CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
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,” 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.”
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 with his egocentrism and
showmanship tendencies, he has displayed “the ethos of a confident dealmaker
who's willing to gamble to mix things up even with a miscalculated undiplomatic
formula for the Israeli-Palestinian intractable conflict.
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.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The
Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel would have more harm
than good in the global politics. 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
six-month 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.
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.
Visit www.researchshelf.com
for complete project materials, project topics, past examination questions and
answers, assignments, research proposals,
meet fellow students online, meet with lecturers and ask for help, read
and post news (Campus News). Registration is Free Of Charge (FOC).
Note also that our
mobile app will soon be launched where you can view all the above features on
your mobile devices and don’t forget to request for any material you need that
is not on our website through contact us page.
No comments:
Post a Comment