The Pros and Cons of Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

The relocation of the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been a topic of intense debate, with significant political and economic implications. This decision, made by President Donald Trump in December 2017, marked a pivotal moment in US-Israel relations and had far-reaching consequences.

Historical Context and Motivation

President Donald Trump's decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was based on a strategic political move rather than a straightforward logistical or symbolic decision. In July 2017, just before his inauguration, Trump had agreed to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv with the support of key legislative opponents, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. However, when it came to passing his middle-class tax cut, Trump found himself in a precarious position. McConnell had announced his intent to use the tax cut as a political leverage point, to be passed only during the 2018 election year.

Understanding the profound influence of the Zionist lobby, particularly AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Trump strategically used the embassy issue to secure the necessary support for his tax reform. By announcing the move of the embassy in early December 2017, Trump achieved two critical outcomes: firstly, the House passed the tax cut within four days, and soon after, the Senate followed, ensuring the bill reached his desk. Secondly, it served as a diplomatic jab to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, who, in the end, became more vehemently opposed to the President.

Impact on US Economy

The move to Jerusalem had significant implications for the US economy, primarily due to the associated tax cut. President Trump promised a tax cut that was designed to boost the economy and stimulate growth. It is reported that the passage of the tax cut resulted in an explosive economic growth, thereby fulfilling one of the key goals of his administration. The economic benefits of the tax cut included job creation, business growth, and increased consumer spending, all of which were crucial for the President's re-election strategy.

Domestic and International Reactions

The move of the embassy also had immediate domestic implications. However, for small South American, Central American, Caribbean, Pacific nations, as well as for Israel, the impact was minimal. The most considerable impact was felt by African countries, as they form the largest voting bloc at the UN General Assembly. Arab countries that had normalized relations with Israel found themselves in a challenging position, as they faced domestic public pressure and a backlash from their populations.

For countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which had previously engaged in diplomatic and economic normalization with Israel, the move to Jerusalem posed a significant challenge. These countries faced political opposition from their own populations and were forced to contend with internal pressure to maintain their policy of normalization. On the other hand, countries that had not yet normalized relations or had frozen such normalization, like Hamas and Iran-affiliated groups, found it even more challenging to engage in diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel.

Conclusion

The decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a strategic political move with far-reaching consequences. While it had significant benefits for the US economy, it also led to domestic and international backlash. The impact on African countries, in particular, was profound, as the move required a diplomatic chutzpah to align with Israel. This decision demonstrates the intricate balance between economic policy and geopolitical strategy in modern diplomacy.