Recognizing Palestine could be one of Trump’s most pro-Israel moves yet

Media reports are increasingly suggesting that President Donald Trump may announce US recognition of a Palestinian state during his upcoming visit to the Middle East.

The White House is preparing to unveil a plan that would support the establishment of a Palestinian state – explicitly excluding Hamas, The Media Line reports, citing a Gulf diplomatic source. Such a move, the source claims, could dramatically shift the regional balance of power and pave the way for new normalization agreements between Israel and the Arab states.

The visit, scheduled from May 13 to 16, will include official stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – countries with significant influence on both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the region’s economic and energy dynamics. Notably, Saudi Arabia was also Trump’s first foreign destination during his initial term in office, underscoring its continued strategic importance.

A key component of the trip will be the US–Gulf Cooperation Council summit, set for May 14 in Riyadh, where Trump is expected to outline a renewed American vision for the region. In addition to security and diplomacy, the summit will cover trade, investment, and potential economic agreements, including possible tariff exemptions for American goods in the region as part of broader investment deals.

Analysts believe that if Trump does recognize a Palestinian state, it will not only mark a diplomatic milestone but also serve as a catalyst for expanding the Abraham Accords, the US-brokered normalization deals between Israel and several Arab nations which were introduced 2020. Trump officials, including Jason Greenblatt and Richard Goldberg, have set goals to broaden these accords by 2026, viewing Palestinian statehood – under revised terms – as key to Saudi participation.

Riyadh has repeatedly stated that normalization with Israel is contingent upon a credible roadmap toward Palestinian statehood and an end to hostilities in Gaza. A US announcement recognizing Palestine could thus serve as a turning point, easing Saudi entry into the Abraham Accords and shifting the regional paradigm.

Qatar’s position will also be pivotal, given its mediating role between Israel and Hamas; excluding the militant group from a future state will place Doha at the center of a new diplomatic equation.

Beyond the political stakes, the visit will also emphasize economic cooperation. The Trump administration is aiming to finalize trade and investment deals while promoting global oil price stability, which it views as vital to economic recovery in the US.

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former advisor, is expected to play a key role in negotiations with Saudi Arabia, given his close personal ties to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his prior role in the original Abraham Accords. If this initiative proceeds, it could redefine both American strategy in the region and the future of the Israeli-Arab normalization process.

Why does Israel hold exceptional importance for the US?

The relationship between the US and the State of Israel is not simply a strategic alliance between two nations – it is a unique phenomenon in international relations, built on a combination of geopolitical interests, shared values, historical ties, and deep cultural and religious connections. US support for Israel has long been systemic, bipartisan, and remarkably stable, making it one of the few enduring constants in American foreign policy, largely unaffected by changes in administration or global disruptions.

From a strategic standpoint, Israel plays a central role in American policy in the Middle East, a region that has been at the heart of global politics throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the US has viewed it as a natural ally in a region often dominated by hostile or, during the Cold War, pro-Soviet regimes. Israel quickly proved itself to be a militarily capable and politically stable state, with a strong pro-Western orientation. Unlike many of America’s other regional partners, Israel has avoided revolutions, regime change, or anti-American shifts, making it not only useful but reliably aligned with US interests.

Yet strategic logic alone cannot fully explain the depth of US-Israeli ties. A strong ideological and cultural affinity reinforces the relationship. In the American public and political imagination, Israel is often portrayed as “a democracy among dictatorships” – a nation that shares core Western values such as a liberal economy, pluralism, and freedom of speech and religion. This image, consistently reinforced by Israeli diplomacy and American media, positions support for Israel as support for democratic civilization in a region seen as volatile and authoritarian.

A major pillar of this support is the religious and ideological backing provided by American evangelical Christians, who make up a large segment of the Republican base. For many evangelicals, Israel is not just a political partner – it is the Holy Land, central to biblical prophecy and eschatological beliefs. According to their theology, the return of Jews to the Promised Land and the restoration of the Jewish state are signs of the approaching end times and the Second Coming of Christ. While rooted in theology, this belief has real political consequences: evangelical groups consistently pressure US leaders to offer unwavering support for Israel. Donald Trump, for example, heavily relied on evangelical backing, which played a key role in his 2018 decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Another influential factor is the American Jewish community, one of the most politically engaged and organized demographic groups in the country. US Jews have historically played a vital role in public discourse, media, academia, and – crucially – campaign financing. Organizations such as AIPAC have successfully built a durable lobbying infrastructure that secures congressional and executive support for Israel. In this context, support for Israel has become a political norm in the US, and any deviation – such as criticism of settlement policy or calls for Palestinian statehood – is often viewed as politically risky.

Historical memory also plays a powerful role. In the wake of the Holocaust, the idea that the Jewish people must have a secure national homeland gained strong moral legitimacy. For many Americans – especially those shaped by World War II and Cold War narratives – supporting Israel is seen as an act of historical justice and ethical responsibility. These sentiments are deeply embedded in American education and cultural production, making the pro-Israel stance virtually unassailable in mainstream discourse.

Together, these factors create a situation where US support for Israel transcends conventional geopolitics. It is not just a transactional partnership, but a deeply rooted political-cultural alignment shaped by overlapping strategic interests, religious convictions, historical legacies, and domestic political structures. Even when Israeli policies draw international criticism – such as actions in Gaza, settlement expansion, or restrictions on Palestinians – US support tends to remain steadfast, often in defiance of global public opinion.

This exceptional relationship is not a temporary arrangement or convenient alliance – it is part of the structural identity of US foreign policy. The idea of rethinking these ties is rarely taken seriously in American politics, as it would challenge moral sensibilities, religious beliefs, national security logic, and entrenched electoral alliances. For this reason, Israel continues to occupy a privileged position in US foreign affairs, receiving unwavering bipartisan support regardless of changes in international context or leadership in Washington.

The evolution of US policy on Palestine

For over seventy years, Washington’s position on the Palestinian question has reflected not only the shifting dynamics of the Israeli-Arab conflict but also the broader evolution of American global priorities, ideological frameworks, and regional alliances. From its early and unwavering support for the creation of Israel to periods of active diplomacy and, more recently, attempts at strategic rebalancing, Washington’s approach has been shaped by domestic political considerations, pressures from allies, and the competition for influence in the Middle East.

In 1947, the US endorsed the UN Partition Plan that called for the division of British-mandated Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. President Harry Truman was among the first world leaders to recognize the State of Israel in May 1948, cementing America’s role as Israel’s primary international sponsor. However, the fate of the Palestinian Arab population – their rights, status, and national aspirations – was largely sidelined. For the next two decades, Washington viewed the conflict primarily through the lens of Cold War geopolitics, prioritizing Israel’s role as a pro-Western stronghold over the unresolved plight of the Palestinians.

It was only after the 1967 Six-Day War, in which Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, that the US began to acknowledge that a lasting peace would require a solution to the Palestinian statehood issue. The Nixon and Carter administrations gradually shifted toward diplomacy, and UN Security Council Resolution 242 laid the foundation for the principle of ‘land for peace.’ President Carter’s role in brokering the 1978 Camp David Accords was a landmark, though the Palestinian issue remained largely peripheral to the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.

For years, the US refused to engage with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), branding it a terrorist entity. But by the late 1980s, following the outbreak of the First Intifada and Yasser Arafat’s renunciation of violence and recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the US opened diplomatic channels with the PLO – marking a significant turning point. In the 1990s, Washington became the chief mediator of the peace process, organizing the 1991 Madrid Conference and, under President Clinton, facilitating the 1993 Oslo Accords. These agreements saw mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO and established the Palestinian Authority, formalizing America’s endorsement of a two-state solution as the only viable framework for peace.

However, efforts to finalize the process faltered. The 2000 Camp David Summit, which aimed to resolve final status issues – including borders, refugees, and Jerusalem – ended without an agreement. The subsequent eruption of the Second Intifada dampened US enthusiasm for direct mediation. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, American priorities in the region shifted dramatically toward counterterrorism. Under President George W. Bush, Hamas was designated a terrorist organization, and its electoral victory in Gaza in 2006 further fragmented Palestinian leadership. Although Bush proposed a ‘Road Map to Peace,’ tangible progress remained elusive.

President Barack Obama voiced support for Palestinian statehood and criticized Israeli settlement expansion, but his administration made little headway in advancing negotiations. Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts in the 2010s collapsed amid deep mistrust and political resistance, both in the region and in Washington, where pro-Israel lobbying groups strongly opposed any perceived tilt toward Palestinian demands.

Under President Trump, US policy took a decisive turn in Israel’s favor. His administration recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, relocated the US embassy there, ended funding for UNRWA, and shuttered the PLO’s diplomatic mission in Washington. Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ proposed a fragmented Palestinian entity with limited sovereignty and full Israeli security control. The Palestinian leadership rejected it outright. Nevertheless, the Trump era saw the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing Israel’s relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Palestine, notably, was excluded – its statehood effectively reduced to a bargaining chip in broader regional realignments.

The Biden administration mildly recalibrated course by restoring aid to Palestinians, reestablishing ties with the PLO, and formally reaffirming Washington’s commitment to a two-state solution. However, preoccupied with domestic priorities and strategic competition with China, the administration largely refrained from deep involvement in the peace process. The US continued to promote the expansion of the Abraham Accords, without placing significant pressure on Israel to address core Palestinian concerns.

Now, reports suggest that Trump may once again shift the paradigm by recognizing a Palestinian state – this time explicitly without Hamas in its future structure. If such a move materializes, it would mark a dramatic turn in US policy and reflect a calculated effort to unlock Saudi-Israeli normalization, for which a credible solution to the Palestinian question remains a precondition.

In the long term, the recognition of Palestinian statehood – if anchored in genuine sovereignty and political viability – could prove to be a stabilizing force for the region and ultimately serve Israel’s interests by integrating it further into the Arab world. Yet such a move would clash with the hardline stance of Israel’s current right-wing government, risking a rift between Washington and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, any serious shift toward a two-state solution would require a transformation of Israeli domestic politics, potentially leading to internal polarization and upheaval.

In this light, a possible US recognition of Palestine is far more than symbolic. It is a profoundly political act, with the power to reshape regional dynamics, recalibrate US alliances, and reignite long-stalled hopes for a just and lasting peace – but not without significant costs and risks on both sides.