In a matter of three weeks, the US government has attacked the Palestinian people on three fronts.
First, on Nov. 17, US President Donald Trump’s administration announced its decision, which was subsequently reversed, to close the Palestine Liberation Organization’s diplomatic office in Washington DC.
Then, on Tuesday, the US Congress voted unanimously to adopt the Taylor Force Act, which blocks aid to the Palestinian National Authority from 2018 to 2024, unless it stops paying monthly salaries and other benefits to the families of killed or convicted Palestinian militants.
However, it was the third attack, which came the following day, that will prove most devastating to efforts to achieve peace.
In defiance of overwhelming global opposition, not to mention past UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, Trump announced that the US will officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The message is clear: The Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.
Of course, that is not how Trump’s administration presents it. As the New York Times reported just before the announcement, Trump administration officials believe the decision, which entails moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, could actually hasten the peace process, “by removing a source of ambiguity from the American position.”
After all, they point out, the embassy question comes up every six months, when the president has to sign a new waiver to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv — a process that, from their perspective, repeatedly stokes political tension.
In his address on the topic, Trump reiterated this argument. Officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he asserted, “is a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement.”
He also claimed that the decision “is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement,” one “that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians.”
However, in that same speech, Trump betrayed the superiority he ascribes to Israel: “Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital.”
Despite its best efforts, Palestine, of course, is not recognized as a sovereign state by the US. So, far from seeking a fair peace deal between the two parties, Trump has effectively declared victory for Israel — and instructed the Palestinians to accept defeat quietly.
Yet the Palestinians have displayed a profound capacity for resistance. Just last summer, when the Israeli government decided unilaterally to install metal detectors at the entrances of al-Haram al-Sharif, which includes the al-Aqsa mosque, Palestinians demonstrated outside the mosque for two weeks, forcing the Israelis to reverse the decision.
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is a far more powerful symbolic move, suggesting that it could spur even more formidable resistance — and not just from the 300,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem, or even from the more than 12 million Palestinians around the world.
What Trump’s administra-
tion fails to recognize is that Jerusalem — the third-holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina — is not just an Israeli-Palestinian issue; all of the world’s 350 million Arabs and 1.5 billion Muslims have a direct and vital stake in it.
Trump might think that his current honeymoon with Saudi Arabia will allow him to escape pushback from Arab leaders. However, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is facing too much opposition to his own reforms to side openly with Israel on so emotive an issue as Jerusalem.
The fact is that leaders across the Muslim and Arab world will not allow Trump to hand Jerusalem to Israel unilaterally, simply to satisfy his small base of US Christian Zionist evangelicals — he received the support of less than a quarter of US Jews.
Indeed, Fatah Central Committee member Mohammad Shtayyeh has already pledged that the Palestinian leadership, in coordination with Jordan and other Arab states, will resist the dictate.
Yet, it is not just Arabs or Muslims who support the Palestinians’ just demands for a fair peace agreement. Innumerable people worldwide — of all faiths and backgrounds, as well as resolutions by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice — also support this stance.
This is true even in the US: According to a poll released by the Arab American Institute, only 20 percent of Americans, including Arabs and Jews, favor moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The Palestinians are calling for a two-state solution, with east Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state and west Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The Israelis, by contrast, have consistently thwarted a two-state solution, and demanded to have Jerusalem all to themselves.
In short, it is the Israeli government’s position — and that of the Trump administration — that must change, if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ever to be resolved.
Many in Israel recognize this: 25 prominent Israelis, including former diplomats, army generals, and academics, signed a letter to Trump’s Middle East peace envoy denouncing the Jerusalem decision.
“The status of Jerusalem,” they wrote, “lies at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and must be determined within the context of resolving that conflict.”
Any viable peace deal must be able to stand the test of time. That means it must be fair and just, rather than leaving one party seething with resentment — especially if that resentment extends to millions of people worldwide. Attempting to ram a solution down Palestinians’ throats will increase the likelihood of even more violence, not peace.
Daoud Kuttab is a former professor at Princeton University, the founder and former director of the Institute of Modern Media at al-Quds University in Ramallah and a leading activist for media freedom in the Middle East.
Copyright: Project Syndicate 2017
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS