Trump's Approach: Displacing Palestinians and the Dynamics of American Political Decision-Making

U.S. President Donald Trump's approach to political decision-making offers a unique lens through which to understand the complexities of his administration's foreign policy initiatives. His distinct style, characterised by its personal influence and divergence from traditional norms, significantly shaped policies, including the controversial plan that proposed the displacement of Palestinians. Examining Trump's unconventional methods is crucial to grasping the dynamics at play during his presidency and their lasting impact on both domestic politics and international perceptions.

Trump: An Unconventional Figure in American Politics

Donald Trump stands as an exceptional figure in American political history, largely because of the extent to which his personality and individual preferences influenced policy. He often made decisions independently of the constraints and principles that had guided previous U.S. administrations. His direct and often provocative approach marked a departure from many established political norms that traditionally shaped how U.S. presidents handled domestic and foreign affairs.

From his electoral campaign through his presidency, Trump relied heavily on his distinctive personality, polarizing style, and decisions rooted in his personal analyses or consultations with a close circle of advisors, often disregarding established political institutions and traditional sources of expertise. This individualistic approach amplified his influence, and many of his decisions appeared to reflect personal inclinations rather than carefully coordinated policy.

Unlike U.S. presidents who typically consulted with Congress, military advisors, and political experts, Trump operated differently. Some observers even characterised his highly individualised decision-making process as approaching absolute power. Despite the legal and constitutional limitations on the U.S. president's authority, Trump frequently challenged and weakened these constraints through his assertive approach to confronting opposition, whether from within the Republican Party or from opposing parties.

Public opinion played a crucial role in Trump's approach. He believed that his substantial popularity among a dedicated base of supporters gave him a mandate to make decisions independently, without necessarily responding to broader public demands or engaging with traditional political actors. This sense of unwavering support bolstered Trump's conviction that his decisions would be embraced by his followers, even if they contradicted prevailing opinions or long-held principles of democratic governance, manifesting in policies such as his immigration policies and his withdrawal from international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal.

However, this style of governance also prompted criticism, with many arguing that Trump’s insistence on a personal vision, often disregarding traditional expertise, represented a departure from established norms in U.S. politics, fuelling a sense of division and polarisation within American society.

"Polishing" Sensitive Positions: The "Real Estate Development" Approach

Under the Trump administration, American foreign policy underwent a notable shift, with efforts by several officials to refine stances and statements that had generated considerable controversy, particularly concerning the Palestinian issue. The administration, along with advisors, sought to "polish" rhetoric surrounding sensitive topics, such as the potential displacement of Palestinians, and mitigate the negative reactions these statements provoked.

Trump's proposed plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often termed the "Deal of the Century," sparked significant criticism. The plan included proposals for relocating Palestinians or making significant alterations to their geographical and social circumstances, triggering international division, with numerous countries and human rights organisations viewing them as amounting to the forced displacement of Palestinians, a violation of international law. Consequently, Trump administration officials attempted to reshape these positions in response to international criticism, softening the tone and modifying certain aspects of the plan to garner broader acceptance.

The Trump administration introduced an approach that could be described as a "Real Estate Development Policy." Inspired by Trump's background in real estate, it sought to apply his business acumen to resolving international crises. Some observers believe that the administration attempted to apply this framework to international conflicts, including the Middle East issue. Initially, Trump believed that problems could be resolved through developmental projects and "real estate development" initiatives in conflict zones, such as the establishment of economic zones or investment projects as solutions to these crises.

Israeli Far-Right Seizes Opportunity Amid Palestinian and Arab Concerns

President Donald Trump's plan for managing the Gaza Strip, a component of the "Deal of the Century," elicited strong reactions across various political circles, particularly in Israel, Palestine, and the broader region. Following its announcement, certain far-right factions in Israel appeared to capitalise on this U.S. proposal to advance their own agendas.

These factions viewed Trump's plan as an opportunity to broaden their influence and implement their vision for the future of Palestinians in the region. This trend coincided with public statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that appeared to embrace ideas of settlement expansion and altering the existing reality in Gaza and other areas of the West Bank. Following Netanyahu’s statements, it became apparent that the far-right in Israel was preparing for subsequent steps, potentially involving the displacement of Palestinians from certain areas or the imposition of geographical and social changes on the Palestinian way of life.

Critics argued that the primary issue with the U.S. plan was its perceived incompatibility with principles of international law and legitimate Palestinian rights. The plan faced significant opposition from the outset, as Palestinians viewed it as promoting their forced removal from their land, thereby contradicting their rights to self-determination and the establishment of an independent state. Egypt also took a firm stance against the plan, with Cairo asserting that it ignored fundamental Palestinian rights and failed to fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people to live in freedom and dignity. Arab support for Egypt’s position was considerable, with many Arab countries expressing solidarity with Palestine and rejecting the proposed settlements as one-sided and dismissive of Palestinian rights.

This disparity between the Palestinian and Arab positions, on one hand, and the U.S. and Israeli proposals, on the other, underscores the challenges facing the peace process in the Middle East. Lasting solutions, it suggests, cannot be imposed without the consensus of the involved parties, particularly given the consistent Palestinian opposition to any plan that would lead to displacement or compromise Palestinian rights.

Domestic Fallout: Political, Social, and Economic Impacts in the U.S.

President Donald Trump's announcement of his plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generated significant controversy within the United States, impacting political parties, social groups, and economic interests.

Political Impact: Trump's displacement plan created a sharp division within the U.S. political landscape, between supporters and critics who viewed it as a contradiction of human rights values and international norms.

Social Impact: The Palestinian and Arab-American communities in the U.S. expressed anger and frustration over the decision. Major U.S. cities witnessed protests and solidarity events, and human rights movements launched campaigns demanding a reversal of the decision.

Economic Impact: The displacement plan could lead to indirect economic consequences for certain American businesses, particularly those engaged in trade with Middle Eastern countries or reliant on economic partnerships with Arab nations, potentially reducing trade cooperation opportunities between the U.S. and key Arab partners.

Trump's decision escalated tensions between the U.S. and Arab and Islamic countries, potentially affecting American support in other Middle Eastern issues and impeding efforts to achieve a fair and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The signing of the peace agreement with Egypt under Menachem Begin is offered as a call for supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu and the broader right wing to reconsider before agreeing to cooperate with a plan that could undermine that agreement. It is argued that the cancellation of agreements with Egypt and Jordan could lead to the dissolution of the Abraham Accords, preventing the achievement of broader normalisation with Saudi Arabia.

Conflicting Reactions: U.S. Government, Civil Society, and Public Opinion

The Trump administration's decision to advance proposals potentially displacing Palestinians from some of their lands prompted a range of reactions within the United States.

Official U.S. Positions: The Trump administration supported proposals to displace Palestinians as part of the "Deal of the Century." While the Trump administration strongly supported the plan, some members of Congress voiced objections.

Unofficial U.S. Positions: Human rights movements and U.S. civil society generally opposed the decision. Public opinion was deeply divided. American Jewish communities displayed varied reactions. Certain Jewish groups backed Trump's policy, others voiced concern that the plan could escalate regional violence and worsen relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Conclusion

The controversial decision to advance proposals potentially displacing Palestinians reflects profound implications, both internationally and domestically. It has caused sharp divisions within American society, with supporters viewing it as a step toward Middle East security and stability, and opponents seeing it as a violation of human rights and international law. Domestically, the decision has intensified divisions between the two main political parties. Furthermore, the decision has impacted the image of the United States in the international arena, increasing criticisms of Trump's foreign policies.

Download full study here: (Eng / Ar)