The status of Jerusalem has always been a very sensitive, symbolic and central issue regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This leads to the central question of this essay: How can the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by the Trump administration be explained through either a structural realist or constructivist approach?
For Palestinians and Israelis, for Muslims, Christians and Jews around the world, Jerusalem is an anchor of modern identity. The Israelis claim it as the capital of their nation, the Palestinians want it to be the center of their hoped-for future state. The issue has gained a critical urgency and relevance recently, because on December 6, 2017 US-President Donald J. Trump announced the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. By reversing seven decades of US neutrality and appeasement policy in this matter, his decision caused a lot of frustration among the Arabic community and states around the world. The UN General Assembly called the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital "null and void" - a pretty extraordinary situation of disagreement between the UN and the United States (Res. ES-10/L.22 2017).
This essay will establish a theoretical framework, by comparing the two schools of thought within the rational-constructivist debate. Subsequently, both theories will be applied on the present case of US foreign policy, after having ensured contextual understanding by going through essential historical aspects of US-Israeli relations and the effects of Trump’s decision.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Structural Realism
2.2 Constructivism
3. Contextual Background
3.1 US-Israeli relationship
3.2 Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995
3.3 US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
4. Application of the Theoretical Framework on the Case
4.1 Structural Realist Approach
4.2 Constructivist Approach
5. Conclusion
Objectives & Research Topics
The primary objective of this essay is to analyze the 2017 decision by the Trump administration to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel through the lens of international relations theory. The research question asks how this foreign policy shift can be explained by comparing structural realism and constructivism, ultimately testing the hypothesis that constructivism offers a more durable explanation than realism.
- Comparison of Structural Realism and Constructivism
- Historical evolution of US-Israeli relations
- Legislative analysis of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995
- The impact of state identity on foreign policy decision-making
- Evaluation of the geopolitical consequences of the US recognition
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Structural Realism
In 1979 Kenneth Waltz introduced the theory of structural realism in his book "Theory of International Politics" as a modification of Morgenthau’s classical realism. Waltz’ approach is based on the assumption that the international system of states is ruled by anarchy, on the contrary to national systems, which usually have a hierarchical order. According to Waltz the anarchic structure of the system forces states, which are all unitary, egoistic and rational actors, to "seek their own preservation" and, at a maximum, even "drive for universal domination" (Waltz 1979: 118). Here the emphasis lies explicitly on the structure of the system, anthropological explanations for the mistrust among states have no value for the approach by Kenneth Waltz. Because there is no ruling authority in the anarchical system, every state is under a constant existential threat and therefore every actor is responsible for their own survival (Waltz 1979: 111). In a realist world economic or ideological aims will always be of secondary importance in comparison to security issues. The maximizing of individual well-being and the rational, egoistic acting by states which is fueled by constant mutual mistrust, serve as key elements of the theory.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the status of Jerusalem as a central issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict and outlines the research goal of examining Trump’s 2017 policy change using theoretical frameworks.
2. Theoretical Framework: This section establishes the foundation for the rationalist-constructivist debate, detailing the core tenets of structural realism and constructivism regarding state behavior and identity.
3. Contextual Background: This chapter provides an overview of the history of US-Israeli relations, the specific details of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, and the events leading to the official US recognition of Jerusalem.
4. Application of the Theoretical Framework on the Case: This section applies both the structural realist and constructivist approaches to the case study to determine which theory provides a more coherent explanation for US actions.
5. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the findings, confirming the hypothesis that constructivism better explains the decision by focusing on state identity, and suggests areas for future research.
Keywords
Jerusalem, US Foreign Policy, Structural Realism, Constructivism, State Identity, Donald Trump, Arab-Israeli Conflict, International Relations Theory, Jerusalem Embassy Act, Alliances, Security Dilemma, Rationalism, Ideology, Diplomacy, Middle East
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The paper examines the 2017 decision of the Trump administration to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from the perspective of international relations theory.
Which theoretical schools of thought are compared?
The author conducts a comparative analysis between the rationalist school of structural realism and the constructivist approach.
What is the central research question?
The essay asks how the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital can be explained through either a structural realist or a constructivist framework.
What research methodology is employed?
The paper uses a comparative theoretical analysis combined with a case study approach, utilizing historical context and legislative documents to evaluate the validity of the chosen theories.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the development of US-Israeli relations, the details of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, and an application of theoretical concepts to Trump's specific foreign policy shift.
Which concepts characterize the theoretical analysis?
Key concepts include structural anarchy, the security dilemma, state identity, constitutive norms, and the formation of alliances.
Why does the author argue that realism fails to explain this policy shift?
The author argues that realism cannot explain the decision because the US was not under existential threat, and the act created security risks rather than mitigating them, making the move appear irrational from a realist perspective.
How does constructivism offer a better explanation according to the author?
Constructivism is presented as superior because it incorporates the role of state identity and shared values, which help explain the US's ideological solidarity with Israel despite the strategic drawbacks.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Severin Pehlke (Autor:in), 2018, U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East. How Can Donald Trump's Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital be Explained?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/538877
