The recent, misguided efforts of France and the United Kingdom to use their consulates in Jerusalem as embassies to the Palestinian Authority, which they now ostensibly recognize as the so-called state of Palestine, are not only inappropriate but contrary to existing treaties and law.

The Oslo II Accord, signed in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 28, 1995, and witnessed by then U.S. President Bill Clinton, among others, expressly prohibits establishing a consulate for the P.A., as it says in Article IX, Section 5a of the Oslo II Accord, the P.A. “ … will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions and posts or permitting their establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, the appointment of or admission of diplomatic and consular staff, and the exercise of diplomatic functions.”

Why would France and the United Kingdom seek to induce a breach of Oslo II, the basis of the two-state solution for which they so fervently advocate? Furthermore, it’s hard to imagine why anyone other than a dilettante would insist on positioning a consulate dedicated to serving the P.A. in the heart of Jerusalem, in what amounts to a foreign country?

Will these proto-embassy-like consulates to the so-called state of Palestine serve only the non-Jewish residents that the P.A. governs in the areas of Judea and Samaria that it controls? There are about 200,000 French and upward of 60,000 British citizens, many of them Jewish, living in Israel, including many in Jerusalem, and elsewhere in Judea and Samaria. Are they to be disenfranchised? There are also 60,000 U.S. citizens and more than 500,000 Israeli citizens who live in Judea and Samaria (plus hundreds of thousands more in Jerusalem), who are Jewish. Would they, too, effectively be excluded?

Aside from this being invidious discrimination of the most sordid variety, why would France and Britain actually reward the P.A. for being Judenrein, or “cleansed of Jews,” even to the point that it imprisons Palestinians convicted of violating noxious laws prohibiting the sale of land to a Jew? Is this Jim Crow-like paradigm their new policy of choice?

Consider, too, the anomalous character of this initiative. Do France or the United Kingdom have consulates in China-occupied Tibet serving Tibetans? Do they have consulates in Turkey serving only the Kurds? What about a consulate in China serving only the Uyghur Muslims?

This is understandable, given that Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires that the consent of the receiving state be obtained before any such consulate is established. Presumably, the above states either didn’t give such consent or a request was never made, due to an anticipated negative reaction.

Why, then, the double standard when it comes to Israel? Isn’t Israel’s consent essential under the same Vienna Convention? In this regard, it should be noted that in 2024, the Israeli Knesset passed a law prohibiting the opening of new consulates in Jerusalem.

It’s indisputably American law that undivided Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This new attempt by ostensible allies of the United States and fellow NATO members to infringe on the sovereign status of Jerusalem as an integral part of Israel and thereby diminish its legitimacy is baffling. The reported insidious attempt to change the Jerusalem addresses of the French and British consulates on the European Union website and elsewhere to “Palestine” is another example of tone-deaf grandstanding. France and the United Kingdom appear virtually immune to the egregious consequences that might ensue from catering to a terrorist constituency intent on destroying Israel. Reinforcing the dystopian delusions of Palestinian terrorists only serves to promote their murderous Jew-hatred. Wasn’t one Oct. 7 enough?

It is reported that the French consulate in Jerusalem has engaged with and supported the activities of individuals connected to terror groups. Imagine the horror of Palestinian terrorists using a French or British consulate in the heart of Jerusalem as a convenient safe harbor or for taking sanctuary there after committing a murderous terrorist act. Having a consulate in Jerusalem to service a foreign, non-state actor headquartered in Ramallah is wrong. Besides being an absurd and irresponsible way of making a point, it violates international law and Oslo II.

Israel is the sole democratic state in the area, a loyal friend and vital strategic ally. Diminishing it or sending mixed signals serves no useful purpose; it only tarnishes the prestige of France and Britain, and can cause enormous harm. It’s time to end this unrealistic and dangerous ploy. There is no genuinely rational or constructive reason to impinge on the legitimacy of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Indeed, as history has demonstrated in no uncertain terms, this kind of ambivalent policy causes confusion and raises unrealistic expectations that serve to prevent, not enhance, the prospects for peace.

The post An outright unlawful misuse of Jerusalem embassy privileges appeared first on JNS.org.