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.”
Senior Fellow on leave | Expert in international relations, diplomacy, and Israeli foreign policy
Dr. Emmanuel Navon is an international relations scholar, author, and diplomat. As of August 2026, he is on leave from the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security while serving as Israel’s Ambassador to Japan.
At JISS, Dr. Navon’s research has focused on Israel’s foreign policy, European–Middle East relations, the changing international order, energy security, and the strategic challenges facing democratic states. He has contributed policy papers, strategic analyses, public lectures, and media commentary aimed at informing both Israeli and international policy debates.
Dr. Navon taught international relations and diplomatic studies at Tel Aviv University for twenty-four years. His courses addressed Israel’s foreign policy, diplomacy, geopolitics, globalization, European foreign policy, and the evolution of the international system. In 2022, he received the Faculty of Social Sciences Award for Excellence in Teaching. His university teaching career began at Bar-Ilan University, and he subsequently taught at Reichman University and Israel’s National Security College.
He is the author of four published books and numerous academic and policy articles. His work has appeared in peer-reviewed journals including Review of International Studies and the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, as well as in international publications 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) has been translated into Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, French, and Italian. He has also completed The Continent and the High Seas, a study of the historical and structural forces reshaping the international system and the global balance of power.
Dr. Navon has addressed government officials, diplomats, military officers, policy experts, and academic audiences across Europe, North America, Asia, and Africa. His speaking engagements have included the American Enterprise Institute, AIPAC, the Jewish Federations of North America, Georgetown University, Columbia University, and Rice University. He has appeared regularly in American, French, Israeli, and international media, including Voice of America, France 24, i24NEWS, and the Knesset Channel.
Alongside his academic career, Dr. Navon held senior leadership positions in public policy and international affairs. He served as CEO of ELNET-Israel, as head of the Political Science and Communication programme at the Jerusalem Haredi College, as CEO of the Business Network for International Cooperation, and as a founding partner of the Navon-Levy Group. From January to July 2026, he founded and served as CEO of the Euro-Med Middle East Council, a policy institute devoted to strategic cooperation between Europe, Israel, and partners across the Mediterranean.
Born in Paris in 1971, Dr. Navon graduated from Sciences Po and earned his doctorate in international relations from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He immigrated to Israel in 1993 and served in the Israel Defense Forces. He is fluent in Hebrew, English, and French, has working knowledge of Italian and German, and is learning Japanese. He is married, a father and grandfather, and an active triathlete.
Israel’s decision to end defense exports to Qatar addresses only part of the problem. Doha...
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
“Iran in Light of the Nuclear Talks” – Biweekly Status Report (May 11 – May 25, 2025)
Star Wars Rebooted
The Japan, China, Iran Triangle: Strategic Implications for Israel
Trump’s Initiative to Normalize Russia and End the War in Ukraine: Initial Strategic Implications
The Palestinian Authority’s ‘Pay-to-Slay’ Reform is a Sham
President Trump’s Gaza Proposal Shifts the Diplomatic Landscape
Navigating Uncertainty: U.S.-Indonesian Relations in Trump’s Second Term
Europe Can and Should be Part of Israel’s Victory
Dr. Emmanuel Navon
Senior Fellow on leave | Expert in international relations, diplomacy, and Israeli foreign policy
Dr. Emmanuel Navon is an international relations scholar, author, and diplomat. As of August 2026, he is on leave from the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security while serving as Israel’s Ambassador to Japan.
At JISS, Dr. Navon’s research has focused on Israel’s foreign policy, European–Middle East relations, the changing international order, energy security, and the strategic challenges facing democratic states. He has contributed policy papers, strategic analyses, public lectures, and media commentary aimed at informing both Israeli and international policy debates.
Dr. Navon taught international relations and diplomatic studies at Tel Aviv University for twenty-four years. His courses addressed Israel’s foreign policy, diplomacy, geopolitics, globalization, European foreign policy, and the evolution of the international system. In 2022, he received the Faculty of Social Sciences Award for Excellence in Teaching. His university teaching career began at Bar-Ilan University, and he subsequently taught at Reichman University and Israel’s National Security College.
He is the author of four published books and numerous academic and policy articles. His work has appeared in peer-reviewed journals including Review of International Studies and the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, as well as in international publications 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) has been translated into Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, French, and Italian. He has also completed The Continent and the High Seas, a study of the historical and structural forces reshaping the international system and the global balance of power.
Dr. Navon has addressed government officials, diplomats, military officers, policy experts, and academic audiences across Europe, North America, Asia, and Africa. His speaking engagements have included the American Enterprise Institute, AIPAC, the Jewish Federations of North America, Georgetown University, Columbia University, and Rice University. He has appeared regularly in American, French, Israeli, and international media, including Voice of America, France 24, i24NEWS, and the Knesset Channel.
Alongside his academic career, Dr. Navon held senior leadership positions in public policy and international affairs. He served as CEO of ELNET-Israel, as head of the Political Science and Communication programme at the Jerusalem Haredi College, as CEO of the Business Network for International Cooperation, and as a founding partner of the Navon-Levy Group. From January to July 2026, he founded and served as CEO of the Euro-Med Middle East Council, a policy institute devoted to strategic cooperation between Europe, Israel, and partners across the Mediterranean.
Born in Paris in 1971, Dr. Navon graduated from Sciences Po and earned his doctorate in international relations from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He immigrated to Israel in 1993 and served in the Israel Defense Forces. He is fluent in Hebrew, English, and French, has working knowledge of Italian and German, and is learning Japanese. He is married, a father and grandfather, and an active triathlete.
Recent publications
Security Through Economics: Regional Infrastructure as a Lever for Stability
Mapping the Middle East’s Game of Camps
Halting Arms Sales to Qatar Is Only the First Step
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.