Skip to main content

Trump’s Jerusalem decision and its fallout

Mahmood Monshipouri, visiting associate professor, Middle Eastern Studies | December 8, 2017

President Trump’s announcement that the United States now officially recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has tossed the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians into a political tailspin on an unprecedented scale, while raising new tensions in the region and at worst, inciting a fresh round of violence:  in that this discursive disruption could serve as a catalyst for the eruption of the third Intifada.

Also disturbing, if Trump’s rhetoric wasn’t enough, his statements further complicate the harrowing problems facing any possible peace agreement for the foreseeable future.  Never have the Palestinians been more skeptical about the viability of the peace process and the prospects for a statehood than this moment. The move by the Trump administration will most certainly strengthen the hardliners’ hands not only among the Palestinians but throughout the region as the prospect for a feasible political settlement now appears far more remote, if it ever appeared likely.  This may be the end the two-state solution.

JerusalemWashington’s break with its traditional position — that is, the peace process and negotiations must precede before any recognition of this sort and that the status of Jerusalem must be resolved in the framework of a two-state solution — is likely to confer on the Israelis a new confidence in imposing their will on the Palestinians. This reality, when combined with the absence of any progress toward a successful negotiation having to do with the borders, refugees, and security issues, at a time when illegal settlements are persistently being built on Palestinian lands, negates any support whatsoever for the Palestinian statehood in the coming years.

The withdrawal from the new settlements in East Jerusalem seems no longer feasible, in part because Jerusalem is now recognized as the capital of Israel.  If anything, the move strengthens the Israelis’ hold on the West Bank as a result. Practically speaking, Israelis cannot keep new settlements in East Jerusalem, while at the same time forcing settlers in the West Bank to evacuate their residence there.

The real question is: Does this move optimize Israel’s security or does it bolster the position of belligerents in the right-wing government of Netanyahu?

At home, many—if not most—evangelical Christians, as well as some Jewish conservatives such as Sheldon Adelson, a significant donor to the Republican Party, have supported this decision. Vice President Mike Pence and some of the key evangelicals surrounding President Trump have unwaveringly supported this move. This is, however, the extent to which Trump’s decision has been embraced.

Most damning to the United States, which has long claimed to have served as an honest and neutral broker in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, is that the broader sense of trust in Washington to play such a role has been fatally and irreversibly damaged. Both U.N. Secretary General António Guterres and Pope Francis at the Vatican have expressed alarm that the declaration would spark further tensions in the Holy City. The diminishment of U.S. leverage on the global political landscape is becoming increasingly clear as German officials have noted this move is likely to jeopardize their solidarity with the United States on matters relating to the Middle East. Germany’s Foreign Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, has warned against such a unilateral U.S. recognition, describing it as “counterproductive” while saying that Germany would have to “spell out where the limits” of its solidarity stood.  The question persists: What incentives do the Palestinians have to resume the talks about the future of Jerusalem if the results on the ground point to a fait accompli?  Bringing the Palestinians to the negotiating table will prove far more difficult than ever, as the growing perception in the Arab and Muslim world is that restoring peace in the Middle East has seemingly seen its last days.

Under such circumstance, the resistance and violence by the Palestinians will continue, despite Washington’s disingenuous rhetoric that it will protect Palestinian interests in possible future negotiations. Furthermore, this move is likely to upend Mahmoud Abbas’s credibility, while solidifying that of its rival faction Hamas, in part because the West Bankers will be seen as losers in any possible future deal. There can be no doubt that this move will prepare the stage for a more violent backlash against the settlers in the occupied territories and further attacks against U.S. soft targets and assets around the world.

The ongoing division between the United States and its traditional Arab and Western allies in this matter is alarming, even as the Arab world appears preoccupied with the aftereffects of the Arab Spring uprisings, including surging sectarian tensions, civil wars in Syria and Yemen and numerous uncertainties facing Libya and Egypt — not to mention the intensified regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

That said, Washington cannot even find support among Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Russia and China — countries that have expressed serious concerns about Trump’s decision, arguing that such a move could fuel tensions in the region, rendering the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority totally unpredictable and troubling in the coming years.

Comments to “Trump’s Jerusalem decision and its fallout

  1. Can Turkey and Lebanon follow through on their pledge to open embassies in East Jerusalem
    to mirror Trump’s move?

  2. I found Dave’s comments (in which there was by the way no mention of Jerusalem) on my essay utterly unpersuasive. The main thrust of my essay had to do with Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—not whether the Palestinian authorities in the occupied territories are either a democracy or autocracy. I didn’t portray the Palestine as the epicenter of democratic dissidence. Nor did I attempt to list these countries (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Russia, and China) as those with decent human rights records. We all know the state of democracy and/or human rights in these countries. By the way, when did our Western, democratic allies—Great Britain, France, and Germany—support this declaration? So ultimately what is the point here? My essay’s key consideration had nothing to do with the points you’re raising about repressive regimes in the Middle East. Rather, you’re introducing an irrelevant issue (repressive regimes) into the debate about the future of Jerusalem to divert my original argument.
    To my mind, you’re distorting the central gist of my essay, which was the fact that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at this juncture is a counterproductive action, especially given the conspicuous absence of any progress toward the peace process. This decision reminds me of the all-too-familiar adage: “Putting the cart before the horse.” I’m being accused of “a pseudo-intellectual who simply parrot(s) standard groupthink and fail(s) to be honest about (my purported) self-examination.” Exactly, what do you mean by self-examination? Why do I need self-examination about a declaration that has the potential to lead to more bloodshed and instability in the region than in the past? What does Trump’s decision have to do with stifling dissent in the region? I don’t quite follow your logic, here. In fact, in the most troubling sense, I see no logic. I was simply debating the outcome of a reckless decision that could have several negative consequences. I stand by my analysis. Your reply—bluntly aimed at attacking my intellectual integrity as an academic rather than tackling my main point—falls far short of addressing the issues that I have raised in my essay.
    Beyond this, there is no clear case in the Middle East to change the venue of the US embassy at this time. Broadly stated, this was a move meant to achieve gains with a domestic audience of evangelical Christians and the far, far, far right of Israeli politics at the manifest expense of regional stability. No argument that holds the quintessential significance of the free press stands in the way of my central point, which is that this move will enhance the possibilities for conflict, remove whatever impetus existed for diplomatic negotiations, and appeal to the actors most closely associated with a deleterious political atmosphere. This move, strengthens the hand of those actors who claim that the Trump administration continues to be fixated on pursuing its own interests in the region at the expense of all others, without much regard for sustainable peace or diplomacy.

    • During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.

      After the establishment of the state of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital city.

      One of Israel’s Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country’s undivided capital.

      All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court.

      In 1995, the United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which required, subject to conditions, that its embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.


      All knowledge of cultural reality, as may be seen, is always knowledge from particular points of view. (Max Weber)

  3. “The last few months have seen a sharp escalation in attacks by the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, on journalists and the media in a bid to silence dissent. This is a chilling setback for freedom of expression in Palestine.”

    “By rounding up journalists and shutting down opposition websites the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip appear to be using police state tactics to silence critical media and arbitrarily block people’s access to information.”

    (Magdalena Mughrabi, Deputy Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International)


    Mahmood Monshipouri’s selective percepetion goes even further awry to encompass a stunning blind spot with his elevation of extremely repressive countries via this silly statement “That said, Washington cannot even find support among Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Russia and China.”

    Alas Mahmood Monshipouri is another in a long, long line of pseudo-intellectuals who simply parrot standard groupthink and fail to be honest about self-examination….of course this is easy when dissent is continuously stiffled in the region.

Comments are closed.