What is the essence of Trump’s declaration?

The president formally implemented the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. By recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the embassy there, the U.S. recognises Israel’s sovereignty over the city but also indirectly sanctions the violation of international law (according to UN Security Council resolutions). Trump also declared that full extent of Israeli sovereignty and the resolution of its borders, including in Jerusalem, would be the subject of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He expressed continued U.S. support for a two-state solution. This means that the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, was not ruled out.

What are the international reactions?

Trump’s announcement was sharply criticised by leaders of Muslim countries that cooperate with the U.S., including Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (which called on Trump to withdraw the decision). The leaders of European countries, including Germany, France, and the UK, and the head of EU diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, reiterated their view that Jerusalem should remain an international city subject to ongoing peace process negotiations. Their stance may deepen the gulf in transatlantic relations. Some states, however, backed the United States in its decision, for example, the Philippines, which also said it was considering moving its embassy to Jerusalem. The U.S. decision will be discussed by the League of Arab States and the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation at the UN Security Council. A meeting of the Security Council, convened at the request of eight members, including France and the UK, is unlikely to result in a binding resolution, given the high probability of a U.S. veto.

Does the U.S. decision mean Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has found success with Trump?

The U.S. decision is portrayed by the Israeli side as a success of Netanyahu’s government and evidence of the effectiveness of its foreign policy. Israel has called on other states to follow the U.S. lead. It is possible that the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and potential of moving a state’s embassy might be an issue determining the extent of cooperation between Israel and its partners. At the same time, Israel’s security situation may deteriorate because of reaction to the decision, including an escalation in Palestinian protests, possible external attacks (e.g., from Sinai), or radicalisation of its own Arab population. Its relations with partners in the region—Jordan and Egypt—may be weakened or frozen, which could affect the level and type of assistance they give Israel in de-escalating tensions among the Palestinians.

What will be the impact on the peace process and the situation of the Palestinians?

According to the Palestinian authorities, the U.S., by this move, has excluded itself as the main mediator of the peace process. Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, described the decision as a declaration of war and called for a new Intifada (uprising), while the Palestinian Authority (PA), controlled by Fatah, called for peaceful protests and strikes. The current Palestinian leadership is unlikely to undertake peace negotiations with Israel without far-reaching concessions on Israel’s part and clear guarantees from the U.S. (e.g., on East Jerusalem). The American move seriously weakens the position of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and may contribute to changes in the Palestinian leadership. The current situation could even strengthen the efforts for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas as an expression of Palestinian unity in the face of the crisis.

What are the consequences of the U.S. decision on the wider Middle East?

In the short term, Trump’s decision means a worsening of relations with Arab countries and deepening anti-American attitudes in their societies. For the countries of the region, protests beyond rhetoric and undertaking specific political actions will depend on the degree of the escalation of tension in the Palestinian territories and further actions of U.S. diplomacy. Breaking with what seemed a permanent element of U.S. policy towards the region may raise further mistrust about the current administration’s plans. The decision also lets Iran feel its anti-Americanism is legitimate and could strengthen the attractiveness of jihadist groups. In addition, the sanctioning of a violation of international law can be used as a pretext for other countries to do similar things, not just in relation to Jerusalem.