I don't count on the US embassy being moved to Jerusalem, but I think it is possible-if anyone would do it, it would be Trump, with his Sabbath observant daughter and three Jewish grandchildren. It would be a "game changer" if the embassy were moved, because the Palestinians and Arab States up to now have been successful in preventing this from happening. In theory why shouldn't the US be able to move their embassy to West Jerusalem in pre-67 Israel ? How possibly could the Palestinians object to this? It would not foreclose East Jerusalem being a capital of a Palestinian state.The only objection would be if we say that Israel shouldn't exist at all, which certainly isn't US policy. Moving the US embassy to West Jerusalem would not foreclose East Jerusalem being a capital of an eventual Palestinian state
“The U.S. seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region,” the Republican platform states. “We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and call for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so. Our party is proud to stand with Israel now and always.”
The Platform certainly suggests that a Trump administration is not going to pressure Israel, like the Obama administration has, to cede territory in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.
Trump gave his first interview to Sheldon Adelson's Israel Yisrael Hayom Newspaper (Adelson was a major Trump supporter) and he specifically noted that he would not impose a solution: "I believe that my administration can play a significant role in helping the parties to achieve a just, lasting peace — which must be negotiated between the parties themselves, and not imposed on them by others. Israel and the Jewish people deserve no less," the president-elect said.
He has also said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that he would like to do the "ultimate deal " between Israelis and Palestinians.' As a deal maker, I'd like to do…the deal that can't be made. And do it for humanity's sake." And yet, if Trump decided he would tell both sides that this is "the deal" on the table, could he pressure both Israelis and Palestinians to take it?
There are those who believe that the notion that Trump will not impose a deal on Israel makes it more likely that Obama in his last couple months in office will make a move at the UN favourable to the Palestinians. As Herb Keinon has written on the Jerusalem Post, "Four options [that Obama could take] have been widely discussed: delivering a speech on the Mideast laying down how he sees the parameters of an eventual deal, or supporting one of three moves in the UN. The three UN options include supporting either a new UN Security Council resolution laying new foundations for peacemaking to essentially replace Security Council Resolution 242; not vetoing another attempt by the Palestinians to get the Security Council to approve their admission into the UN as a state; or supporting an anti-settlement resolution."
3. Trump Has indicated He is in Favour of Israel continuing to build Settlements.
In an interview with the British Daily Mail on May 2016y, Trump said there should be no pause in settlement construction.
Asked if there should be a pause in settlement building, Trump was quoted answering as follows: “No, I don’t think it is, because I think Israel should have – they really have to keep going. They have to keep moving forward… I don’t think there should be a pause… Look: Missiles were launched into Israel…
Trumps stated position above is very different that Obama's position which pressured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2009 to implement a freeze on new construction for 10 months in an attempt to restart stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. PA President Mahmoud Abbas refused to negotiate until the very end of the freeze, which Netanyahu then refused to extend.
I think Trump is less likely to criticize Israel for building settlements, and this may mean it will be easier for Israel to build up the already existing settlement blocs. I am not sure that it will mean the US will accept Israel building outside of the existing settlement blocs. [Update Nov 17: since writing this last statement, YNET has just published a piece in which Minister Avigdor Lieberman says that Trump's team is asking Israel to only build within settlement blocs. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4880028,00.html]
Finally, as Amos Harel has written in Ha'aretz, " Just as he [Trump] may be the first American president who…ignores construction in Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the 1967 borders, Trump could easily make an abrupt about-turn based on internal political considerations or a sense of having sustained some personal insult."
4. Trump and a green light s to enable Israel to annex large portion of the West Bank
Naftali Bennett, Israel's education minister, who champions Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) released a statement within hours of Mr Trump's victory declaring: "The era of a Palestinian state is over."
Some in the settler community suggest Trump may give the green light for Israel to annex large portions of the West Bank, but I don't anticipate that Trump will go this far. If he won't move the Embassy to Jerusalem, he's not likely to give Israel the green light for annexation. Bennett's statement is widely seen as an effort to pressure Netanyahu into adopting a more pro-settler position.
But, already it appears that in light of the Trump win, a Jerusalem City Hall official is going to approve 7000 housing units in Jerusalem over the Green Line that had been frozen due to fear of upsetting the Obama administration.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-trump-win-officials-seek-jerusalem-building-spree/
6. Military Aid to Israel
In March 2016, Trump raised eyebrows in Israel when he said Israel should pay for defense aid it receives from the US. But then The Dallas Morning News reported that Trump backtracked on the Israel statement during a tour of the building, saying of Israel, "They help us greatly." Trump's initial statement opposing foreign military aid is one of the reasons why Netanyahu decided to sign in September a new $38 billion 10-year aid agreement under Obama, rather than waiting for the new administration.
On November 1 , David M. Friedman and Jason Greenblatt, the lawyers who head the Republican candidate’s Israel advisory committee, published a “joint statement” which said that Trump would “give support [to Israel] greater than that provided” under the recently-signed 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel.http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/217138/can-trumps-newly-released-statement-on-israel-woo-voters-in-must-win-swing-states
But remember that Trump himself has not said this.
7. Iran Deal-Could this be the End of the Deal?
Trump has said the flawed nuclear deal with Iran was a mistake ( which is in line with Netanyahu's views) but Trump isn't seen to be likely to scrap the deal.
His advisor Freedman wrote in an email to the Forward:..l. …we [the U.S. ] have now released the funds to, and lifted the sanctions on, Iran, so the primary consequence of ‘ripping up the deal’ is to shorten even further the nuclear runway.” At the same time, Friedman didn’t rule out additional nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, even with the agreement still in pl
