CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Breaking with seven decades of US policy on Jerusalem, President Donald Trump announced on December 6 that his administration officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and directed the State Department to begin preparations for the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The US Congress, in a majority vote, adopted the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, providing for the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem before the time limit of May 21, 1999. However, the act included a provision allowing the US president to sign a sixmonth waiver if they deem it "necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States ”. Since the Bill Clinton presidency, every administration has continued to sign the waiver, every 6 months, despite promising during their presidential campaigns to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 ANATOMY OF TRUMP’S JERUSALEM POLICY
Donald Trump’s Jerusalem decision implies certain latent precursors of an alarming shift in the U.S. foreign policy toward the most protracted conflict in the Middle East. In his short address at the White House, Trump eagerly asserted that “while previous Presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering,”
(1) In reference to the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which had been passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. In its policy statement of the United States, the law stated that a) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; b) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and c) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. However, Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama signed periodic waivers every six month to delay the implementation of the law. Back in June 2017, Trump grudgingly signed his first six-month waiver taking into consideration the counsel of his son-in-law and would-be architect of a new peace initiative, Jared Kushner, who “argued that to move the embassy then might strangle the effort before the administration had established relationships in the region.”
(2)Trump’s narrative of achievement and self-praise also entails several political and security dilemmas beneath his declared commitment to fulfilling his electoral pledges, catering to his extreme right and evangelical base, and solidifying his drive for political isolationism under the banner of serving “America first”.
Still, his tunnel-vision allegiance to his right wing and evangelical supporters raises serious questions: to what extent did Trump really take the U.S. strategic interests to heart by honoring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wish or securing the Israeli interests? Most Arab governments are deeply consumed by civil wars in Yemen, Syria, and Libya and other domestic challenges of the premise of the 2011 social uprisings. Was Trump’s decision a diplomatic imperative or a timely correction of America’s strategy in the Middle East when risk current management indicators usher to more alarming crises vis-à-vis ISIL’s power in Syria, growing Iranian influence in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, violent infighting and return of slavery and human trafficking in Libya, or the open-ended nuclear threats of North Korea? Trump’s simplistic philosophy: “old challenges demand new approaches” seems to be overshadowed by the urge of being in command even with a miscalculated undiplomatic formula for the Israeli-Palestinian intractable conflict. With his egocentrism and showmanship tendencies, he has displayed “the ethos of a confident dealmaker who's willing to gamble to mi
x things up.”
(3)With the fading credibility of the Trump Administration in the eyes of most Arab, Muslim, Christian, and even European leaders, elites, and ordinary individuals, one wonders whether there is a silver lining in his decision to help stimulate a Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim counter strategy. With the fading hope of a two-state solution to the conflict, the question remains: who would fill in the shoes of the United States in future peace efforts. Russia has a full plate of challenges after its involvement in the Syrian conflict. By defending the regime of Bashar Assad, it has weakened its credibility to have a role in the region. China is interested in developing more trade links than shaping a political intervention in the Middle East. What is behind Trump’s Undiplomatic Political Campaign Promise? “President Trump, You Promised. You Delivered. Thank you for courageously recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s Eternal Capital.” This was the slogan of a full-page ad, depicting Mr. Trump praying at the Western Wall, published by the Republican Jewish Committee in the New York Times one day after Donald Trump’s address. Ironically out of the 282 promises he made during his presidential campaign, Trump chose probably the most controversial and volatile issue in Middle Eastern turmoil, and turned a naked flame on the single most combustible issue in the conflict.
The paradox here is that most of his electoral pledges, including the Obama Care and the U.S. withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), are on a shaky ground due to his contentious relationship with Congress
and leaders of the Republican Party. Furthermore, Trump decided to go forward with his Jerusalem announcement against the recommendations of his policy officials at the State Department and Pentagon, let alone the disagreement of most world leaders in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. For instance, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had advised him not to address the issue of Jerusalem.
Now, they remain alarmed with the potential anti-American blowback not least to
diplomats and troops serving overseas.
(5)Similarly, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, told the Security Council that Jerusalem "is perhaps the most emotionally charged and difficult subject" among the final status issues in the conflict. Other observers notice that “Trump is now set to apply his strategy of international vandalism to perhaps the most sensitive geopolitical hotspot in the world.
(6)To help capture the nuances of Trump’s Jerusalem decision, one needsto consider politics is not only domestic, but also personal. Ten days before the presidential inauguration in January, casino billionaire and Republican donor Sheldon G. After attended a private meeting with President-elect Trump in his Trump Tower in New York. He briefed the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton A. Klein, about Trump’s determination to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem since it was to him “a major priority”, and “something that’s in his heart and soul.”
(7)In his detailed article, Mark Landler explains how a pro-Trump candidacy political action committee benefited from a $20 million donation by the Adelsons who also gave another $1.5 million to the committee that organized the Republican convention in the summer of 2016. Subsequently for Candidate and President Trump, the status of Jerusalem was always “more a political imperative than a diplomatic dilemma. Faced with disappointing evangelical and pro-Israel backers like Mr. Adelson, or alarming allies and Arab leaders while jeopardizing his own peace initiative, the President sided with his key supporters.”
Another contributing factor was Trump’s reoccurring meetings with the representatives of the various evangelical Christian groups who urged him to take action about the status of the U.S. embassy in Israel. For instance, President of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, recalls that during the meetings he attended “it was clearly communicated that evangelicals and Bible-believing Christians see a special relationship with Israel.”
(9)Ten days before his Jerusalem announcement, Trump walked into a meeting of his National Security Council’s team who were studying possible options for the Jerusalem Act question, and requested “more creative solutions”. His advisers offered him two alternatives: “Sign the waiver again, or sign it but recognize Jerusalem as the capital and set in motion a plan to move the embassy.”
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE DECISION
Trump’s decision to recognize occupied Jerusalem as the capital of the Israel comprises the following dimensions:
3.1 Jerusalem the Capital of Israel
According to Trump, the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is the right thing to do. However, in his speech, Trump stressed that his declaration was “not taking a position on any final status issues .” According to a US State Department message to its embassies in European capitals, American diplomats were asked to explain to European officials that "Jerusalem is still a final status issue between Israelis and Palestinians and that both sides must determine the dimensions of Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem during their negotiations ”. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted the same idea by insisting that the president was borders, would be left to the parties to negotiate and decide4
.” This implicitly suggests that the city could be divided into two capitals if the parties agreed. Israel occupied West Jerusalem in 1948 and declared the city its capital in 1949, a move rejected by the international community, including the United States, and then occupied East Jerusalem in 1967. According to international resolutions, East Jerusalem, in which lie the holy
sites of Jews, Christians and Muslims, is occupied territory, the part of the city that the Palestinians claim as the capital of their state, a claim refused by Israel. Despite the administration's attempt to play down the severity of Trump's decision, neither
Trump nor his administration have mentioned the Israeli refusal, since 1967, to recognize the rights of Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Trump justified his decision to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, with reference to the law passed by Congress in 1995. Yet, the same Jerusalem Embassy Act stipulates, “Jerusalem must remain an undivided city”, which “should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel”. Consequently the argument that Trump’s decision does not include the expropriation of the Palestinian right to discuss final status issues, including Jerusalem, in later negotiations is merely a smokescreen. This is especially obvious
since reports revealing the features of a framework for a solution, drawn up by the President's son-in-law, Jared Kushner and his team, exclude East Jerusalem, or call to postpone research on it for years to come, even if a Palestinian state was established.
3.2 The Relocation of the Embassy To Jerusalem
Despite the decision of Trump to order the State Department to begin preparations to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he signed the waiver for another six months. This was on the understanding that it would take time to "employ the architects, other engineers and planners to make the new embassy as a great tribute to peace when it is complete."According to Tillerson, the transfer of the embassy “is not something that’s going to happen this year, probably not next year, but the President does want us to move in a very concrete and steadfast way to ensure the embassy is located in Jerusalem when we are able to do so at the earliest possible time.”
Regardless of when the embassy will actually be transferred, Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and direct the State department to begin the preparations for the transfer of the embassy is significant. He has broken with more than 20 years of policy pursued by his three predecessors who postponed the relocation until a settlement has been reached Peace agreement between the Palestinian and Israeli authorities.
3.3 The Commitment to Peace and the Two State Solution according to Israeli Specifications.
In his speech, Trump emphasized his administration's "strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement." For the first time since he came to the presidency, Trump announced his support for a two-state solution, but added that his support here was on the condition that it was “agreed to by both sides”. This brings negotiations back to square one, giving veto power to Israel, which refuses to recognize a Palestinian state based on the resolutions of international law6.
Trumps Motivations and Calculations
Trump’s decision about Jerusalem did not represent a compromise between his chief advisors. While Secretary of State Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and CIA director Mike Pompeo opposed the decision, Vice President Mike Pence, US envoy to the UN Nikki Haley, and US ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman all supported the move. The decision was also encouraged by son-in-law Kushner, and US Special Envoy for Peace in the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt7.
The arguments of the opposition camp are based on the potential threat to American interests in the Arab and Islamic region. They argue that it may weaken US moderation of Palestinian Israeli negotiations and destroy any peace proposals that they are working on, and perhaps even drag them into a new round of violence in the occupied Palestinian territories. That is in addition to firing up tension between the US and any Arab or Muslim allies, and contributing to the alienation of the US, even from its European allies8. On the other hand, the supporter camp
argued that such a declaration will enhance Trump’s credibility among the Israelis, and therefore give him the ability to maneuver with the right-wing Netanyahu government shouldthe US administration offer a framework for a final agreement with the Palestinians9.
This paper seeks out the real motivations for Trump to go ahead with the announcement of his decision on Jerusalem, despite the opposition of his senior advisers to the National Security Council. Trump tried to make his decision in compliance with 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. He did not hesitate to insinuate his three predecessors did not have the courage to implement the decision. The issue for Trump is that he made a promise as a candidate, which he believes hehas to fulfill, unlike his predecessors. In his statement, Trump declared, "While previous
presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering." There is a personal dimension to Trump's decision. He did not succeed in delivering any of his electoral promises, which contradicts his desire to appear as a powerful president who makes decisions that no one else dared to take. Yet there is also a desire to appease his audience and his supporters and the base of his electoral support, above all:
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 FROM PEACE BROKER INTO CONFLICT CONTENDER
The temporality of Trump’s decision raises new concerns about the seriousness of his intent to reach an ‘ultimate deal’ between Israelis and Palestinians within the growing rapprochement between Israel and Gulf States, namely Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As he ironed down what he considered “nothing more nor less than a
recognition of reality”, he made an odd claim “we are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.”Paradoxically, the two-state solution and the entire Oslo process are now the first collateral damage of his forced entry into the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian veteran interlocutor Hanan Ashrawi underscored "the peace process is finished. They have already pre-empted the outcome."
By the same token, the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said the decision was “tantamount to the U.S. abdicating its role as a peace mediator".
Trump’s decision represents a zero-sum proposition in favor of the Israelis who will invest further in the U.S. shift for widening the normalization of their ties with other states in the region. Subsequently, the U.S. political capital has weakened in the Middle
East and beyond, and confirmed two common negative perceptions: a) the U.S. has not been an honest broker of the peace process; and b) the fallacy of the Oslo Accord by avoiding the final status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees’ right of return, and the unfeasibility of the two-state solution. As one commentator put it, “If there is a silver
lining to Trump’s announcement, it’s that it provides clarity and a unifying objective for Palestinians.”
For U.S. officials and diplomats working in the region, a new dilemma has emerged in terms of reconstructing a less antagonizing American political discourse vis-à-vis the Palestinians and world public opinion. Saeb Erakat, PLO chief negotiator, has cautioned that the U.S. would “disqualify itself to play any role in any initiative towards achieving a just and lasting peace”. In Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya considered the U.S. policy shift on Jerusalem to be “an aggression against our people. It's a declaration of war against our Palestinian people,” and called for a new intifada [uprising].
In Jerusalem’s Old City which embodies the political pulse of ordinary
Palestinians, there has been deepening feelings of frustration and despair. One local resident Salah Zuhikeh summarized the shrinking posture of the United States, “By this decision, America became a very small country, like any small country in the world, like Micronesia.
America was a great country for us and everyone.”
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION
Trump's latest decision expresses the triumph of his egoism and domestic political
considerations over the pursuit of a rational and realistic approach to foreign policy. It also represents a victory for the extreme right-wing camp in his administration, which calculates that the Palestinians will move away from the negotiating table for a while, soon returning to face new realities, as they always do18. This means that the outcome depends on the popular resistance and the Palestinian leadership, and whether they are able to withstand US and Arab pressures, to insist that the United States is no longer a qualified mediator in the peace process.
This comes in the light of claims by unnamed Palestinian officials that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman exerted pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during his recent visit to Saudi Arabia to accept a proposal by Kushner. This proposal included establishing “a Palestinian entity” in Gaza as well as the West Bank administrative areas A and B and 10 percent of area C, which contains Jewish settlements. In this plan the settlements would remain
in the West Bank, Palestinians would lose sight of the right of return, and Israel would retain its authority over the borders19. In this sense, Trump’s announcement represents the elimination of Palestinian aspirations for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories of the West Bank, occupied since 1967, and the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, which in itself would constitute a historic compromise on the part of the Palestinians.
