Download the PDF Version

The re-election of Donald J. Trump raises global debates about U.S. foreign policy, particularly its impact on the genocide in Gaza, the war in Lebanon and the broader Middle East. This article explores two key aspects of Trump's election and its implications for Gaza and the surrounding region.

First, it examines whether the genocide in Gaza influenced voter behaviour in the U.S. during the last presidential elections, including dissatisfaction with the Democrats’ support to Israel, potential shifts toward Trump and the impact of the Uncommitted Movement. Second, it analyses Trump's promises, his administration's early appointments and his prior actions concerning Palestine/Israel, shedding light on anticipated continuities and shifts in U.S. policy toward the question of Palestine and the Middle East.

Gaza and the 2024 U.S. Presidential Elections

The U.S. presidential elections marked a turning point in the voting patterns of Arab American and Muslim communities, driven largely by dissatisfaction with Democratic policies, particularly regarding the genocide in Gaza. Exit polling conducted by the Council on American Islamic Relations revealed that 53% of Muslim voters supported Jill Stein, a third-party candidate advocating for an end to U.S. military support for Israel.

This marked a significant departure from the 65%-70% of Muslim voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020. Kamala Harris garnered only 20.3% of Muslim votes, narrowly surpassing Donald Trump’s 21%, signalling a sharp decline in Democratic support among Arabs and Muslims. Although Harris initially projected a different tone on Middle East policies, her campaign alienated pro-Palestinian voters who initiated the Uncommitted Movement by excluding them from the Democratic National Convention, held in late August 2024.

The current administration has been consistently financially and diplomatically backing Israel’s war on Gaza for over a year, vetoing four UN resolutions for a ceasefire, and attempts to backpedal – including last-minute promises to end the Israel-Gaza war if elected – did little to repair the damage.

The discontent was most evident in Michigan, a critical swing state. Harris received 22,000 fewer votes in cities with large Arab American and Muslim electors, such as Dearborn, Hamtramck and Dearborn Heights, compared to Biden’s tally in 2020. Trump, by contrast, gained approximately 9,000 votes in these areas. The drop in Democratic support in these three cities alone accounted for nearly 27% of the 81,000-vote margin by which Harris lost the state to Trump. The true extent of Harris’s losses in Michigan due to her administration’s Gaza/Lebanon policy is likely even higher, as these figures exclude the significant Arab American population spread across the state. Some pre-election estimates suggested Harris’s policies on Israel and Gaza would cost her as many as 90,000 votes in Michigan.

Harris’s approach to addressing criticisms further exacerbated tensions. During a campaign rally in Detroit, vice-president Harris dismissed chants accusing her administration of complicity in genocide, using the phrase “I’m speaking” to silence protesters part of the Uncommitted Movement and deflect responsibility, a move perceived as emblematic of performative liberal feminism.

Her rhetoric alienated pro-Palestinian Democrats, many of whom viewed her statements as dismissive and unempathetic to the plight of Palestinians. This disillusionment with the Democratic Party’s stance on a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, supported by over 70% of the party’s base, coincided with broader concerns about the administration’s role in funding the war in Gaza and Lebanon, solidifying the perception that the party failed to represent key elements of its base.

Nationally, foreign policy ranked low among voter priorities, with only 4% of respondents identifying it as their main concern, according to exit polls. However, among those who did prioritise it, a significant portion supported Trump, which might signal a desire to sanction the Biden-Harris administration for its role in the Israel-Gaza war, as suggested by Jewish Democratic senator Bernie Sanders, who is pushing to halt a $20 billion weapons deal with Israel. Meanwhile, 34% of voters cited the economy and 37% cited democracy as their primary concerns, issues where Trump managed to appeal to broader voter segments.

Strategically, the Democratic Party remains the most influential political platform through which minority groups can exert meaningful pressure and build coalitions. The election results underscore the urgent need for Democrats to reconcile their foreign policy stances with the values and priorities of their core supporters, particularly as they seek to maintain their electoral coalition in future contests and learn from the genuine reasons behind their electoral debacle. Lobbying efforts within the Party remain amongst the best (and only) solutions to advance the rights of Palestinians, provided that advocates focus on leveraging the fact that much of the Party's electoral base aligns with Palestinians’ fundamental rights.

Trump’s Promises on Gaza: Key Appointments, Policy Shifts and First Term’s Actions in Gaza/the Middle East

Although in appearance clashing with his ‘America First’ motto and his seemingly non-interventionist approach when it comes to foreign policy, Trump’s latest cabinet and ambassadorial appointments demonstrate a heightened pro-Israel commitment and a willingness to defend it even more aggressively on the world stage.

Elise Stefanik, nominated as U.S. Ambassador to the UN, exemplifies this direction with her staunch opposition to the UN and her calls to defund Palestinian refugees’ relief agency UNRWA. Stefanik also gained attention last year after her aggressive questioning of three university presidents over alleged antisemitism on campuses during the movement of student encampments against genocide

Pete Hegseth, a Fox News presenter and former Army National Guard officer, has been selected as Secretary of Defense. Hegseth has openly opposed the two-state solution, referred to Israelis as ‘God’s chosen people’, and in 2018, stated that “Zionism and Americanism are the front lines of Western civilisation and freedom in our world today”. Hegseth has also notably advocated for pardoning service members accused of war crimes.

Perhaps most concerningly, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who previously claimed “there is no such thing as a West Bank”, further embodies this alignment as the new U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Huckabee, known for rejecting the existence of Palestinian statehood and dismissing the concept of Israeli settlements, reinforces a vision that disregards the very existence of Palestinians as a nation. The Jewish Democratic Council of America, a pro-Israel foundation, criticised Huckabee’s nomination, stating that his “extremist views” on Israel-Palestine would not advance U.S. national security or prospects for peace.

In parallel, Israel appointed an American-born settler and former member of a Jewish defence league – considered a terrorist organisation in the U.S. – as an ambassador in the country.

These appointments suggest a return to the hardline policies of Trump’s first term, during which he recognised Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as Israeli territories, closed the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, and pressured Arab states that do not have occupied territories nor borders with Israel to normalise relations with Israel swiftly and without any trade-off for Palestinians. The announcement of the ambassador to Israel’s appointment alongside key cabinet ministers serves as a strategic signal by Trump to his pro-Israel base.

Unlike his first term, where he faced bureaucratic resistance and low approval ratings (estimations varied between 29% and 34%), Trump now wields greater political strength and surrounded himself with advisors who fully support his agenda. His first-term legacy already reshaped the Palestinian question by sidelining it in regional diplomacy, facilitating normalisation agreements between Israel and Arab states without addressing core Palestinian grievances. The Biden administration’s failure to reverse these measures has emboldened Trump to double down on his approach. This dynamic leaves Arab states competing for favour with Trump’s administration, negotiating separately rather than forming a unified front, which weakens their leverage on both regional security and the Palestinian issue.

Trump’s transactional politics further amplify these dynamics. He is likely to pressure Gulf states to purchase arms for their defence against Iran, while simultaneously pushing them to accept lower oil prices to satisfy U.S. economic interests. Meanwhile, his administration may escalate efforts to consolidate Israeli control over internationally-recognised occupied territories, including potential recognition of annexations like the Jordan Valley – a move that could erase Palestinian borders with Jordan. Without the possibility of an influential Arab state’s ultimatum against this, the Trump administration is highly likely to recognise such a move – a possibility when one looks at Trump’s 2020 ‘Deal of the Century’, which was effectively a deal between himself and Netanyahu.

This scenario raises the stakes for neighbouring countries like Jordan and Egypt, which risk facing mass Palestinian displacement. Trump’s rhetoric of ‘total victory’ for Israel against Hamas and reluctance to pursue ceasefire negotiations underscore his focus on securing ideological and financial rewards from his base, including evangelical supporters and Zionist donors.

Ultimately, the absence of a cohesive Arab strategy and the deepening alignment between the U.S. and Israel suggests a grim future for the Palestinian cause. Trump’s administration is poised to continue sidelining Palestinians’ very right to exist while simultaneously exploiting regional divides. If Arab states fail to prioritise collective interests, the Palestinian issue risks further marginalisation on the global stage.