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.
JW: “James, Hezbollah is banned by UN resolution from having a private military but it has an army and even some armored fighting vehicles.”
Demonstrably untrue. This is what UNSCR 1701 says:
…”such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon”…
…”so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon”…
…” so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State”
…”Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request”
Any lawyer worth his salt would see the loophole, which is big enough to drive an armored fighting vehicle through i.e. so long as the Government of Lebanon is OK with Hezbollah retaining its arms then….. gosh!…. Hezbollah are completely within their right to retain their arms.
“If an independent, sovereign state of Palestine signs a peace treaty with an independent, sovereign state of Israel then there is no justification for Israel continuing to maintain military authority over the territory of its neighbour.”
There is no independent sovereign state of Palestine. One would have to be created out of some proposed peace treaty. The problem is it is not possible to sign such a treaty if you cannot trust the other party. If the Arabs don’t trust the Jews either then even more reason why such a treaty is not possible.
There was no significant difference between the Irish people and the English people (any religions distinctions meaningless after the 18th century). Yet, they could not get along for centuries. The Jewish Israeli’s and the Muslim Arabs have many more differences. Also, religious sanctioned violence by Jews ended in 100 CE while it ended for Christians by the 18th century. It has not ended for Islam.
If Israel cannot trust Arabs to live in peace then it has no choice in the matter and no international law or international pressure can change that reality. The Arabs have many options if they don’t want to trust the Israelis including leaving.
Everyone wants to end the occupation, including me. We don’t agree on the method or the final result. Your final result seems to me fantasy, one you dream of safe in your Western Country (like me). I’m not going to tell the Israelis what they should do to ensure their safety and neither should you.
JW: “If Israel cannot trust Arabs to live in peace then it has no choice in the matter and no international law or international pressure can change that reality. The Arabs have many options if they don’t want to trust the Israelis including leaving.”
Admit it, Jeffrey: you’re just prejudiced against the indigenous people of the Middle East. Your solution is that they should trust a bunch of immigrants of mainly European heritage, who have been coming to Palestine since the end of the 19th century, terrorising the local population, starting numerous wars with neighbouring countries, and ruling them with the gun, the prison cell and a host of discriminatory laws. Or they could just leave. Even you Yanks never told the Native Americans they’d better just f… off to Canada and Mexico.
John O, you are amazingly immigrant.
1) Jews (from Judea) are the indigenous people of Israel. The Arabs invaded in the 7th century. So I am not prejudiced against the indigenous people, but it sounds like you might be. But I’m not prejudiced against the Arabs either, just not stupid. If a black or mexican gang moves into my neighborhood, I’m not being racist but being fearful of the gang.
2) Us Yanks did not tell the Indians to please move to Canada. We pushed them off their land by force or treaties which we then chose not to honor frequently, and we killed the rest. Then when they were 1% of the remaining population we gave them full rights. Of course, “Us Yanks” who did all that were large percentage you English people. You English should not lecture Jews or anyone else about imperialism or treatment of so-called native people.
If you love the Arabs and Muslims so much see how you love them when they are 30, 40 or 50% of your population.
“John O, you are amazingly immigrant”
At least my first language is English, though I am not.
As usual, you try first to appear reasonable and to see both sides of an argument – “Us Yanks did not tell the Indians to please move to Canada. We pushed them off their land by force or treaties which we then chose not to honor frequently, and we killed the rest … ” Then you descend into another racist rant – “If you love the Arabs and Muslims so much see how you love them when they are 30, 40 or 50% of your population.”