Unlike typical incoming U.S. presidents, whose policy stances are usually built over decades and slow to change, Trump’s approach to the Middle East, and Palestine in particular, seems constantly in flux. He is returning to office after a significant hiatus and much about him and his administration is already known. Trump’s new team promises to be an amalgamation of war-hungry hawks, Christian fundamentalists, and political isolationists. Add to this Trump’s own unique style of unpredictable, off-the-cuff statements that occasionally contradict the declared platform of his administration and his own previous statements. His first-term policies contributed to regional tensions and outright conflict, and continuing these strategies could significantly impact the future of the Palestinian people, who remain resilient in shaping their own destiny despite these challenges.

The Unpredictability of Trump’s Approach to Palestine

It is difficult to predict with certainty the future Middle East policies of a Trump administration given the inconsistency that has characterized his political style—Palestine being a case in point. For example, Trump offered his take on the Arab-Israeli conflict on February 17, 2016, by stating, “Let me be sort of a neutral guy,” a position rarely presented by a mainstream U.S. politician on the issue. During that speech, he talked about his desire to support Israel but hardly with the same enthusiasm as the likes of Joe Biden. “I don’t want to say whose fault it is. I don’t think that helps. And I don’t want to get into it too much. But I will tell you this: If I’m elected president, I will be very, very good for Israel,” Trump stated. 

His noncommittal remarks became a source of concern for the pro-Israeli lobby, namely the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), promoting this style of media headline prior to their annual policy conference the following months: “Pro-Israel policy conference nervously awaits Trump speech”.

These concerns, however, proved to be unfounded, as Trump discovered that blind support for Israel was the safest political bet for his administration upon taking office in 2017—a practice long embraced by virtually all U.S. presidents since the establishment of Israel in 1948.

Indeed, Trump proved to be one of the most generous and supportive U.S. presidents toward Israel, even compared to George W. Bush’s unwavering support during the Second Palestinian Intifada and Barack Obama’s unprecedented generosity through the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States and Israel on Security Assistance.

While former U.S. President Joe Biden solidified his position as one of the most pro-Israeli presidents in American history—funding, defending, and sustaining an unprecedented Israeli assault and subsequent genocide on Gaza—the preceding policies of Trump partly contributed to the turmoil leading to the Gaza war. By normalizing the Israeli occupation, legalizing settlements, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, legalizing Israel’s illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, and more, Trump forced Palestinians into an untenable position.

In one of many insults directed at Palestinians, who were wholly excluded from Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century” in 2020, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, went so far as to describe Palestinians as “hysterical and stupid”. The subsequent events and the outcomes of the Israeli war on Gaza have hardly validated Kushner’s claims. It has become clear that Palestinians are essential to any political process in the Middle East—arguably, they are the most central players in the equation.

Kushner appeared several times during the Israeli offensive only to make infuriating statements before disappearing once again. This included his remarks in a discussion on the YouTube channel of the Middle East Initiative, a program of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where he stated that Gaza’s “waterfront property” is very valuable and suggested that Israel should expel civilians while it “cleans up” the Strip. Will Kushner’s thinking, or ideas similar to it, once again shape the Trump administration’s approach to Palestine?

Will Trump’s Policies Shift in a Second Term?

If Trump builds on the legacy of his first term—such as pushing for further normalization between Israel and Arab states without addressing the basic aspirations of the Palestinian people—Palestine is likely to erupt in conflict once again. If he continues down the same path—maintaining blind U.S. support for Israel, as seen under the Biden administration and its predecessors—nothing will change, in fact, things could become even worse. 

U.S. foreign policymakers must recognize that the region has reached a breaking point and they are left with little room to maneuver if they continue       supporting Israel unconditionally. The entire region teeters on the brink of outright war. Applying Trump’s “maximum pressure” approach to a landscape already stretched beyond its capacity will only exacerbate tensions, potentially inviting a wider conflict. If Trump is truly serious about preventing World War III, as he has claimed, he must adopt a more balanced stance and immediately decouple U.S. interests from those of Israel.

But is Trump capable of exerting such pressure and will an administration filled with pro-Israeli figures allow Trump to stray far from the established paradigm?

The Key Players in Trump’s Administration

The Trump administration is set to include some of the most hawkish figures in U.S. foreign policy, many of whom hold an affinity for Israel and, in some cases, exhibit Islamophobic views grounded in deeply entrenched religious ideologies. The United Nations ambassador will be Elise Stefanik, who has reportedly received nearly one million dollars from pro-Israel lobby groups and stated that pro-Palestinian slogans, such as “from the river to the sea”, are equivalent to “advocating for the murder of Jews”. Christian Zionist Mike Huckabee, who refuses to use the words “West Bank” and calls the occupied territory “Judea and Samaria,” was Trump’s choice as ambassador to Israel.

Meanwhile, Congress, wary of a new Middle Eastern war that may embroil the United States, has worked to dissuade the administration from igniting yet another war front. The lack of enthusiasm in Trump’s first term in office to follow Israel’s keen interest in a U.S.-Iranian war was summed up by Branko Marcetic, writing in Jacobin Magazine on Oct 17, 2024. Marcetic compared the political sentiment in the U.S. during Trump’s administration to that of the four years that followed:

“Under Donald Trump, Congress moved swiftly to block a president from starting a war with Iran. As Joe Biden allows the country to be dragged into such a war, criticism is nearly nonexistent.”

This claim was demonstrated two months later when Trump, though indirectly, railed against Netanyahu by posting a clip to Truth Social featuring economist Jeffrey Sachs, who accused the Israeli prime minister of manipulating American foreign policy and orchestrating “endless wars” in the Middle East. Other instances of the separation between Trump and Israel include a recent meeting with an anti-Zionist rabbi, Aaron Teitelbaum, in the White House in recognition of his support during the election.

On the one hand, these events can be interpreted as typical contradictions or opportunism on Trump’s part. Yet, they could also be seen as coded messages that Trump is indeed serious about crafting a foreign policy in the Middle East that caters to the interests of the U.S. interests, not Israel. Whether Trump can or will create this distance remains to be seen, though the legacy of his first term offers little reassurance.

The Problem with U.S. Foreign Policy in Palestine

The historic problem with U.S. foreign policy toward Palestine lies in the principle that what is good for Israel is good for America. There is some truth to this claim, as both countries share a history of violent founding on the ruins of indigenous populations who were either completely exterminated or nearly extinguished through religious and biblical discourse. Israel’s claim to “chosenness” and the U.S. idea of “manifest destiny” allowed both nations to eliminate any obstacle in their path, including, in both cases, the “demographic threat” posed by indigenous populations.

While America continues to grapple with the legacy of its violent founding—expressed through racism, violence, and the marginalization of certain groups—Israel remains in a perpetual stage of settler-colonialism, having repeatedly attempted to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. This includes      the Nakba of 1948, the Naksa of 1967, and an ongoing process which      Israeli historian Ilan Pappé refers to as incremental genocide. In the most recent war on Gaza, Israel has used a combination of ethnic cleansing and genocidal tactics, accompanied by violent rhetoric from Israeli ministers openly calling for the annihilation of Gaza.

While the United States has supposedly come to terms with its violent and racist past, due in part to the struggles and successes of minority groups, it continues to support Israel’s attempt to erase Palestinians—physically in Gaza, and culturally and linguistically elsewhere. Washington does so in the name of the so-called “unbreakable bond” that unites it with Israel. Not only does it fully back, finance, and sustain the Israeli occupation of Palestine, but it also prevents the international community from taking any measures to end the occupation or hold Israel accountable.

It is unlikely that the United States under Trump will take responsibility for its shameful legacy—particularly regarding the Gaza genocide, which may be remembered as one of the most disgraceful episodes in U.S. foreign policy. With Trump’s pro-Israel legacy and conflicting signals, expectations of a real and lasting change in U.S. policy toward Palestine, Israel, and the Middle East should remain modest at best.

Trump has already proven that any hope that he will create lasting positive change should be heavily restrained through his strange and chaotic statements regarding his intention to “take ownership” of Gaza. While his administration’s top officials have scrambled to lessen the impact of his claim, he has insisted on doubling down on his stance. Meanwhile, Arab diplomacy has been galvanized in full and utter rejection in any attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. In one of several statements issued by Egypt, for example, echoing equally strong messages sent by Saudi Arabia and others, Cairo insisted on the “full Arab consensus” on rejecting the displacement of Palestinians from their land. 

Despite this most recent debacle, one can still hope that at least a process of slowly delinking U.S. interests from the extremist policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government could take shape, especially if Trump realizes that Netanyahu’s militaristic goals are aimed at involving the U.S. in Israel’s wars—particularly against Iran.

Conclusion: The Future of U.S. Policy on Palestine

The early Israeli euphoria after the U.S. election, exemplified by Israeli news anchors drinking champagne on air to celebrate Trump’s win, has gradually dissipated in the weeks that followed. This may partly be due to the reportedly stern message conveyed by Trump’s envoy to Israel, Steve Witkoff, that the war on Gaza must end before Trump’s arrival to the White House. And indeed, the war ended, or more accurately, a ceasefire has begun in stages, with the first stage commencing on January 19. Despite last-minute haggling by Netanyahu, he finally agreed, though some ministers in his government rejected the deal outright. Among them were National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose party, Otzma Yehudit, quit the coalition altogether on that very same day, and equally hardline Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who voted against the ceasefire but remained in the government, insisting that Israel must return to war on Gaza and must not honor the second phase of the agreement.

Whether the Trump administration would allow Israel to resume its devastating war on the Strip remains to be seen, with the contradictions of Trump complicating matters. Though Trump continued to take credit for supposedly ending the war, he has also doubled down on his intent to displace the Palestinians in Gaza, as discussed above. Trump went as far as reading from prepared remarks during a joint press conference with Netanyahu at the White House on February 4. “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too,” he said.

Still, Trump is unlikely to support Israel’s return to war, a claim that could simply be explained by the fact that U.S. presidents typically do not like to inherit the wars of previous administrations—much like Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which he described as “wars of choice”. Thus, Trump’s position on the Gaza war does not necessarily signal a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. More time is needed to determine the U.S. stance on Israel and Palestine during Trump’s second term.

However, judging by the fact that Israel has failed to achieve any of its goals in Gaza, despite total and unhindered U.S. and Western support for Tel Aviv, other factors must be considered regarding the future of Palestine. The resilience of the Palestinian people, which has proven unbreakable despite unprecedented levels of U.S., Western, and Israeli arms, is a crucial variable that Washington must take into account. The peoples of the region are not puppets to be controlled from afar—they are agents capable of shaping political realities against seemingly impossible odds.