrant aggression on the Palestinian national rights and the civil and religious rights of Muslims and Christians in the world.
On the political side, this step means giving up the idea of a political solution through negotiations and abandoning the Oslo Accords taking away the possibility of a political solution, and the United States, changes from the role of mediator and influential party in the political process towards a political solution to become a direct party to the conflict.
It is necessary to clarify things such as the implementation of the move, which would result in the following Palestinian positions:
The embassy transfer means we will cancel US presence with the Palestinian side and on the Palestinian side we will interrupt our relations with the official staff of the US embassy located illegally in Jerusalem, and this is linked to this Palestinian political representation in Washington, where we must shut down the representative office located there, it should be done this in spite of the need for the continuation of the Palestinian readiness for dialogue with the United States in other ways, but these official channels must stop.
It must be clear to the Palestinian authorities that the US is no longer a mediator as it is not possible to cooperate with it because it has become a party to the conflict, and therefore it is necessary to search for different mechanisms for any future political process.
We should also move forward a complaint to the UN Security Council against the United States as involving a violation of international law.
We can also take other legal actions in the International Court of Justice...on the basis of the legal opinion requested by the General Assembly. Add to that the popular movement.... we expect a very angry response by all the people involved in this matter.
A bit of background on the one flimsy point he makes. The Security Council did pass a resolution in 1980 calling on all countries to remove their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem and the US abstained. But the US secretary of state Edmund Muskie said that the time:
Further, the Council calls upon those States that have established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw them from the Holy City. In our judgement this provision is not binding. It is without force. And we reject it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations. it does nothing to promote a resolution of the difftcuh problems facing Israel and its neighbours. It does nothing to advance the cause of peace.