The US media’s war on Trump’s Middle East policy

By Michael Oren

Major news outlets regularly invalidate a democratically elected president’s decisions on the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, and more

In recent articles on Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israel, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal all referred to the “Israeli-occupied” or “Israeli-controlled” Golan Heights. The terms were revealing. In March 2019, President Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, making it an indivisible part of the Jewish state. In describing the Heights as “occupied” and “controlled” by Israel, America’s papers of record were publicly rejecting the position of the country’s democratically elected leader in favor of those of Belgium, China, and the Obama administration. 

The willingness of the mainstream press to make its own foreign policy signals a deeply troubling trend. Presidents often rescind their predecessors’ decisions. George Bush and Donald Trump withdrew America’s representation on the flagrantly anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council and Barack Obama and Joe Biden restored it. Trump nullified Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and Biden tried to revive it. But the negation by the and large parts of the public of a formal White House policy poses far greater challenges. More than Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, at stake is the legitimacy of presidential decisions.

Those challenges will certainly mount under the incoming administration. Much of the controversy will center, once again, on the Middle East. President Trump has selected Secretaries of State and Defense, a National Security Advisor, and ambassadors to Israel and the UN, whose outlook on the region sharply diverges from that of the previous policymakers. While the Biden administration sought to limit Israel’s ability to defend itself, condemned Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank, and supported the creation of a Palestinian state that the vast majority of Israelis opposed, the Trump team believes that Israel should fight as it sees fit, calls the settlements communities and the West Bank by its Biblical name, Judea and Samaria. And though President Trump’s 2020 peace plan provided for a Palestinian state, those soon to be forging US foreign policy will undoubtedly oppose the establishment of any Palestinian entity bound to quickly fail and fall to Hamas. The Biden White House refused to stand up to Iran in any significant way and tried to appease it back to the negotiating table. In complete contrast, Trump’s senior staff will work to thoroughly isolate and weaken Iran. Should it ever come back to the table, it will do so begging for a deal.

All of this, of course, is good news for the majority of Israelis. Many dubbed Trump’s selection of Secretary Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Ambassadors Elise Stefanik and Mike Huckabee, the “Dream Team.” The Iranian regime promptly told that team it was no longer planning to attack Israel and was willing to negotiate with Trump. The restoration of trust in the relations between the United States and Israel, and fear among our common enemies, holds out the promise of unprecedented stability in the Middle East, the conclusion of wars, and the expansion of existing peace treaties. But will it last?

The 180-degree turn in American foreign policy in the region could someday swing back in the opposite direction. Well before that, though, during the course of Trump’s second term, influential segments of the American public, spearheaded by a critical press, will oppose its policy direction. They will continue to refer to West Bank settlements, rather than Judea and Samaria communities, and to the Golan Heights as occupied. Secretary of State Rubio will hold Hamas 100 percent responsible for civilian suffering in Gaza, but the Times, the Post, and the Journal will continue to fault Israel. 

Such defiance of presidential prerogatives must not go unanswered. Every press attempt to describe as occupied areas that the United States has deemed sovereign must be met with robust public and government protest. Every effort to ignore or override the administration’s foreign policy must spur even greater initiatives to clarify that policy and defend it in all branches of the media. Without presenting any evidence or giving them a chance to defend themselves, the Biden Administration sanctioned a number of Israelis. The Trump Administration, backed by both Houses of Congress, can pass a law forbidding the arbitrary sanctioning of the citizens of an allied state. 

Israel must do its part as well. In 2019, President Trump closed the US consulate in East Jerusalem that for years served as America’s de facto embassy to the Palestinians. Two years later, President Biden announced its intention to reopen it, but Israel put its foot down and said no. The consulate remains closed. On the other hand, Israel greeted the change of US policy toward the Golan by inaugurating a new city, Trump Heights. Five years later, the site remains empty. It’s not enough just for the president to recognize Israeli sovereignty, Israel must assert it. 

The “diplomatic whiplash” is already being felt in the Middle East where intensive talks are underway to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon, free the Israeli hostages in Gaza, and to lay the groundwork for an Israeli-Saudi peace. Much more can be achieved. Those accomplishments must be protected, though, from those who would now negate and later act to reverse them. The 180-degree turn must signal a new and permanent direction for US foreign policy in this critical region.