On the campaign trail, then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump promised two things related to the situation in the Middle East. He said he would agree to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem and would work for a “peace” deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. On some occasions while campaigning, he talked about this deal in grandiose terms, implying that it would be a historic agreement that would bring to an end one of the longest running struggles for national liberation and the exercise of the right to self-determination. Those following the 2016 presidential elections in the United States could not have but noticed that Trump never talked of the national rights of Palestinians, nor did he ever touch on the fact that Israel is an occupying power. The two objectives he laid out for his administration, if elected, were not contradictory. They were taken at face value. The history of the “peace process” is well known and the American role in it is undeniable. After all, Arab leaders from the late 1970s onwards let their respective people believe that Washington was an honest broker — the only one, at that. With the disappointing and frustrating results of American peace efforts during the administration of former president Barack Obama, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and the world hoped for a brief period of time that the new American president would work, sincerely and honestly, for the “deal of the century”. However, most ignored some troubling signs that should have raised alarm bells. The first was the appointment of a new US ambassador to Israel who is a direct sponsor of an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. The second was the selection of Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, to be the UN permanent representative to the United Nations in New York. One of her opening diplomatic salvos was that the age of what the new administration called “Israel bashing” in the Security Council was over. What was really alarming about the connections of the Trump administration with Israel was the fact that the daughter of the US ambassador to Israel joined the Israeli army a couple of weeks ago. They made no secret of it, to the extent that her father received her at Tel Aviv airport. Once in office, President Trump, as well as leading figures in his administration, has never stopped talking about Washington's determination to resume the peace process. It has been almost a year now that President Trump is at the helm, and nothing concrete has come up for discussion as to the basic elements of their much-touted “deal” between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Let alone that his administration has never talked about a two-state solution in Palestine. Of course, there has been much coming and going for the administration's principal negotiators to the Middle East. We stopped counting, as a matter of fact. Initially, they promised to divulge a certain “initiative” before year's end. But any official announcement was postponed to sometime next year. On Wednesday, 6 December, Trump failed disastrously not only the Arabs, the Palestinians, the Muslims, the United Nations, and the whole world, but also past American presidents and administrations, since the adoption of the UN Security Council Resolution 242 on 22 November 1967, announcing that the United States recognises Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel. And he has ordered the State Department to take measures to relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. To call this announcement a bombshell would be a gross understatement. As far as the moribund “peace process” is concerned, it is doubtful that the Trump administration would work for its resuscitation — at least the one we have known for the past five decades. One could not help but notice that Trump's announcement was made without any linkages between this recognition and anything concrete for the Palestinians, for instance, rededicating the US administration to the notion of the two-state solution unambiguously. In his statement, the US president spoke of the “two-state” solution, but he conditioned it with affirming “if the parties” so desire. President Trump said he was acting, in recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, to fulfil the Jerusalem Embassy Act of the US Congress in 1995 that was passed for the purpose of initiating and funding the relocation of the embassy no later than 31 May 1999. At the time, Bill Clinton was the occupant of the Oval Office. He had refused to sign the Congressional resolution. He was against it, so were his two successors, the Republican George W Bush and Democrat Obama. The three presidents considered the act as an infringement on the constitutional authority of US presidents over foreign policy. Section 7 of the act is entitled “Presidential Waiver” and the waiver authority mentioned therein states: “Beginning 1 October 1998, the president may suspend the limitations set forth… for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such a suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” Even Trump himself signed this waiver back in June 2017, and again this month. Needless to say, the US decision of recognising Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel flies in the face of all Security Council resolutions concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the positions of past US administrations, which had insisted that the future status of Jerusalem be determined through negotiations. When the Security Council adopted Resolution 478 in 1980 that refuses to recognise Israeli law pertaining to declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and called it a “violation of international law”, then-secretary of state Edmund Muskie explained the US abstention on the grounds that “the question of Jerusalem must be addressed in the context of negotiations for a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace.” That was the unequivocal American position one year after the signing of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. And has been followed henceforward by five US administrations that spanned 37 years. To justify his decision of 6 December, Trump said: “We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past.” He added: “My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” I am afraid this could be the death knell of the Palestinian question as defined and framed by Egypt, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Muslims and the United Nations for the past 69 years. The Middle East witnesses, helplessly, the beginning of highly uncertain times. Brace yourself for the aggrandisement of the state of Israel under the auspices of the United States. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
