By Beni Sukadis
The re-election of Donald Trump and his subsequent choices of individuals to sit on key positions in his administration signal a grim forecast for peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict and the United States’ relations with the Muslim world. Since regaining office, President Trump has surrounded himself with staunchly pro-Israel hardliners who openly oppose efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza and advocate for policies that support Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
Among Trump’s controversial picks is Mike Huckabee, a conservative evangelical Christian and unwavering supporter of Israel, slated to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel. Huckabee’s statements dismissing the existence of Palestinians and labeling the two-state solution as “irrational and unworkable” underline the administration’s stance against compromise. His views reflect a broader ideological alignment within Trump’s administration, which seems poised to back Israeli policies at the expense of Palestinian aspirations.
Further compounding this is Trump’s choice for national security advisor, Mike Waltz, who has called for allowing Israel to “finish the job” in Gaza. This rhetoric aligns with a hardline agenda that dismisses ceasefires and prioritizes military dominance. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth share similar perspectives, reinforcing the administration’s unified front on these issues. Also equally controversial is the appointment of Elise Stefanik as US Ambassador to the United Nations (UN). Stefanik, in a recent hearing at Congress, defended Israel’s rights to West Bank and is well known as one of staunchest supporters of right wing Israelis group (Aljazeera, 2025).
If this administration were to push for an end to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, it would likely do so on terms heavily skewed in favor of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s objectives. These terms would include maintaining the Israeli military occupation of Gaza and further entrenching the occupation of the West Bank. In this scenario, the United States would not pressure Israel for significant concessions unless European and Arab leaders intervened to demand a more balanced approach. However, Trump’s leadership history suggests that he would prioritize Israeli interests, even to the extent of supporting the annexation of the West Bank, as long as it served as a bargaining chip to end hostilities in Gaza.
Any agreement between Trump and Netanyahu regarding Gaza’s future would likely draw heavily from Trump’s 2020 peace plan. That plan was widely criticized for legitimizing Israeli annexation of key Palestinian territories and perpetuating Palestinian subjugation. It offered no meaningful concessions to Palestinian demands and was largely seen as an extension of Netanyahu’s political ambitions. Given Trump’s tendency to double down on policies branded with his name, it is difficult to envision him abandoning the 2020 framework in favor of a more equitable solution.
This unwavering alignment with Israeli hardliners comes at a significant cost to the United States’ standing on the global stage, particularly among Muslim-majority nations. By endorsing policies that disregard Palestinian rights and sovereignty, the Trump administration risks alienating Arab and Muslim allies who have long viewed the U.S. as a potential broker of peace in the region. Such a shift undermines America’s credibility and could lead to heightened tensions not only in the Middle East, but also within broader international relations.
Trump’s approach also exacerbates divisions within the international community regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. While European nations and some Arab states advocate for a balanced resolution that respects the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, the U.S.’s uncritical support of Israel under Trump further entrenches polarization. This division weakens the potential for collective diplomatic efforts and leaves the door open for further instability and violence.
Furthermore, the administration’s hardline stance undermines the prospect of a two-state solution, which has long been viewed as the most viable path to lasting peace. By dismissing Palestinian claims and supporting Israeli annexation, Trump’s policies effectively render the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state unfeasible. This not only deepens the despair of Palestinians but also fuels animosity and resentment that could lead to prolonged conflict and radicalization.
In conclusion, the trajectory of the Trump administration’s Middle East policy casts serious doubt on the possibility of achieving peace between Israel and Palestine. The administration’s embrace of pro-Israel hardliners and its disregard for Palestinian rights reflect a one-sided approach that alienates key global stakeholders, particularly within the Muslim world and will likely strain its relations with Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Turkiye, Malaysia, etc. The Muslim nations may feel betrayed by the policy and looks for other support such as China in this matter.
If left unchecked, Trump policies will not only entrench the occupation and subjugation of Palestinian territories, but also erode America’s position as a credible and reliable partner in international diplomacy. The consequences of such a strategy could reverberate far beyond the region, changing global perceptions of U.S. leadership and its role in promoting peace and justice worldwide. Having said that in the near future, U.S. will be no longer become an influential player in global stage, because the world will look to other powerful nations for help in their causes.
The writer is senior analyst at MARAPI Consulting, Jakarta.
