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: “YR also blames Israel for Gaza. Sorry, that is 100% the fault of the Palestinians in general and the Hamas in specific. ”
Much as it is always heartwarming to see Jeffrey play his “let’s blame the victim” shtick, he doesn’t actually address my point i.e. the Palestinians in the West Bank look towards Gaza and see what Israel has done – and continues to do – in a territory where Israel and Israel alone controls the border.
They see that, and they must ask themselves “Well, if Israel doesn’t hesitate to do that to Gaza then it won’t hesitate to do that here too”.
Leaving the IDF in total control of the borders of a Palestinian state would be a non-starter for them, and rightly so, and IT WOULDN’T MATTER TO THEM if (as Jeffrey suggests) Israeli soldiers did their patented “shoot and cry” routine.
It’s the “shooting” bit that would concern the Palestinians, not the “crying” bit.
Y,R I think it would actually be in the best interests of Palestine, for Palestine to be a place largely free of weapons. Keeping IDF out obviously would be highly desirable. Regrettable Israeli attacks on Gaza to some extent arise from provocations that would ideally not have taken place.
JW The UN has done a fine job in Cyprus, keeping the peace, for 4 decades.
James, you are wasting your time with YR. You are soft-selling the horrible conduct of the Gazans. Russia, England or the USA would have leveled Gaza by now. If Mexico attacked the USA repeatedly because of the “bad treatment” of Mexicans in the USA, we would have dealt very harshly with Mexico.
As for the UN, it has been an utter failure in the Israeli-Arab conflicts and currently the UN is more involved in supporting Hamas in Gaza than any peacekeeping. There is no chance Israel would ever put its fate in the hands of the terribly biased UN. By the way, Cyprus is still occupied but no one cares because no Jews involved in that dispute or the many other existing occupations around the world.
JW: “James, you are wasting your time with YR. You are soft-selling the horrible conduct of the Gazans.”
All rather irrelevant to THIS issue, Jeffrey.
The issue here is wether it would make any sense for the Palestinians to agree that the Israelis should have sole control over the borders of a Palestinian state.
Follow this simple Q&A
Q: Would the Israelis see that as granting them the authority to impose a siege?
A: That is indisputable, just look at Gaza.
Q: But the Gazans deserve what they are getting, don’t they?
A: Irrelevant. ISRAEL insists on being the sole arbiter of who “deserves” to be besieged, Palestinians will have no say in the matter and no avenue of appeal.
QED: Israel’s current attitude towards Gaza means that the Palestinians can not possibly agree to the Israelis having such authority over the borders.
It reduces the Palestinians to medieval serfs, precisely because Israel has ALREADY shown that it has no hesitation in using that authority in the manner befitting a medieval warlord.
Get this concept through your skull: if the Palestinians thought that the Israelis would *never* use such an authority to impose a siege on them then, maybe, juuuust maybe, they would consider agreeing to the Israelis keeping control over all the borders into the indefinite future.
But facts have already shown that this is hopelessly naïve view of Israel’s moral position on this issue.
The Palestinians know – as an indisputable, undeniable fact – that the Israelis have no hesitation whatsoever about imposing just such a siege, because that’s exactly what they have imposed on the Gaza Strip.
It is irrelevant wether – or not – the Gazans are Getting What They Deserve, precisely because Israel alone insists on making that decision and are utterly impervious to anyone who argues otherwise.
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?