On August 24, the Trump administration cut $200 million in funding to Palestine, reigniting debate about how the US’s more recent, visible support of Israel may destabilize efforts at peace in the region. The Trump administration clearly seemed to make their decision based on bias and pro-Israel intentions. This move is unjustifiable in the face of the humanitarian crisis that might unfold with the sudden withdrawal of support, and the reliance the Palestinian economy has on foreign aid. More significantly, the President’s recent actions appear to be unraveling years of diplomacy that the world has collectively invested into bettering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While the US played the role of peacemaker in this relationship under earlier presidents, its clear support in December of a pro-Israel agenda under Trump became obvious when he announced that the American Embassy in Israel would move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This move symbolically recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel—a major negotiation point in the peace discussions for decades as a result of the religious and historical significance of Jerusalem to both Israel and Palestine. This step alarmed western allies such as Germany and Britain, and created a great deal of anger in the Arab world. Earlier this year, Trump also expressed anti-Palestine sentiment, tweeting that hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid going towards Palestine were shown no “appreciation” or “respect.” He even went as far to question why Palestine should receive “massive future payments.”
Trump later went on to cut funding of Palestinian refugee protection by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) in January. His messaging and actions may have given Israelis hope for stronger ties with the US, but they have proven detrimental for Palestinians, whose wellbeing is strongly reliant on foreign aid. The decision of withdrawing an additional $200 million last month may have been the nail in the coffin of the US playing peacemaker in the region, at least under the current administration. This last stand was a part of the new administration’s “America First” policy, a campaign promise made by Trump to put domestic projects before international aid.
The adverse effects of this decision are not just the diplomatic goodwill and worldwide perception that the US loses; the humanitarian cost appears huge as Palestine needs help more than ever. Palestine has one of the highest poverty rates in the world at 25 percent, with 56 percent of the youth in abject poverty. Palestinian non-governmental aid organizations have said this new cut in funding will result in slashes to food subsidies, medical treatment, youth programs, and other basic services for residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which will make the already dire standard of living many times worse.
To put the cost of $200 million in perspective, it may be estimated at only 0.35 percent of the total amount of foreign aid budget by the US for foreign nations this year. So, the ethics of the President marketing the $200 million saved as a massive victory to his voter base remains questionable. While this amount may be very small in comparison to other foreign aid initiatives, it has the potential to solidly affect the Palestinian economy.
Palestine is now faced with shrinking opportunities at recovery if other countries join the US in refusing to help. These are the very conditions that in the course of history have led to dictatorships and annexations, along with other violations of international law. Making one’s own nation “great again” at the cost of ignoring poverty and instability in critical areas of the world has not historically helped a world power. Instead, in the long run, America’s leveraging power in affecting treaties and influencing international law, as well as the continued success of democracy in the world, is severely compromised.
Effectively, in cutting this foreign aid to Palestine, Trump is thumbing his nose to the world, saying that Palestine isn’t America’s problem anymore. But as with several of his other decisions, he blatantly ignores lessons that history has offered. A lesson that was revealed even as recently as the Syria crisis, America’s decision to not intervene resulted in ISIS gaining a stronger foothold in the region. If our current President is considering costs to the American people alone, he needs to recalculate the math and reconsider what remains the more wasteful option: appeasing his base in the very short term in economically meaningless ways, and creating long term situations that could very well escalate to become the next big war, one that the US may not be able to avoid.