Rather than blame the rest of the United Nations Security Council members for opposing its decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Washington should reflect on the significance of it having to use its veto instead of pettily calling it, as US UN Ambassador Nikki Haley did, “an insult” that “won’t be forgotten”.

Unfortunately, even after the 14 other UNSC members voted for the Egyptian-drafted resolution calling for the United States to rescind its decision, the US remains determined to go its own way, violating UN Security Council resolutions that make clear no country can unilaterally decide that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Not surprisingly the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world have been outraged by US President Donald Trump’s decision, as the status of the city is a central issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his announcement has been interpreted as a declaration the US is siding with Israel.

For even while the new US National Security Strategy claims a continuous commitment to “helping facilitate a comprehensive peace agreement that is acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians”, Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem has been a fresh cut in an old wound that only further antagonizes the two peoples.

Contrary to Haley’s disingenuous words, its veto on Monday had nothing to do with US sovereignty, as clearly it is not simply a disagreement over where it locates its embassy, and in no way does its decision contribute to the US playing the role of peacemaker in the Middle East.

“We must be realistic about our expectations for the region without allowing pessimism to obscure our interests or vision for a modern Middle East,” states the US administration’s newly released National Security Strategy document.

Yet its decision regarding the status of Jerusalem shows Washington is anything but realistic about expectations, and its vision has been obscured by dangerous underestimation of the complexity and sensitivity surrounding the Holy City.

That 14 countries on the UN Security Council, including some of Washington’s closest allies, endorsed the motion, which called for rescinding decisions and actions meant to alter the character, status or demographic composition of Jerusalem, is not an insult, it is more than simply a loss of face for Washington. The rare diplomatic frustration offers a serious history lesson for the Trump administration, one it would do well to heed.

While there is nothing wrong in Trump’s pledge to “l(fā)ook at the world with clear eyes and fresh thinking”, or indeed in his bid to “promote a balance of power that favors the United States”, his statement on Jerusalem has resulted in “America first” becoming “America alone” for a reason.