The Relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THEORETICAL APPROACH I: LIBERALISM

2.1 IDEATIONAL LIBERALISM

2.2 OPERATIONALIZATION AND HYPOTHESIS – IDEATIONAL LIBERALISM

3. THEORETICAL APPROACH II: STRUCTURAL REALISM

3.1 DEFENSIVE STRUCTURAL REALISM

3.2 OPERATIONALIZATION AND HYPOTHESIS – STRUCTURAL REALISM

4. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS I – IDEATIONAL LIBERALISM

4.1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

4.2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

4.3 UNITED STATES SENATE – COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

4.4 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

4.5 ORGANIZATIONS AND LOBBY GROUPS

5. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS II – STRUCTURAL REALISM

5.1 IRAN

5.2 PALESTINE

5.3 SAUDI-ARABIA

6. CONCLUSION

Research Objectives and Themes

This bachelor thesis investigates the underlying reasons for the relocation of the United States Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem in 2017, testing whether the move was driven by domestic ideational preferences or by structural realist considerations of security and balancing.

• Ideational Liberalism as a theoretical framework for domestic influence.
• Defensive Structural Realism to analyze international security threats.
• Evaluation of executive and legislative branch influence on US foreign policy.
• The impact of pro-Israel lobby groups on political decision-making.
• Assessment of regional threats (Iran, Palestine, Saudi-Arabia) as potential motives.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the historical context of the US embassy relocation and defines the central research question regarding the motivation behind the 2017 policy shift.

2. THEORETICAL APPROACH I: LIBERALISM: Introduces Moravcsik’s framework of ideational liberalism, focusing on how domestic interests and actors influence foreign policy.

3. THEORETICAL APPROACH II: STRUCTURAL REALISM: Examines Kenneth Waltz’s defensive structural realism to test if the embassy move was a strategic reaction to international threats.

4. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS I – IDEATIONAL LIBERALISM: Analyzes the roles of the State Department, Defense Department, Congressional committees, and lobby groups in facilitating the policy shift.

5. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS II – STRUCTURAL REALISM: Evaluates regional power dynamics involving Iran, Palestine, and Saudi-Arabia to see if external security threats necessitated the embassy move.

6. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the findings and argues that domestic ideational preferences provide a more convincing explanation for the embassy relocation than structural realist balancing.

Keywords

United States, Israel, Jerusalem, Embassy Relocation, Ideational Liberalism, Structural Realism, US Foreign Policy, Donald Trump, AIPAC, Christians United for Israel, Iran, Palestine, Saudi-Arabia, Balancing, Interest Groups.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core focus of this thesis?

The thesis explores the motivations behind the 2017 decision of the Trump administration to relocate the US Embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.

What are the central theoretical themes explored?

The work utilizes two major international relations theories: ideational liberalism, focusing on internal domestic pressures, and defensive structural realism, focusing on external system-level security dynamics.

What is the primary research question?

The research asks why the United States changed its long-standing foreign policy precedent regarding the location of its embassy in 2017.

Which methodology is employed in the analysis?

The author uses a two-pronged theoretical approach, comparing the explanatory power of domestic interest transmission (liberalism) against that of state-level security balancing (realism) via empirical case studies.

What does the main body cover?

The main body is divided into two empirical parts: the first examines internal actors like executive departments and lobby groups, while the second evaluates the strategic security context involving Middle Eastern regional actors.

Which keywords best characterize this work?

Key terms include US-Israel relations, Ideational Liberalism, Structural Realism, foreign policy, and interest group influence.

Does the author conclude that structural realism explains the move?

No, the author concludes that the structural realist hypothesis fails to provide a coherent explanation, as the embassy move does not constitute a credible security balancing act.

How did lobby groups influence the decision?

Groups like AIPAC and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) played a significant role in shaping public and political opinion, aligning policy outcomes with their ideational preferences through political engagement and campaign support.