For nearly a century, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has caused immense ethnic and religious division in the Middle East. This conflict reached a tipping point shortly after World War II when tensions between the Arab and Jewish populations of Israel prompted the United Nations to pass a proposal in 1947 that split the British territory of Israel into three parts: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and the city of Jerusalem, which was designated as an international zone open to both groups. Since then, Israel has seized much of the land allotted to Palestinians. Though numerous U.S. residents have spoken of solving this great conflict, none have successfully done so. Despite this, Donald Trump believes that he has the negotiating prowess to bring an end to the century-old dispute between Israel and Palestine.
For the eight years before Trump took office, President Obama failed to accomplish much in regard to Israel. This was, in part, due to clear disagreement between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the matter of a two-state solution, meaning the creation of two independent states – Israel and Palestine. Obama clearly desired a two-state solution, as have the past several U.S. presidents, but Netanyahu repeatedly acted in ways that seemed to hinder this goal. On multiple occasions, Obama warned Netanyahu against the construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, viewing them as an impediment to negotiations. Regardless, Israel has continued to extend its reach into the West Bank.
The tension between Obama and Netanyahu came to a head with the passing of a resolution condemning Israeli settlements by the U.N. Security Council on December 23, 2016, just weeks before President Trump took office.
This controversial resolution demanded that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem" and declared that the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." Netanyahu, as well as many pro-Israel government officials, were deeply upset by the Obama Administration’s decision not to use the United States' veto power to block the resolution, a move that would have benefitted Israel, a long-time U.S. ally. Despite the strong alliance between the U.S. and Israel, Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed that Israel's infringement on Palestinian territory will not be tolerated. Now, however, with Donald Trump in the White House there is some doubt about whether that position will be upheld.
Once President Trump took office, it seemed as if the once-significant U.N. resolution was nothing more than a piece of paper. Throughout his campaign, Trump took a strong pro-Israel stance, often defending Netanyahu when he viewed him as being treated unfairly by President Obama. Following the U.N. resolution, Trump tweeted, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th." And things certainly are.
During a joint press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu during his official visit to the White House, Trump stated, “I am looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like… I can live with either one.” This shift from his former dedication to establishing a two-state solution marks a departure from a stance that the United States has explicitly supported for the past 15 years. This statement resulted in outrage from many U.S. officials, as well as a great number of international supporters of the two-state solution. After the press conference, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres joined in on the backlash by tweeting that "there is no Plan B to a 2-state solution."
Though this flip-flop on the two-state solution may hold great ramifications on future peace negotiations, it may also have little impact on the issue, depending on whether it holds firm as the Trump Administration’s stance. Because of Trump's limited knowledge about U.S. foreign policy on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his positions often change on a whim. These shifts, whether slight or substantial, threaten much of the progress the United States has achieved internationally over the past several decades. While, to Trump, changing the U.S.’s stance on an issue like the two-state solution or the “One China” policy, may not carry much weight, to others – mostly those living in foreign nations – these departures from standard foreign policy stances may have major consequences. These risks are only amplified by the fact that there are relatively few checks placed on the executive branch in its power to negotiate with foreign nations.
On the matter of Israel, like many others, Trump’s change of heart seems as if it did not arise from much deliberation. Rather, it was amended because the man standing next to him, Benjamin Netanyahu, was exhibiting a clear distaste toward Trump’s references to the two-state solution.
Whether or not Trump is still willing to negotiate a two-state solution is something that nobody but Trump and his advisors can know for sure. Yet, if there is still hope for negotiations, it is essential that they not be done through impulsive or brash intervention. Instead of analyzing the political and cultural history of this conflict and deciding what solution would best serve the people of Israel and Palestine, Trump has chosen to act upon radical campaign promises, along with whatever he believes in a particular moment.
Though it is clear that relations between Israel and Palestine are not exactly good, that does not give Trump the right to insert his power into a matter that he undoubtedly does not understand. While Trump’s capricious behavior may have some consequences on domestic policy, its effects will be infinitely more apparent in the world of foreign policy. As such, it is the duty of the American people to speak up on matters of foreign policy, where the decisions of an administration are often shaped by the zeitgeist.
