The foreign policy guru, former United States secretary of state Henry Kissinger, cautioned policy makers against the perils of allowing excessive domestic politics to trump foreign policy objectives. Critics denounced his views as cold-blooded foreign policy that disregarded human rights, and led to bloodshed and power struggles in places like in Chile and Iran. Yet, his views are still as pertinent as ever.

President Donald Trump’s decision on the status of Jerusalem is a case of how domestic politics, fueled by identity politics, has dangerous ramifications.

His policy reignited simmering tensions surrounding the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine. Demonstrations are voicing their rejection and frustration at Trump’s decision, which affirmed a 1995 law on the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The question of the two-state solution and Jerusalem intensifies the debate on how far domestic politics should play a role in foreign policy. One can argue that foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics. Others would argue that foreign policy practitioners are obliged to shield nations from falling into short-term traps.

Countries can ill-afford having a short-sighted or low-hanging fruit foreign policy, let alone no clear objectives and strategy. Kaiser Wilhelm II’s impetuous foreign policy of the German Empire fueled World War I and led to the fairly rapid disappearance of ancient empires.

Then US president Richard Nixon’s policy of opening up to China would have been rejected by domestic audiences if Americans had known about it from the very start. The same is true with the process that led to the Oslo peace process for Israel and Palestine. Well-thought-out foreign policy coupled with effective diplomatic machinery pay dividends in the long run.