by Mitchell Plitnick
As the joint press conference by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rolled on, it became clear that their prepared remarks were going to contain very little of substance. Trump looked stiff and uncomfortable as he read prepared remarks—so much so that he seemed visibly relieved when he added a few ad lib words of his own. Netanyahu spoke with great care, knowing that his real audience was back in Israel and that the coalition partners to his right needed to be placated.
But in the question and answer period, things got more interesting.
First, we had the clearest indication yet that the United States will support Netanyahu in stepping back from the two-state solution. Trump stated that he would support “the one that both parties like.” Netanyahu stated unambiguously that his red line is security control over all the territory to the Jordan River. That precludes any possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state.
While this may have been the most politically significant outcome of the press conference, the most eye-opening moment was when Trump was asked to directly denounce anti-Semitism. He didn’t even come close to doing so, side-stepping the question with a ham-handed response about all the love we were going to see in his administration and a mention of his son-in-law and daughter.
Shortly after, Netanyahu stepped up to defend Trump, assuring everyone that no one was a greater friend to the Jewish people or the Jewish state than the new President. As Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer tweeted, “Rabbi Netanyahu ends the press conference giving Trump a ‘Kosher’ stamp on his love for Jews. Many US Jews won’t like that.”
Not only many, a very clear majority won’t like it. Opinion on whether Trump himself is anti-Semitic is split among Jews, but concern over his actions is widespread. Trump’s connection to white nationalists through his aide, former Breitbart chief Steve Bannon, and his support from that sector have concerned Jews across the United States from the beginning. His refusal to acknowledge the unique Jewish connection to the Holocaust added a good deal of fuel to that fire.
Trump’s performance today will make it worse. The question he was asked was very specifically about rising anti-Semitism since his election. He did not acknowledge that rise, which is by now very well-documented. Nor did he denounce anti-Semitism, not even with a pro forma nod, saying it is not a good thing, something all but his most bigoted supporters would probably have shrugged off. He didn’t say he disagreed with it in any way, in fact.
But there was Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the Jewish State, the man who has called the accurate labeling of products from Israeli settlements anti-Semitic. That man defended Trump from the accusation. That man, the same one who refused to comment at all on Trump’s refusal to mention Jews at all on Holocaust Remembrance Day, doubled down on his defense of Trump’s questionable actions today.
Coming into today’s meeting, the Trump Administration’s approach to Israel, the Palestinians and the broader Middle East was unclear. It’s only slightly less so now. But we do know a couple of things.
We know that Trump is not going to hold fast to a two-state solution. The fact that he has refused to talk with the Palestinian leadership (CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s meeting yesterday with Mahmoud Abbas notwithstanding) reinforces the hints that were dropped at today’s presser that Trump is seriously considering pursuing a deal between Israel and the Gulf monarchies and from there hoping to conclude a deal with the Palestinians. This ambition reflects a real lack of understanding of the political dynamics in the Arab world, and is almost certainly doomed to failure, but it seems that is a lesson Trump must learn for himself.
We also know that concerns over anti-Semitism matter not at all to the President or, quite sadly, to the Prime Minister. Those concerns were treated by both men today as nothing more than a political toy, a matter of no concern beyond how it needed to be handled and how it could be manipulated for political gain.
In these conditions, it is difficult indeed to fathom how things can improve for Israel, let alone for the Palestinians. Indeed, based on what we saw today, any movement from the already terrible status quo is almost certain to make matters worse.
Republished, with permission, from The Third Way blog.
YR, You must be losing your mind.
On February 18th you wrote a long post to me ending as follows:
“The Palestinian leadership therefore would be utterly irresponsible to agree to a proposition, precisely because that would be akin to agreeing that the IDF can impose a siege upon them whenever the Israelis so desire, for whatever reason that the Israelis care to name, and for as long as the Israelis want.
Be honest, Jeffrey: would YOU agree to such a proposition?”
I answered that yes I would agree to a proposition trusting the Israelis to treat me (the Gazans) right once I had signed a peace treaty and kept to it. I may not trust my fellow Arabs but I would trust the Israelis.
Now you claim you never asked me whether I would agree to this deal for the Gazans. You even call it a bald-faced lie. Sad!!
The only point you make is that the Palestinians are too stupid to know a good deal or to trust the Israelis…Oh well. Maybe they are. But you don’t get it, the Palestinians need to cut a deal which will involve trusting the Israelis or they will lose it all eventually.
You need to stop treating the sides as equal. They are not. The Arabs conducted a 70 year campaign to block or destroy the Jewish state. They engaged in the most vile terrorism pretty much anyone has seen. They lost. They live because the Jews have a higher ethic than do their fellow Arabs (who would have eliminated such a troublesome faction, just look at the way fellow Arabs treat the Palestinians).
JW: “YR, You must be losing your mind.”
*sigh* I get the sinking feeling that Jeffrey will now demonstrate a master-class in the use of a non-sequitur.
Jeffrey quotes me as saying “The Palestinian leadership therefore would be utterly irresponsible to agree to a proposition, precisely because that would be akin to agreeing that the IDF can impose a siege upon them whenever the Israelis so desire, for whatever reason that the Israelis care to name, and for as long as the Israelis want. Be honest, Jeffrey: would YOU agree to such a proposition?”
It should be obvious to everyone that I am asking if he would agree with a proposition that would the ISRAELIS to impose a siege for reasons that the ISRAELIS alone care to name.
I am not asking about him about What The Gazans Should Be Doing To Avoid Israel’s Ire.
I am asking what the Palestinians Who Are Meant To Negotiate With Netanyahu are supposed to make of such a suggestion.
Jeffrey (Feb 19): “YR, You asked me a question, perhaps rhetorically, what I would do if I were the Gazans.”
OK, I stand corrected: it should be obvious to Everyone Except Jeffrey that I am asking if he would agree with the proposition that the ISRAELIS could impose a siege for reasons that the ISRAELIS alone care to name. Jeffrey (alone, apparently) believes that I am asking him about something else entirely i.e. what he would do if he was the King Of Gaza.
Jeffrey (today): “Now you claim you never asked me whether I would agree to this deal for the Gazans.”
Jeffrey has committed a non-sequitur, and then claimed victory on that basis.
Sad, but demonstrably true
At no time did I ask what he would advise the Gazans to do to stop Israel raining death and destruction down upon their heads.
I did not ask that question. Not once. Not ever.
I have asked him – repeatedly – to come up with a good reason why the Palestinians that Netanyahu keeps claiming he wants to negotiate with(note: not the Gazans that Netanyahu wouldn’t dream of talking to) should say to Netanyahu “Oh, you want to surround us with your soldiers for all eternity? Sure, that sounds like a swell idea. That couldn’t possibly rebound on us”.
Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me, and it very obviously doesn’t appeal to them either.
And, so sorry, nothing you have said makes that idea sound any the less daft.
YR, I have answered your question many times. Yes, the Gazans need to accept Israeli control of the border and agree to play nice. Yes, they have to trust Israel to be a gracious winner and not some madman imposing sieges for no reason. They simply have no other choice. This constant warfare will eventually lead to expulsion of the Gazans and they can take their chances with ISIS in the Sinai. However before that happens I suspect Hamas will be deposed and some other faction will take over and try to cut a deal with Israel.
The reason this makes no sense to you and to the leaders of Hamas is that you are both delusional. You think the Arabs have not had their asses whipped and you think the Arabs will eventually prevail and overcome Israel. Therefore, you think the Arabs are in position to dictate terms or even bargain on an equal basis. They are not. One important difference is the leaders of Hamas are squirreling away millions of dollars in off-shore accounts so when the sh&t finally hits the fan, they can split and live the rest of their lives in luxury (or at least until some Mossad hit team gets them). But I don’t see what you gain out of your personal delusion.