U.S. Policy Toward the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict under the Trump Administration: Continuity or Change?

• Author: Erdogan, Ayfer
• Position: ARTICLE - Donald Trump - Report

Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which dates back to the end of the nineteenth century, has been one of the most intractable conflicts in modern history, and it has had far-reaching repercussions in Middle East politics. Since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the conflict has revolved mainly around the division of Palestine and the territorial claims of Palestinians over their occupied lands. In the second half of the 20th century, successive wars between Arabs and Israel have resulted in the expansion of the territories of the newly founded State of Israel through occupation.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is driven by various factors and includes religious and historical dimensions. The religious dimension of the conflict is central to both historical and recent events unfolding in the region. Jewish claims grounded on the biblical promise of the "holy land" make up the cornerstones of the conflict. On the other hand, Palestinians' claim to their land is founded on their historical roots. Palestinians refute the claims that the ancient Jewish possession of Palestine dating back to thousands of years ago could prevent Palestinians from continuing their existence and achieving their political rights in their land. Several Arab states have been engaged in the conflict along with the Palestinians because of their religious, ideological and ethnic unity. In addition, the Palestinian cause, particularly after the Second World War, has been at the core of the Arab struggle against Western imperialism and Zionism. The Arab socialist regimes, under Nasser in Egypt and the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq in the second half of the 20th century, viewed Arab unity and the struggle for the Palestinian cause as central to Arab nationalism, which constituted the very political foundation of their regimes, (1) while Islamist groups in the Arab World advocated the necessity of liberating Jerusalem and the Palestinian land for religious reasons.

It was not until 1991 that the United States officially stepped in to resolve the conflict as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government resulted in the Oslo Accords which seemed like a landmark moment in the search of peace at the time. The Oslo Accords required a five-year transitional period for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The PLO agreed to formally recognize the State of Israel, and in turn it was granted limited self-governance in Gaza and the West Bank. Nonetheless, the Oslo Accords failed to make inroads into any lasting peace or an independent state for the Palestinians.

By 2000, the short-lived momentum initiated by the Oslo Accords had come to an end. The Palestinians came to an understanding that the so-called peace accords did little to put an end to their grievances. The ongoing occupation denied them basic rights such as self-rule, the right to free access to Jerusalem, the refugees' right of return, property rights and security. Deeply resenting the violation of their basic rights, as well as their lack of economic progress as promised by the Oslo Accords, Palestinians declared the Second Intifada which broke out soon after the collapse of negotiations between then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then President of Palestine Yasser Arafat.

Since the Second Intifada, Israel has increased its military presence, expanded its settlements in the West Bank and tightened its blockade on Gaza. Evidently, the peace process that began more than two decades ago is officially dead; many of its provisions have been abandoned, except that the PNA has been recognized as a legitimate force for governance in the Palestinian territories. Successive Israeli governments have opposed a meaningful two-state solution and the Israeli population is largely indifferent to a lasting peace process. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have become convinced that Israel's main interest is to expand its settlements in the West Bank through force of arms and to tighten its control over security and the economy in the PNA.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the U.S., which has cast itself in the role of a mediator or peace broker, has been the most influential actor in the trajectory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Particularly after the September 11 attacks, U.S. efforts to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict intensified as part of a wider strategy of maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East. However, having neglected the huge power disparity between Israel and the PNA and the fact that the relationship between the two parties is that of an occupation in which the Israeli state keeps a tight rein on all aspects of life in the PNA rather than a mere conflict, the U.S. has failed to prove itself a credible and effective mediator or a peace broker in the conflict.

Despite his promise to initiate a peace process in the Middle East during his electoral campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump complicated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict further by taking steps that aim to widen the power gap between Israel and the PNA in favor of the former. Ironically, while being deeply sensitive to Jews' historical roots in Jerusalem and Israel's security needs, Trump has paid no regard to the Palestinian national concerns. With its claim to advance "the cause of peace," the Trump Administration's policies have mainly focused on systematically ending the sustainability of the two-state solution.

This article will examine U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under Trump and discuss whether it indicates a radical change from those of his predecessors. It is divided into three sub-sections: the first section provides an overview of U.S. policy making toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since its onset; the second analyzes the political developments that have taken place under the Trump Administration and assesses Trump's policy making with respect to the conflict; and the third offers prospective scenarios for the future of Palestine under the Trump Administration.

An Overview of U.S. Foreign Policy Toward the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

If there is one common policy that all U.S. administrations share, it is the foreign policy vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are two main pillars of the U.S. policy toward the conflict: the denial of Palestinian statehood and the handling of the Palestinian issue simply as a refugee issue; and support for the State of Israel and its Jewish character in political, economic and military terms.

U.S. Denial of Palestinian Statehood

When we look at the successive U.S. administrations' policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we see that have demonstrated remarkable sympathy towards the Israeli state while denying the Palestinian people's rights, particularly the right to self-determination. At the root of the problem lies the fact that successive U.S. administrations have turned a blind eye to the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was mainly about occupation, the displacement of millions of refugees and the ongoing expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. That the U.S. has dealt with Palestinians as refugees rather than as a nation with the right to statehood is evident in White House official documents such as the foreign policy document by President Richard Nixon in which he describes the Palestinians as refugees. (2) Even when U.S. administrations dealt with Palestinians as refugees, however, it is clear that their support for the right of return for Palestinian refugees to their homeland was verbal, not actual. Instead, they supported Palestinian settlements in the neighboring Arab countries. (3)

When the PLO was established to be the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians, the U.S. adopted a hostile policy toward it and considered the PLO as a terrorist organization obstructing peace. The successive U.S. administrations carried on the same hostile policy toward the PLO by ceasing contact and closing its offices in an attempt to wipe out the organization. (4) Nonetheless, the Palestinian Intifada and the change in the PLO's diplomatic stance forced the Reagan Administration to open a dialogue with the PLO. (5) The dialogue channel granted by the Reagan Administration didn't bear any tangible outcome as it ended only eight months after George H. W. Bush took office. (6) The Bush Administration also precluded the PLO from participating in the International Peace Conference in 1991, which forced the Palestinians to participate as part of the Jordanian delegation. (7) In short, the Palestinians' right to self-determination, their statehood and representation in the international arena was undermined under the Bush Administration. (8)

The Oslo Accords, once seen as a historical breakthrough, raised optimism given that they recognized the Palestinians' aspirations for statehood. The Accords did not fully materialize however due to Israel's nonfulfillment of its obligations. The failure of the Oslo Accords can be attributed to three main reasons: First, the Accords suffered from ambiguity and the absence of a clearly articulated basis in international law. To achieve clarity and fairness, it was essential for the Accords to engage a third party that would monitor the peace process impartially using certain mechanisms for monitoring and accountability. (9) The U.S. failed to act as a credible mediator by coordinating its position with Israel and allowing it to set the timetable for negotiations. (10) Second, no timeline was set to implement the various stages of the Accords. The outcome was repetitive attempts to keep the parties at the negotiating table, while the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank never materialized. (11) Third, there was a lack of political will on the side of the Israeli...