Why haven’t more embassies moved to Jerusalem?
Dr. Emmanuel Navon: Most countries have too many interests in the Arab and Muslim world to make a move that is seen as hostile in those countries, and the benefits are too small.
The United States transferring its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem last year is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s crowning achievement in his campaign for recognition of the city as Israel’s capital. His hope is that other countries will follow the example of the world’s superpower.
While Guatemala has also relocated its embassy to Jerusalem, and Moldova announced last week that it would do so, Netanyahu’s wish, however, has not come to fruition. Paraguay’s embassy was in Jerusalem for a few months in 2018 but returned to Tel Aviv after a change of government in the South American country.
Dr. Emmanuel Navon, senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, says this is because the political cost is too high.
“It’s not worth it to them. Most countries have too many interests in the Arab and Muslim world to make a move that is seen as hostile in those countries, and the benefits are too small,” Navon told The Media Line.
This is true even for countries like Brazil that have large Evangelical Christian populations that support Israel. President Jair Bolsonaro has mused publicly about transferring the embassy, but that has not happened.
“Even in Brazil, the pressure from Evangelicals is not enough for Bolsonaro to take that step,” Navon said.
Dr. Ofer Israeli, lecturer and senior research fellow at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, explains that in general, this could be explained by a concept in public policy known as path-dependence, where governments have an arduous time changing a policy once it has been established due to resistance by the beneficiaries of the status quo.
“When a country holds a policy, especially a foreign policy, it’s very difficult for them to change it if there isn’t a good reason to do that,” Israeli told The Media Line.
He added that many governments believed that relocating their embassies would exacerbate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“Many countries truly believe that moving the embassy or recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel should be the result of negotiations between the two parties, and that moves like the US’s, with one-sided support, make the situation more complex to resolve,” he said.
Israeli further contends that western governments agree in most part with the Palestinian point of view of the conflict.
“The Palestinians are succeeding in selling their narrative that Jerusalem should be the capital of the future Palestinian state,” he told The Media Line. “[They believe] the [pre-]1967 lines should be the border between Israel and the Palestinian state, and that for them to recognize Jerusalem as the capital and/or move their embassy could make the situation more complicated.”
Israeli thinks more countries will move their embassies, but not those that are major players in the international arena.
“I think we can expect every year a few countries, most of them small, to move their embassies… countries that rely on the US or need Israel to reach Washington,” Israeli said. “The countries that already moved their embassies were under very intense American pressure. All of them are very small countries where [that] is effective to get them to change.”
Despite this, Navon argues that the US Embassy move has had a substantial global impact.
“One is better than none, and when that one is the world’s greatest power, it’s significant. It’s a precedent. It will take time for other countries to follow, but it’s a step in the right direction,” he told The Media Line.
Navon contends that for more countries to move their embassy, Netanyahu will have to make the case that doing so will not signify a political stance and follow President Donald Trump’s example in emphasizing that moving the embassy did not mean that the US was taking a position on borders or regulations for holy sites.
“Israel could and should make it clear to other countries that they are not taking a stance on those issues by moving those embassies,” Navon said. “Trump only recognized that the Israeli government is in Jerusalem; it’s the place where [most of] the ministries are.”
Navon explained that relocation to Jerusalem would be nothing new for some countries.
“Dozens of embassies were in Jerusalem before the 1967 war, and even some afterward [such as those of Chile and the Netherlands]. Most left in 1981, after the Knesset declared Jerusalem as the [unified] capital of Israel,” he said.
He added that Israel could convince more governments to move their embassy by garnering the support of Evangelicals abroad.
“The Israeli government should be in touch with those communities and encourage them to keep up the pressure on their governments to move their embassies,” he said.
The Lauder School’s Israeli said the 2020 US elections would play a role in whether more countries move their embassies, particularly with those that want American support.
“If President Trump is reelected, more countries will move their embassies. If a Democrat wins, the situation will change, and maybe those countries that already moved their embassies will go back and move their embassies from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv,” Israeli said.
Apparently, other nations view the American decision to move its embassy as being tied to the president rather than permanent US policy.
President Trump is the first American president to agree with Netanyahu that moving embassies to Jerusalem could encourage a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli stated.
“The US sent a message to the Palestinians that if you want to solve the conflict, you should understand that it is impossible for you to receive the entirety of what you are asking for; [you are not] going to get back the pre-1967 lines or Jerusalem as your capital, among other things [you] have been trying to achieve in the past,” he explained.
“The US brought a new perspective to the table,” he emphasized, “that Israel will receive almost all its demands, especially regarding security, and [in return] the Palestinians will get financial support.”
Dr. Emmanuel Navon is an International Relations scholar and author. He lectures International Relations at Tel Aviv University (He was awarded the “Best Professor of the Year” prize by the Faculty of Social Sciences in 2022), is a Senior Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), and a foreign affairs analyst for i24news. He has also taught at Reichman University and at the IDF’s National Security College.
Dr. Navon has authored four books and dozens of articles that have appeared in prestigious journals such as the Review of International Studies and the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, and in world-class newspapers such as Le Monde and Newsweek. His book The Star and the Scepter: A Diplomatic History of Israel (Jewish Publication Society/University of Nebraska Press, 2020) is an academic reference, which has been translated so far to Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, French, and Italian.
A sought-after public speaker, Navon has addressed the American Enterprise Institute, AIPAC, the Jewish Federations of North America, as well as leading universities such as Georgetown, Columbia, and Rice. Navon is a frequent guest for American, French, and Israeli media, and he has appeared on Voice of America, on France 24, and on the Knesset Channel.
Previously, Navon served as CEO of ELNET-Israel (the Israel office, and central hub, of the largest pro-Israel organization in Europe); as head of the Political Science and Communication Department at the Jerusalem Haredi College (affiliated to Bar-Ilan University); as founding partner of the Navon-Levy Group (a consultancy that promoted Israeli agricultural and energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa); as CEO of BNIC (an NGO that trained Israeli business leaders in diplomatic advocacy); and as consultant with ARTTIC (a leading European consulting firm specialized in R&D funding).
Dr. Navon was born in Paris, France, in 1971 and went to a bilingual (French/English) school. He graduated in public administration from Sciences-Po, one of Europe’s most prestigious universities. In 1993 he moved to Israel, enrolled in the IDF, and earned a Ph.D. in international relations from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is equally and perfectly fluent in English, French, and Hebrew, and is conversant in German and Italian. He is a husband, father, grandfather, and an active triathlete.
Tehran’s state media portrays Azerbaijan’s hosting of the Conference of European Rabbis as a “Zion-ist...
By signing up, you agree to our user agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), our privacy policy and cookie statement, and to receive marketing and billing emails from jiss. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Sign up for the newsletter
For up-to-date analysis and commentary.
Are You In?
Join 8,000+ Subscribers who enjoy our weekly digest
Home page / Media Appearances and Publications / Why haven’t more embassies moved to Jerusalem?
Why haven’t more embassies moved to Jerusalem?
Dr. Emmanuel Navon: Most countries have too many interests in the Arab and Muslim world to make a move that is seen as hostile in those countries, and the benefits are too small.
The United States transferring its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem last year is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s crowning achievement in his campaign for recognition of the city as Israel’s capital. His hope is that other countries will follow the example of the world’s superpower.
While Guatemala has also relocated its embassy to Jerusalem, and Moldova announced last week that it would do so, Netanyahu’s wish, however, has not come to fruition. Paraguay’s embassy was in Jerusalem for a few months in 2018 but returned to Tel Aviv after a change of government in the South American country.
Dr. Emmanuel Navon, senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, says this is because the political cost is too high.
“It’s not worth it to them. Most countries have too many interests in the Arab and Muslim world to make a move that is seen as hostile in those countries, and the benefits are too small,” Navon told The Media Line.
This is true even for countries like Brazil that have large Evangelical Christian populations that support Israel. President Jair Bolsonaro has mused publicly about transferring the embassy, but that has not happened.
“Even in Brazil, the pressure from Evangelicals is not enough for Bolsonaro to take that step,” Navon said.
Dr. Ofer Israeli, lecturer and senior research fellow at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, explains that in general, this could be explained by a concept in public policy known as path-dependence, where governments have an arduous time changing a policy once it has been established due to resistance by the beneficiaries of the status quo.
“When a country holds a policy, especially a foreign policy, it’s very difficult for them to change it if there isn’t a good reason to do that,” Israeli told The Media Line.
He added that many governments believed that relocating their embassies would exacerbate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“Many countries truly believe that moving the embassy or recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel should be the result of negotiations between the two parties, and that moves like the US’s, with one-sided support, make the situation more complex to resolve,” he said.
Israeli further contends that western governments agree in most part with the Palestinian point of view of the conflict.
“The Palestinians are succeeding in selling their narrative that Jerusalem should be the capital of the future Palestinian state,” he told The Media Line. “[They believe] the [pre-]1967 lines should be the border between Israel and the Palestinian state, and that for them to recognize Jerusalem as the capital and/or move their embassy could make the situation more complicated.”
Israeli thinks more countries will move their embassies, but not those that are major players in the international arena.
“I think we can expect every year a few countries, most of them small, to move their embassies… countries that rely on the US or need Israel to reach Washington,” Israeli said. “The countries that already moved their embassies were under very intense American pressure. All of them are very small countries where [that] is effective to get them to change.”
Despite this, Navon argues that the US Embassy move has had a substantial global impact.
“One is better than none, and when that one is the world’s greatest power, it’s significant. It’s a precedent. It will take time for other countries to follow, but it’s a step in the right direction,” he told The Media Line.
Navon contends that for more countries to move their embassy, Netanyahu will have to make the case that doing so will not signify a political stance and follow President Donald Trump’s example in emphasizing that moving the embassy did not mean that the US was taking a position on borders or regulations for holy sites.
“Israel could and should make it clear to other countries that they are not taking a stance on those issues by moving those embassies,” Navon said. “Trump only recognized that the Israeli government is in Jerusalem; it’s the place where [most of] the ministries are.”
Navon explained that relocation to Jerusalem would be nothing new for some countries.
“Dozens of embassies were in Jerusalem before the 1967 war, and even some afterward [such as those of Chile and the Netherlands]. Most left in 1981, after the Knesset declared Jerusalem as the [unified] capital of Israel,” he said.
He added that Israel could convince more governments to move their embassy by garnering the support of Evangelicals abroad.
“The Israeli government should be in touch with those communities and encourage them to keep up the pressure on their governments to move their embassies,” he said.
The Lauder School’s Israeli said the 2020 US elections would play a role in whether more countries move their embassies, particularly with those that want American support.
“If President Trump is reelected, more countries will move their embassies. If a Democrat wins, the situation will change, and maybe those countries that already moved their embassies will go back and move their embassies from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv,” Israeli said.
Apparently, other nations view the American decision to move its embassy as being tied to the president rather than permanent US policy.
President Trump is the first American president to agree with Netanyahu that moving embassies to Jerusalem could encourage a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli stated.
“The US sent a message to the Palestinians that if you want to solve the conflict, you should understand that it is impossible for you to receive the entirety of what you are asking for; [you are not] going to get back the pre-1967 lines or Jerusalem as your capital, among other things [you] have been trying to achieve in the past,” he explained.
“The US brought a new perspective to the table,” he emphasized, “that Israel will receive almost all its demands, especially regarding security, and [in return] the Palestinians will get financial support.”
BY TARA KAVALER, The Jerusalem Post,17.06.2019
may interest you
Partnering for Common Interests
“Iran in Light of the Nuclear Talks” – Biweekly Status Report (May 11 – May 25, 2025)
Star Wars Rebooted
Egypt-China Air Drill Signals Deepening Strategic Alignment
The Japan, China, Iran Triangle: Strategic Implications for Israel
Putin Cannot Influence Iran to Succumb to Trump’s Nuclear Ultimatum
Houthi Expansion to the Horn of Africa: Understanding the Nature of the Threat
With Sudan’s Parallel Government Deepening the Divide, Can Common Ground Still Be Reached?
Dr. Emmanuel Navon
Dr. Emmanuel Navon is an International Relations scholar and author. He lectures International Relations at Tel Aviv University (He was awarded the “Best Professor of the Year” prize by the Faculty of Social Sciences in 2022), is a Senior Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), and a foreign affairs analyst for i24news. He has also taught at Reichman University and at the IDF’s National Security College.
Dr. Navon has authored four books and dozens of articles that have appeared in prestigious journals such as the Review of International Studies and the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, and in world-class newspapers such as Le Monde and Newsweek. His book The Star and the Scepter: A Diplomatic History of Israel (Jewish Publication Society/University of Nebraska Press, 2020) is an academic reference, which has been translated so far to Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, French, and Italian.
A sought-after public speaker, Navon has addressed the American Enterprise Institute, AIPAC, the Jewish Federations of North America, as well as leading universities such as Georgetown, Columbia, and Rice. Navon is a frequent guest for American, French, and Israeli media, and he has appeared on Voice of America, on France 24, and on the Knesset Channel.
Previously, Navon served as CEO of ELNET-Israel (the Israel office, and central hub, of the largest pro-Israel organization in Europe); as head of the Political Science and Communication Department at the Jerusalem Haredi College (affiliated to Bar-Ilan University); as founding partner of the Navon-Levy Group (a consultancy that promoted Israeli agricultural and energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa); as CEO of BNIC (an NGO that trained Israeli business leaders in diplomatic advocacy); and as consultant with ARTTIC (a leading European consulting firm specialized in R&D funding).
Dr. Navon was born in Paris, France, in 1971 and went to a bilingual (French/English) school. He graduated in public administration from Sciences-Po, one of Europe’s most prestigious universities. In 1993 he moved to Israel, enrolled in the IDF, and earned a Ph.D. in international relations from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is equally and perfectly fluent in English, French, and Hebrew, and is conversant in German and Italian. He is a husband, father, grandfather, and an active triathlete.
Recent publications
Former IDF Intel Chief: Can Hamas Release All Hostages in 72 Hours?
A Mediterranean Partnership: A Faded Idea Israel Should Put Back on Its Diplomatic Agenda
Iran’s Antisemitic Campaign against the Baku Rabbis’ Conference
By signing up, you agree to our user agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), our privacy policy and cookie statement, and to receive marketing and billing emails from jiss. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Sign up for the newsletter
For up-to-date analysis and commentary.