“From a more optimistic perspective, this steadfast position lead to America’s long-term benefit. Trump’s Jerusalem decision was not motivated by strategic or other pragmatic considerations. It was, from the outset, based on principles.”
As expected, the declaration of President Trump regarding the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has had a continuous rippling effect on the diplomatic scene. Since taking this stance earlier this month, the president’s proclamation has triggered serious backlash and continues to do so.
In the most recent international protest to Trump’s move, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in an “emergency meeting” to condemn the president’s position. By a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 9 against, the Assembly adopted the resolution entitled “Status of Jerusalem,” by which it declared “null and void” any actions intended to alter Jerusalem’s character, status, or “demographic composition.”
While the resolution in and of itself is harmless, it would be far from the truth to suggest that its adoption is without consequence.
As pointed out in a recent OpsLens editorial on the vote, this was essentially an opportunity for nations to collectively express their opposition in a toothless, non-binding resolution.
While the resolution in and of itself is harmless, it would be far from the truth to suggest that its adoption is without consequence.
The effects of this international, diplomatic rallying in opposition to the United States and Israel has already taken its toll. It will drastically undermine the position of America as a key broker within the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and perhaps even its political weight in the broader Middle East.
The effects of Trump’s declaration chipping away at the country’s political weight in the region could be seen immediately following its signing on December 6th.
An outpouring of criticism from the international community began almost instantly with European leaders such as French president Macron, and religious figures including Pope Francis beginning to speak up about the “destabilizing” effects that Trump’s position would have. Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan threatened to cut off diplomatic ties with the United States over the announcement. Egyptian leaders canceled meetings with Vice President Mike Pence scheduled during his upcoming trip to the Middle East. U.S. relations with Jordan have also deteriorated, as King Abdullah called for an emergency meeting of the Arab League’s foreign ministers to condemn Trump’s announcement and strategize on how to react to what it referred to as an “illegal” act on the part of the American government.
Following a meeting with French President Macron on Friday, Abbas declared that the Palestinian people would no longer be receptive to any peace plan put forward by the United States following Trump’s declaration.
But the most recent, and perhaps most important message of protest against the administration’s Jerusalem policy came from none other than Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Following a meeting with French President Macron on Friday, Abbas declared that the Palestinian people would no longer be receptive to any peace plan put forward by the United States following Trump’s declaration. Instead, Abbas urged Macron to rally other European actors to play a more active role in brokering a deal, now that the Palestinians consider Trump an illegitimate option.
“The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from it,” stated Abbas in no uncertain terms. Reflecting Abbas’s position, Macron told media sources that the United States has “marginalised” itself with Trump’s Jerusalem recognition, and that he is “trying to not do the same thing.”
In all honesty, Macron’s and others assessment of America being “marginalized” by its Jerusalem stance is far from baseless. Key U.S. allies voted for the recent UN resolution, including Germany, France, and Japan. Few international friends like Australia abstained. Only Canada stood by the U.S. and Israel to oppose the “Jerusalem Status” declaration. This line-up of opposition underscores just how unacceptable Trump’s Jerusalem move truly is on the international stage.
On a diplomatic level, Trump’s bold stance on Jerusalem certainly undermines the persona he himself has been trying to be within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the outset of his presidency. The president truly wants to fill the slot of the impartial broker between the two sides to bring about the “mother of all deals.”
It is this undermining of the U.S. (and perhaps the whole West by extension), as a peace mediator that triggered the intense objections by leaders from around the globe as well as within the American administration. It is likely why many of Trump’s closest advisers including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and CIA chief Mike Pompeo reportedly objected to the move earlier this month. They clearly foresaw the loss of political capital that would come in its wake.
Meanwhile, the administration has been doubling down on its position following the UN vote, a testament to the no-holds-barred approach of UN representative Nikki Haley and Trump himself. Even before the vote actually took place, Haley strongly warned UN members not to oppose America’s position on Jerusalem in the General Assembly. In a letter penned to dozens of member states Haley wrote, “The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those countries who voted against us. We will take note of each and every vote on this issue.”
By not backing down on these principles, even in the face of overwhelming international pressure, the U.S. may very well increase the value of both its political currency and international commitments.
Additionally, both the president and Haley have been quick to remind the United Nations that the U.S. is overwhelmingly, the largest contributor to the United Nations budget, contributing millions to peacekeeping, humanitarian, and other cultural programs administered by the international body. In her signature blunt yet elegant fashion, Haley told the UN General Assembly in an address last Thursday that America’s contributions to the UN were an “investment” in order to “advance our values and our interests” and if that “investment fails” the U.S. has to consider how to spend its resources “in more productive ways.”
Echoing Haley’s threat of holding back funding from the UN, Trump told news sources when asked about the General Assembly vote, “Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot. We don’t care.”
The administration hardline stance in reaction to this vote could produce one of two effects. It could serve to simply reinforce the current trend of anti-American opposition internationally, giving further ammunition to both America’s and Israel’s protractors, and spell the end for U.S. influence within the conflict.
From a more optimistic perspective, this steadfast position lead to America’s long-term benefit. Trump’s Jerusalem decision was not motivated by strategic or other pragmatic considerations. It was, from the outset, based on principles.
Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was, as Haley put it, “the right thing to do.” By not backing down on these principles, even in the face of overwhelming international pressure, the U.S. may very well increase the value of both its political currency and international commitments.
