• Login

Domestic Politics:

Motives behind Trump’s Decision on Jerusalem

12 December 2017


US President Donald Trump, in a December 6, 2017 speech, announced the United States’ officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and stated that this is a long overdue step to advance the peace process and work towards a lasting agreement. He also said that the announcement marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and that the United States will support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides. But although he noted that recognition serves efforts to establish peace and stability in the Middle East, Trump failed to specify the area that Israel can control in Jerusalem, something which could, theoretically, represent a chance for making east Jerusalem  a capital for a future independent Palestinian state.

Trump made the decision despite opposition from the United States’ closest allies who warned against its consequences. Before the announcement was made, Jordan’s King Abdullah II reportedly warned Trump “personally” against the dangerous repercussions on the stability and security of the region. Saudi King Salman also warned against the decision. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey as well as United States’ European allies, including France and Germany, immediately condemned Trump’s decision.  

Because it runs against international consensus about Jerusalem and broke with a long-standing tradition held by former US Administrations, questions were raised about the motives of Trump’s decision. Answers should be sought in light of an analysis of US domestic affairs, Trump’s voting base and close ties with Israel as well as how consistent the decision is with Trump's character and style.

Christian Right

The bulk of the Christian right represents the major supporter base of President Trump. According to a Pew Research Center survey, three-quarters of white Evangelical Protestants in the United States voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential elections.

Trump earned the bulk of white Evangelical support, with fully eight-in-ten self-identified white, born-again/Evangelical Christians saying they voted for Trump, while just 16% voted for Clinton. The bulk of this group tend to adopt a mixture of conservative and even extremist interpretations of Christianity, the Bible and American nationalism and their anglo-saxon ethnic pride. Moreover, they embrace racist and religious intolerance but tolerate with authoritarianism and savage capitalism and support state-violence in United States’ foreign policy.

Surveys conducted by Pew Center also found that half of white Evangelicals believe there is a “great deal” or “fair amount” of support for extremism among Muslims living in the U.S ― higher than any of the other religious groups surveyed. They tend to believe that Islam encourages violence (63 per cent), that there is a natural conflict between Islam and democracy (72 per cent), and that Islam is not part of mainstream American society (67 per cent).

But in addition to their enmity to Islam, white Evangelical Christians make up the biggest pro-Israel bloc in the US. In another Pew Research Center poll, 82 percent of white Evangelicals in the U.S. said they believe Israel was given by God to the Jewish people, versus 40 percent of Jews.

Almost 60 per cent of American Evangelicals back Israel regardless of U.S. interests, according to a Bloomberg poll. A survey conducted by Brookings shows that two-thirds of Evangelicals say Trump’s policy is already leaning toward Israel. Even on moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, the support is hardly overwhelming: While 53 percent of Evangelicals support the move, 40 percent oppose it.

White Evangelicals’ financial and moral support for Israel is reflected on the Republicans in particular. According to several analysts, the Republican Party largely expresses the agenda of white Christian Evangelicals who already enjoy influential presence within  the Trump Administration with Vice President Mike Pence himself being a staunchly conservative Evangelical.

Moreover, to reassure the Christian right and his supporters, garner more votes and reiterate his support for the Jewish state, GOP nominee Donald Trump, in a 2016 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), vowed that as president he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Israel’s Security

Sheldon Gary Adelson, an American business magnate and casino billionaire, and one of Trump’s staunchest high-profile supporters, donated US$35 million for Trump’s campaign. Zionist Adelson declared his enmity to the Palestinian cause and accused the Palestinians of being a made-up nation which exists solely to attempt to destroy Israel. He was reportedly “furious” with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in May for suggesting that moving the embassy should be contingent on the peace process. Reports said that he told Trump that Palestinians are impossible negotiating partners and make demands that Israel can never meet.

Ties between Trump and Adelson became even stronger thanks to the President’s son-in-law and White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, who was born to a rich Jewish family with strong ties to Israel. Sheldon donated millions of dollars in support of Israel and Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories and the West Bank. Moreover, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been a friend of Jared's father, Charles Kushner, a major donor to pro-Israel and Jewish causes. Netanyahu even  slept at the Kushners’ home in Livingston, New Jersey.

These ties became even more evident after reports revealed that Kushner and other members of Trump’s campaign, including Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, in secret talks between the Trump Administration and officials from Russia and other states, held to try to dissuade these states from supporting a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity before Trump officially took office.

Trump’s Character

There is consensus among analysts that Trump’s shocking, surprising, spontaneous and unplanned behavior has earned him wide popular support during the election campaign which took him to the White House. Even after he officially took office as President of the United States, he tends to follow the same style to maintain his ties with his voting base, distract attention from the issue he is facing, including the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, ties between his campaign team and Russia, as well as his failure to pass key legislation, including a health-care bill that was killed by GOP senators.

The wide condemnations and reactions that Trump’s decision on Jerusalem drew are, in his view, something positive that asserts his importance and personal ability to control U.S. foreign policy. Some even suggest that Trump’s goal is, probably, to intensity pressure on the Palestinians to agree to whatever terms of peace he dictates to reach a peace agreement with Israel, to be seen as a “historic” achievement establishing him as a “historic” leader.

The Iran Conundrum

At the pragmatic level, Trump’s decision on Jerusalem and his view of the Middle East, reflect a belief  that the real main conflict in this region is between Iran and Sunni Arab countries, and that these countries are willing to open up and move closer to Israel and need U.S. support in this confrontation. That is why, in his view, the governments and regimes of these countries will accept, at least implicitly, his move on Jerusalem. This is evidenced in Trump’s lack of deep understanding of the complexities of international affairs because he is focused on the domestic affairs of the United States and his image in the eyes of his voters in particular.

However, on the ideological level, Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reflects his obvious bias towards the ideology of the intolerant Christian right and enmity to Arabs and Muslims, that is implicit and sometimes obvious. This ideological background pushes for anti-immigrant policies and a further disregard for the interests and priorities of Muslim countries.