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.
JC: Then what you are describing is what the IDF is doing right now with respect to Gaza.
And you can’t see how that fate – on a much bigger scale and in perpetuity – might be a wee bit unappealing to the Palestinians?
Please, this isn’t a hypothetical – they only need to glance towards the Gaza Strip to see their fate under your “resolution”.
James Canning and Yeah Right both are wrong about the way to resolve the Israeli/Arab conflict. JC seems to be taking a position between mine and that of YR, but both do not offer realistic solutions because they refuse to place themselves in the position of the Israeli Jews. They also falsely equate the Arab people with the Europeans. There will need to be a fundamental change in the Arab people themselves. Look around the Arab world, it is not pretty and most of it has nothing to do with Jews or Israel.
YR suggests Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and some international force, NATO or the US Marines would be peacekeepers.
Good luck with that idea. As you both know, the UN has consistently failed to keep the peace in the Middle East, running away at the first sign of trouble. NATO peace keepers, when has that worked? Anyway, Israel is not going to trust European or Turkish troops. Even the US Marines is not fit for this duty. Look at Iraq for a perfect example. Soon enough the Marines would be targeted by Arab factions and would be withdrawn, just like they were pulled out of Lebanon when Hezbollah blew up their camp.
YR also blames Israel for Gaza. Sorry, that is 100% the fault of the Palestinians in general and the Hamas in specific. There was never an excuse for Gazans to launch military attacks on Israel, none. Even if Gazans felt the occupation of the West Bank was wrong, that does not justify attacking Israel. Anyway, Hamas believes all of Israel is illegal occupation.
If the Palestinians need protection, they can have it….in Jordan. The trend is moving toward a one state/ two state solution. One state west of the Jordan being Israel and one state east being Palestine/Jordan. Gaza right now is an unsolvable anomaly until Hamas is replaced by the Palestinian people themselves.
YR also writes: “It is not at all necessary for there to be a peace treaty in order for the sovereign state of Israel to recognize the sovereign state of Palestine. After all, no less than 139 states already recognize the state of Palestine, so it is axiomatic that not a one of them felt the need to see that Peace Treaty before offering that mutual recognition.” This is sophistry. None of those 139 states have been at war with Arabs or been subjected to countless terrorist attacks. It is easy for them to recognize Palestine (especially without saying what its borders would be). Israel could recognize a Basque state as well.
Second, Israel did recognize the PLO during the same 1990’s peace talks and offered to recognize a Palestinian state in Gaza and 98% of the West Bank and it was turned down.
Third, Israel could “recognize a Palestinian state” without recognizing where it will be.” But what would that accomplish? Even I recognize a Palestinian state, in Jordan.
Fourth, you keep assuming the sides are equal. They are not. Israel is a real state in existence since 1948. It exists by law and by fact. Palestine is not an existing state and never existed in the sense you mean. It does not exist by law or fact. Even if it existed by law through the fiat of the UN that still would not make it exist in fact. The only way it would ever exist in fact is if and when Israel feels secure enough to permit it to exist. That is the reality, deal with it.
The Palestinians are Arabs and the Arabs have more than 20 states already and 99% of the land in the middle east. Israel is the only state where the Jewish people have sovereignty. The needs of the two sides are not equal and the moral justifications are not equal.
YR calls the Palestinian “poor unfortunates.” No one is going to take him seriously spouting such utter nonsense. The Arabs deserve what has happened to them in the same way someone who smokes all their life “deserve” to die of cancer. Driven by their sense of superiority over the Jews for so many centuries the Arabs rejected peace in 1948 and for decades thereafter, and they started wars which they lost. Those who make their mission the destruction of the Jewish people deserve even more than the harsh treatment the Arabs have suffered. The Jewish people learned in the most painful way imaginable that weakness in the face of those who mean to kill you is suicidal.
YR, you are probably some English guy trying to atone for the centuries of sin inflicted by the English people on so many cultures. Stop projecting your own guilt on the Israelis. They are in their own homeland doing what they need to secure their survival. They are not half a world away colonizing other lands.
JW: “James Canning and Yeah Right both are wrong about the way to resolve the Israeli/Arab conflict”
Jeffrey, this is not an “Israeli/Arab conflict”.
It is a conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
If you can not even bring yourself to accept that then it is beyond chutzpah for you to be accusing anyone else of being unrealistic.
Syria and Lebanon are two Arab countries still technically at war with Israel so it is and has been an Israeli-Arab conflict. The Palestinians are part of the Arab people. The traditional Arab view was that all of Israel belongs to the Arab people. That later morphed into the concept of Palestinian people in 1964. Your lack of knowledge of history is just one part of the problem.
JW: “Syria and Lebanon are two Arab countries still technically at war with Israel so it is and has been an Israeli-Arab conflict.”
Ladies and gentlemen, our weasel-words of the day are “technically at war”, which is Jeffrey’s way of saying that he lives in a pre-1945 world.
Jeffrey, in the post-1945 world there is no such thing as “technically at war”, and more than there are “formal declarations of war” or “articles of surrender”.
There is only “armed conflict”, and that is an entirely fact-based concept i.e. you are either shooting (= “armed conflict”) or you ain’t (= “ceasefire”).
With that in mind….
Q: Is there “armed conflict” between Israel and Syria?
A: Nope.
Q: Is there “armed conflict” between Israel and Lebanon?
A: Nope.