Sydney, Jan 13 (360info) The re-election of Donald Trump as the next US President was greeted in the Middle East with a mixture of rapture and dread, especially among Palestinians.

While it is impossible to know exactly how a second Trump Presidency will act toward the Palestinian people and their demands for statehood, his first Presidency provides a guide to what they might expect.

Like all his predecessors, in his first term, President Trump’s dealings with Israelis and Palestinians were overwhelmingly influenced by domestic political pressures, which meant unwavering support for Israel. However, true to the nature of his norm-breaking first term, Trump often dismissed long-held diplomatic norms in search of a resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

By doing so, his Administration sought to remove any obstacles to “peace” between Palestinians and Israelis – a “peace” that would paradoxically see the end of any hope for a Palestinian state.

In 2017, the US announced that its embassy in Israel would relocate from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem. While Israelis celebrated this news, it ran against diplomatic conventions concerning the status of Jerusalem, which had been in operation since 1967.

Jerusalem divided The 1948 War of Independence divided Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem controlled by Jordan and West Jerusalem by Israel. When Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967, it was hugely symbolic because it meant that for the first time in almost two millennia, Jews controlled all the ideologically, religiously, politically, and culturally significant city of Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, the international community refused to accept Israel’s occupation nor its subsequent annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980, declaring that the negotiations concerning the two-state solution would decide the fate of Jerusalem. Consequently, most states have their embassies in Tel Aviv. Palestinians and Israelis interpreted the Trump administration’s decision as US recognition of Israeli sovereignty of all Jerusalem.

Second, in November 2019, the Trump administration declared that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were consistent with international law. Israel began building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem soon after their victory in the 1967 War.

Settlements expanding According to Peace Now, in 2023, approximately 465,000 Israeli settlers were living in the West Bank, located in over 350 settlements and outposts. There were also an additional 230,000 Israelis living in settlements in East Jerusalem.

The administration’s decision mirrored the long-held Israeli legal argument that the settlements are not illegal because the international community never deemed Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as legal. As these territories were not part of Jordan’s sovereign territory, they could not be “occupied” by Israel, meaning it could settle the land as it wished.

Nevertheless, this position ran contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that: “the Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupied.” Consequently, the international community, including the United Nations, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has consistently deemed Israeli settlements as illegal and as impediments to any peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis.

However, the administration’s rationale for its decision was that declaring the settlements illegal only restrains and impedes the negotiation process and, thus, any progress towards a successful resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Around the same time, the Trump administration announced that it would no longer contribute funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the principal UN aid agency for Palestinians.

What followed was a budget cut of 30%, culminating in profound humanitarian effects on Palestinians, especially for Gazans, who relied heavily on UNRWA’s provision of essential services to survive after Israel placed the Strip under siege following Hamas’s election victory in 2006.

Again, the administration’s position mirrored that of the Israeli government, which has long criticised UNRWA for allegedly supporting terrorism. Pointedly, Israel’s position is motivated by its belief that UNRWA’s aid undercut its ability to manipulate Hamas’s government in Gaza by determining how much assistance it let into the Strip. UNRWA also reports back to the UN about the dire humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory , highlighting the deprivations and human rights abuses of Israel’s occupation and siege.

Trump’s “Deal of the Century” In 2020, the Trump Administration published its so-called “Deal of the Century”, intending to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict finally. However, Palestinians rejected the plan outright, incensed by proposals to rescind Jordanian custody of Haram al-Sharif and transfer control to Israel.

Haram al-Sharif, or the Dome of the Rock mosque, is the third holiest site in Islam. When Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1994, Israel agreed to recognise Jordan’s custodianship of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, specifically Haram al-Sharif. Rescinding control of Haram al-Sharif to Israel meant it would control all the disputed city.

Importantly, for Palestinians in any peace agreement with Israel, East Jerusalem would become the capital of the future Palestinian state — without East Jerusalem, there can be no Palestine.

While things changed marginally under the Biden Administration, the asymmetry between Palestinians and Israelis increased dramatically following the October 7 attacks. Given Trump’s overwhelming support for Israel, there is little indication that Palestinians will be given equitable treatment in his second term.

How far does Trump’s support for Israel go? During the Presidential campaign, Trump stated on several occasions that he wanted Israel to win the war quickly. On 3 December, Trump posted on social media that Hamas needed to release all remaining hostages before he took office on 20 January 2025. Otherwise, there would be “hell to pay in the Middle East, and for those in charge…”.

While it is uncertain exactly what this may entail, the incoming Administration would likely support Israel’s efforts to find those hostages, irrespective of what that might involve. The future is equally bleak for the prospects of a Palestinian state, with Israel’s ultra-nationalist Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, issuing a statement soon after Trump’s re-election voicing his hope that the incoming Administration would support Israel’s claim of sovereignty over all the West Bank. Smotrich also oversees the administration of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Soon after issuing the statement, he instructed the Israeli Defence Ministry’s Settlement Directorate and Civil Administration to prepare for annexation. Any such move would sound the death knell for any Palestinian state.

The only saving grace for Palestinians is that any annexation would almost certainly create a diplomatic storm throughout the Arab world, especially in light of the ICC accusing Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, of war crimes and crimes against humanity due to Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank that have seen more than 45,000 Palestinians killed.

The last time that the Arab world felt so aggrieved and diplomatically embarrassed was after the 1967 and 1973 Wars. Following the 1967 War, Egypt closed the Suez Canal for eight years, while after the 1973 War, OPEC implemented a 5-month oil embargo on all states that supported Israel, including the US, creating an international energy crisis. A repeat of either or both scenarios would be catastrophic for global trade.

Whether President Trump would risk such a calamity by supporting Israel’s ultra-nationalist agenda is again uncertain. What is more certain is that the President holds little respect for diplomatic conventions and considers himself a deal-maker, meaning that he could indeed gamble on being able to make the Arab world bend to his diplomatic will without having to compromise too much on US support for Israel. (360info) SCY SCY SCY