1

The title says it all. Are there statements from Trump or his inner circle indicating what the stance of a future Trump administration would be towards the ongoing Israeli aggression against Gaza (which the ICJ has ruled could plausibly be genocide)?

From his previous stint in office we know that he is heavily pro-Israel with his administration moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and recognizing the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory making the US the only country in the world to do so.

However, a complicating factor is that it has widely been reported that there is personal antipathy between Trump and Netanyahu based on Netanyahu accepting Biden as president and not going along with Trump's stolen election claim. This may have been what led him to criticising Netanyahu in the immediate aftermath of October the 7th and calling Hezbollah "smart".

So what can we expect from a potential Trump administration:

  1. Similar to what we currently see from the Biden administration. A general anguished wringing of the hands without much concrete action.
  2. A free hand to Israel to do as they see fit, up to and including the destruction of Gaza's civilian population.
  3. Something else.
the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
Ben Cohen
  • 3,245
  • 8
  • 41
  • 5
    I voted to close because as far as I know Israel has not been found guilty of genocide, and this is a push question. – Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica Mar 24 '24 at 17:57
  • @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica - Agreed. Stripped of the political posturing, there's a decent question lurking here, but not as things stand – Valorum Mar 24 '24 at 21:21
  • 10
    @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica: A large fraction of public opinion perceives a genocide is taking place; and even the ICJ has already found that there is a plausible case to be made of a genocide being in progress in Gaza. Having said that - your objection could translate into an edit rather than a close vote. – einpoklum Mar 24 '24 at 22:46
  • @Valorum: Why not just edit to strip the posturing? See my attempt. – einpoklum Mar 24 '24 at 22:48
  • @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica, what would you propose calling it? "war" is not suitable since Israel has already delcared victory in north Gaza and yet still they are starving to death. – Ben Cohen Mar 24 '24 at 23:28
  • Please also note that the ICJ has ruled that it is plausible that Israel is commiting genocide. And this was before famine became widespread due to Israel blocking aid. – Ben Cohen Mar 24 '24 at 23:30
  • 3
    @BenCohen : Is your goal with this question to argue about what crimes is Israel guilty of, and to give you an opportunity in the comment section to list all your arguments for those crimes in case someone bites your hook? Or is your goal to really learn what kind of plans Trump has in case he is re-elected? If the latter, then you can just formulate the question as "conflict" and leave out the "genocide" part as it does not add anything to the question. And if you want to discuss whether it is genocide or not, then ask a separate question instead of trying to disguise the intent of this one. – vsz Mar 25 '24 at 05:22
  • @vsz, my goal is understand the stance of a future Trump administration. I cannot use the word "conflict" as that implies two parties. At the current moment, Hamas has been mostly surpressed or wiped out, certainly in northern Gaza. Hence "conflict" is not an appropriate word. The most appropriate word I can find to describe the situation is "genocide". – Ben Cohen Mar 25 '24 at 09:14
  • 1
    @BenCohen There are many words that are better than genocide. Conflict (just because one side is losing badly doesn’t mean they don’t exist), This site generally uses war, aggression, and occupation are all less biased words than genocide. Also, I don’t see the point of the “which the ICJ has ruled could possibly be a genocide,” relevant to the question – Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica Mar 25 '24 at 12:57
  • VTC. The use of "enablers" seems rather pejorative, in that it is a discrediting of those who simply do not want Biden to be re-elected. – Rick Smith Mar 26 '24 at 14:22
  • 2
    I'm voting to reopen because the idea that this is a push question seems very shaky to me, being based on single words in a question with a hundred of them. – Allure Mar 27 '24 at 02:24
  • Also, Donald Trump has made numerous statements about the conflict recently and has acted as president in the past quite decisively, so that answers are instructive, even though they must partly remain speculative. Nobody really knows what the future may bring. Maybe it will be much worse, maybe better. This question could focus a bit more about what important GOP party members say about the conflict. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 27 '24 at 07:02
  • @Allure - Mentioning one aspect (based on a word) does not mean there are no more. Consider the title question and tags. The question is about how [donald-trump] as president of the [united-states] would act toward [gaza]. Three tags that identify what the title question is narrowly about. Three remaining current tags: [israel], [2023-israel-hamas-war], and [genocide], are content and identify what is being pushed. Essentially, would Trump stop the Israeli genocide in Gaza? Earlier comments covered some of that, – Rick Smith Mar 28 '24 at 13:52
  • 1
    @RickSmith that's your interpretation. My interpretation of those three tags is that the question is about Israel, the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, and genocide. All three of these are fair tags. Genocide is the most contentious one, of course, but there are a fair bit of sources calling the war genocide. The other two are directly related. – Allure Mar 28 '24 at 14:07
  • @Allure - The close reason for discredit uses the word "appears" which is about interpretation. – Rick Smith Mar 28 '24 at 14:15
  • @RickSmith I suppose. But the ability of Politics.SE users to find push interpretations in everything amazes me. I imagine it's because how emotional people find this particular war. – Allure Mar 28 '24 at 14:46
  • It's a bit inaccurate to call Israel the aggressor when it was Hamas that attacked them first. – Apoliticalboy Mar 31 '24 at 11:30
  • @Apoliticalboy, why ignore the decades of repression predating October the 7th? Israelis murdered Palestinians and forced them from their homes during the Nakba. Many of them have been kettled in the world's most populous concentration camp, Gaza, ever since. – Ben Cohen Mar 31 '24 at 13:36
  • @Apoliticalboy, in any case, the actions of Hamas can in no way condone the use of starvation against a largely civilian population as a weapon of war. – Ben Cohen Mar 31 '24 at 13:38

6 Answers6

21

It's difficult to predict the future, but all signs point toward a Trump term consisting of unequivocal support for Israeli actions—at least, insofar as ideological consistency is something that Trump is inclined to pursue—and little to no concern for the fate of Palestinians.

  • First, there's everything he did in his first term, including moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. His policy then was generally very supportive of Israeli claims.
  • And indeed, whatever personal animosity he occasionally has with Netanyahu, he has expressed his belief that American Jews should be loyal to Israel and him specifically. In general, Trump also has a history, with authoritarians from Xi to Putin to Kim Jong Un, of veering between personal insults and shows of affection.
  • Then, there's what he said in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, he promised to "fully support Israel defeating, dismantling, and permanently destroying the terrorist group Hamas," which suggests an escalation of support. He also promised to reinstate his travel ban against various nationalities, generally viewed as anti-Muslim, and specifically include Palestinians from the Gaza Strip therein.
  • His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a major figure in Trump's first-term policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has recently expressed support for expulsion of Palestinians and annexation of the Gaza Strip.
  • Trump also recently agreed that he was "firmly in Israel's camp" and suggested that Israel had to "finish the problem," suggesting support for a continued or perhaps even escalated invasion.

In general, Trump's political interests also firmly align with supporting Israel, because support for that policy is high in the Republican Party, and in the past, he has generally supported establishment Republican policy (in taxes, and so forth) when he did not have a strong personal opposition.

Obie 2.0
  • 15,459
  • 5
  • 48
  • 70
15

Additionally, Trump's administration cut all funding for UNRWA, at a time when other countries didn't, i.e. in 2018, add slashed all other aid:

News that the Trump administration will end all funding to UNRWA comes on the heels of Trump ordering the United States to cut $200 million in aid to Palestinians.

The press speculated it was because they rebuffed his peace plan (Abraham accords), although officially that was not the reason invoked, just something more bland:

Trump earlier this year of US assistance to the Palestinians had established that that money “is not in the best interests of the US national interest and also at this time does not provide value to the US taxpayer.”

Somewhat related, he repeatedly attacked the 'liberal Jews' even before Oct 7, but perhaps even more so thereafter.

“Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion,” Trump retorted Monday on a talk show. “They hate everything about Israel.”

And likewise for the 'Democrat Party' as a whole, now in relation to the ongoing war:

Trump, in an interview, had been asked about Democrats' growing criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his handling of the war in Gaza as the civilian death toll continues to mount.

"I actually think they hate Israel," Trump responded to his former aide, Sebastian Gorka. "I think they hate Israel. And the Democrat Party hates Israel."

And Trump got an open endorsement from Itamar Ben-Gvir, who advocates a cash for emigration scheme for Palestinians.

“Instead of giving us his full backing, Biden is busy with giving humanitarian aid and fuel [to Gaza], which goes to Hamas,” said Ben-Gvir, giving voice to popular sentiment among many right-wing Israelis. “If Trump was in power, the U.S. conduct would be completely different.” [...]

Ben-Gvir says his plan is to “encourage Gazans to voluntarily emigrate to places around the world” by offering them cash incentives. He called it “the real humanitarian” thing to do. He said he knew Palestinians would be open to this idea through discussions with Palestinians in the West Bank and intelligence material he received as a minister.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
0

This is not meant to replace Obie's excellent answer above, but to complement it. It has recently become apparent to me, just how extremist the Republican party is on this topic. Of course, it has been clear for a long time that the party is very pro-Israel with few if any dissident voices amongst Republican ranks. However, it is becoming clear that some amongst Republicans are not just pro-Israel, but also pro-genocide. See for example, calls by Congressman Tim Walburg to treat Gaza like Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to "get it over quick". Or remarks by Michelle Salzman that the right number of Palestinians dead is "all of them". In the case of Walburg, we have an American congressman following the line set by the most extremist elements of the Israeli government.

Without the support of Congress and the House, Trump would be a lame duck president. So, his personal view and convictions, if he has any, are likely to be put aside in the interest of exercising power.

Ben Cohen
  • 3,245
  • 8
  • 41
-2

Trump is a big fan of war crimes, especially against Muslims. During his first term, he intervened on behalf of Special Operations Chief Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL platoon leader convicted of posing for a photo with the body of dead Iraqi; another SEAL team member told investigators that Gallagher was “freaking evil,” but Trump said at a political rally that he was one of “our great fighters.” Trump also pardoned Blackwater contractors convicted of killing Iraqi civilians in a wild shooting spree in Baghdad’s Nisour Square. There is no chance that he would try to stop Israel from indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

After the October 7 Hamas attack, Trump was briefly critical of Netanyahu and blurted out that Hezbollah was “very smart.” Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed group designated a terrorist organization by the United States, has battled Israel on its northern border with Lebanon. Trump was immediately and roundly attacked by other Republicans for his comments, and he quickly renewed his long-standing pledge to align the United States fully with Israel. If he’s reelected, he will give Israel unalloyed support for all-out war, and he will do so with the wholehearted backing of the Republican Party.

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/trump-biden-israel/

Trump is even more pro-Israel than Biden since most Christians voting for the Republicans have a strong support for Israel. Not only that, but Trump has helped enact several anti-Muslim laws in the past.

Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, labeled the "Muslim ban" by Donald Trump and his supporters[1][2] and critics,[3][4] and commonly known as such,[5] or commonly referred to as the Trump travel ban, or Trump Muslim travel ban, was an executive order by President Trump. Except for the extent to which it was blocked by various courts, it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until March 6, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order 13780, a second order sharing the title "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

Sayaman
  • 40,192
  • 9
  • 139
  • 290
-2

Whilst Trump during his time as president made a number of moves that were very pro-Israel, in particular recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the US embassy there which would suggest that a similar policy would be likely once he is in power, however he has made recent statements that are at odds with this. For example, a BBC article on the 13 Oct 23, reported by Anthony Zurcher:

During remarks to a crowd of supporters, Mr Trump said Israel had to "straighten it out because they're fighting, potentially a very big force".

He called Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant a "jerk" and repeatedly called Hezbollah, the militant Islamist group in Lebanon, "very smart".

But on the other hand, Al Jazeera early this month reported that:

Asked if he is “on board” with the way Israel was “taking the fight to Gaza”, the frontrunner for the Republican US presidential nomination responded: “You’ve got to finish the problem”.

Of course one can finish a problem by outlining and committing to just policy on the conflict. One could begin by reining in Netanyahu's genocidal war by cancelling all military aid to Israel as well as diplomatic cover. A nod towards this has been the recent UN security council resolution ordering a ceasefire where the US abstained. This is a change of policy where the US routinely supported the Israel line.

But given Trump's pugilistic way, I doubt very much he means this.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 8,726
  • 1
  • 26
  • 45
  • 2
    "Netanyahu's genocidal war" - Does Netanyahu own this war? He started it? Doesn't the vast majority of the Israeli public support this war, with "at least" the force being currently used? If the Gazan death rate is still much lower than its birth rate, can this possibly be even an unintended genocide? Are all hostages back home yet? – Jacob3 Mar 29 '24 at 09:24
  • @Jacob3: He is the president of Israel and so the most prominent politician associated with this war. When I say genocide, it isn't just my personal opinion, the ICJ has come out with a provisional opinion saying so. – Mozibur Ullah Mar 30 '24 at 09:59
  • Seems like you have to reread the ICJ's opinion. They didn't rule that it's a genocide. – Jacob3 Mar 30 '24 at 18:43
-4

I made a Trump foreign policy philosophy answer back during his first administration, and I think that same approach is best used here too. Specifically, we will use the prism of Walter Russel Mead's 4 schools of American Foreign Policy (cutely named after 4 former Presidents).

Trump is a "Jacksonian", which as a foreign policy philosophy is best summed up by the pithy saying, "Never start a fight, but always finish it." Jacksonians also tend to have little patience for treaties, alliances, and international organizations, viewing them as more likely to weaken the US when it has to act, rather than to help it. Bi-lateral agreements are much preferred.

From this point of view, what's going on between Gaza and Israel is a matter entirely between those two, and none of the US's business. Neither entity is much of a threat to the US, and certainly neither has attacked it. So its not America's fight, and it would be very wrong for it to interfere to make it their business.

Of course non-interference is exactly what Israel wants at this time, so that would probably look a lot like full support for them.

T.E.D.
  • 14,342
  • 1
  • 29
  • 62
  • 6
    I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong in the abstract about Trump's general political philosophy, to the extent he has one. But he had a first term with proactive measures in support of Israel, has suggested that he will have more proactive measures in support of Israel, and is in a party that will reward him politically for affirmatively supporting Israel (and lacks personal scruples). Moreover, his general lack of interest in what most people would understand as "governing" has historically led him to give free rein to members of his party, most of whom want proactive support of Israel. – Obie 2.0 Mar 24 '24 at 03:53
  • "very wrong for it to interfere". Well, except for aiding just one side with money & weapons & formal recognition of their annexations. Also, Abraham accords for worldwide peace. Doesn't seem that Jacksonian to me. – the gods from engineering Mar 24 '24 at 19:09
  • Anyway, the modern Jacksonian appears to figment of Hudson's Institute imagination. Badly misapply some FF term to sound like only Republicans are connected to the FF etc. – the gods from engineering Mar 24 '24 at 19:28
  • 1
    If you really want to make the A. Jackson connection, it might be the deportation of Indians [meaning Native Americans]. – the gods from engineering Mar 24 '24 at 19:51
  • 1
    @T.E.D, By "It's none of the US's business." You mean Israel would just like the U.S. to pay for their genocide and keep sending weapons? Unfortunately, it's against U.S. law for Israel to use U.S. supplied weapons for anything other than the defense of Israel. U.S. to review Israeli assurances it is not violating international law. Many Presidents have used this stick against Israel when they've gotten out of control. Maybe this time Israel tests if the U.S. is serious. – JMS Mar 24 '24 at 20:44
  • 2
    If it's none of the US's business then why is the US paying for it, and why does Trump seem to want to increase funding to Israel but decrease funding to Palestine, and why does he make comments about self-hating Jews? – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 25 '24 at 03:15
  • BTW, Meade's latest tome (The Arc of a Covenant), based on its reviews is pro-AIPAC propaganda, sprinkled with plenty of Trump sycophantism and non-stop bashing of Obama. – the gods from engineering Mar 25 '24 at 10:47
  • @thegodsfromengineering - Last I checked, Mead was employed by a far-right think tank. Its fair to say his politics and mine don't align on much, if anything. This isn't about his own personal political ideology though, its an academic analysis of the history and present of American foreign policy positions, including at least 3 that he doesn't personally hold. – T.E.D. Mar 25 '24 at 14:16
  • @JMS - I'm not arguing for this position. I'm much more of a Wilsonian myself, which very rarely puts me in agreement with Jacksonians like Trump. I'm just trying to relate his POV. – T.E.D. Mar 25 '24 at 14:17
  • @Obie2.0 - If you look at the major novel things he did with Israel, like recognizing Jerusalem as their capital, there's a common theme, which is letting another country (Israel) do what they want with the territory under their control. That's a very Jacksonian attitude. Sure, it looks "supportive", if you are only looking for things through that prisim, but previous administrations were also quite supportive without doing that, because they had much more nuanced foreign policy goals. – T.E.D. Mar 25 '24 at 14:21
  • @T.E.D. I know you are a big history guy, I've never heard of the 4 Schools of American Foreign policy. But if Jacksonians? are described as having "little patience for treaties, alliances, and international organizations" couldn't that be applied to Washington - Hoover, excepting Wilson? Perhaps my confusion and objections are tied to the details necessary for a brief synopsis of the categories. I'll have to read up on it. I'll go +1 for giving me something to read up on. – JMS Mar 25 '24 at 14:42
  • @JMS - Someone really needs to make a Wikipedia page about it or something. There's no good online source to point people to, even though you see wonky foreign policy articles based on it all the time. I found a short (and somewhat critical) overview of it here (looks like a personal web space at Columbia.edu) – T.E.D. Mar 25 '24 at 15:18
  • @JMS - As far as history goes, it would be fairer to say most early Administrations were either Hamiltonian (wanting to enhance US commerce) or Jeffersonian (wanting to protect US Democracy), which you can see in which administrations were more friendly to Britain or to France. The occasional Jacksonians largely didn't want much to do with either country. – T.E.D. Mar 25 '24 at 15:26
  • Not sure if that's a selling point. The page ends with "Yet, whatever the brand-name appeal of his nomenclature, there are some serious historical problems with it." Which is something I said without even reading that. HW Brands wrote is more of a historian. – the gods from engineering Mar 25 '24 at 17:54
  • One of the most "subtle" digs Mead takes at Obama is to claim his foreign policy didn't fit in any of those four bins he named after the FFs. He doesn't say this, but in the appropriate mindset, it's not hard to conclude that Mead implies Obama's is/was utterly "un-American". Which is why I linked you to the FF-GOP shtick. – the gods from engineering Mar 25 '24 at 18:03
  • @thegodsfromengineering - Interesting. Not only would I disagree with that, but I did in another answer here(much better recieved). Obama was largely a Jeffersonian. It was perhaps a bit muddled in Mead's mind because one of Obama's Secretaries of State (Clinton) was a Wilsonian. Or perhaps because Mead just really doesn't like Obama, and had a hard time getting past his side's rather fanciful propaganda to actually really look at the guy. – T.E.D. Mar 25 '24 at 18:06
  • @T.E.D. As far as history goes from Washington to Hoover excepting Wilson all avoided opposed security pledges. Something your synopsis said defined Jacksonians. This was the foundation of George Washington's farewell address and influential on all Presidents for more than 100 years. Yes all those presidents had different opinions about different things. Jefferson wanted to protect democracy from internal threats, from external threats he was unconcerned, he questioned the need for a standing army and navy, Tried to cut the army, and relegate the navy to domestic river defense. – JMS Mar 27 '24 at 14:37
  • Kind of impressed how many people in the comments (and perhaps answer voters?) seem to believe this philosophy of Trump's I'm describing is my personal opinion, or I'm presenting it as the way people should think. – T.E.D. Mar 27 '24 at 15:13