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, if I were the Gazans (but also a rational non-religious person like I am), I would have agreed to a peace treaty and basically sued for peace. I would have agreed not to stockpile rockets I only need to attack Israel. I would have focused on nation building and the economy and not worry about the West Bank for now, realizing this was a test of my good intentions. I would have suppressed anti-Jew propaganda in the media and the mosques. I would have done everything possible to convince Israel and the USA that the Palestinian people were ready to run a country that would eventually include the West Bank. There would have been no blockade.
I would know that the Jews were the only people I could trust in this manner because I already knew my fellow Arabs had ruthlessly killed or abused Palestinians in the past. I would also know military opposition was counter-productive.
JW Many thinking people care very much what happens in Cyprus. Efforts to resolve the deadlock are underway at this time.
YR Probably no deal with Israel can get done, if Israel does not retain some sort of control over Palestine’s border with Jordan.
JW: “YR, if I were the Gazans (but also a rational non-religious person like I am), I would have agreed to a peace treaty and basically sued for peace. ”
Again, utterly i.r.r.e.l.e.v.a.n.t. to the issue at hand.
James Canning is suggesting that the Palestinians agree to an arrangement that grants Israel absolute and total control over their borders.
He is therefore asking them to AGREE that they should allow themselves to be held hostage to Israel’s good graces in the hope that Israel will never use that authority to impose a siege on them.
Q: COULD Israel use that authority to impose a siege?
A: Yes. Indisputably, yes.
Q: WOULD Israel ever use that authority to impose a siege?
A: Gaza makes it is indisputable that Israel would have no moral qualms about that.
You can argue that the Gazans should never have done **this**, or they should now do **that**, or whatever, and that none of those arguments Alter The Fundamentals.
Which is this: James Canning is asking the Palestinians to believe that the Israelis would NOT impose a siege on them, and that is akin to asking them to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
JC: “YR Probably no deal with Israel can get done, if Israel does not retain some sort of control over Palestine’s border with Jordan.”
Then no deal will be struck, James.
The Palestinians can not possibly agree to an arrangement that grants Israel the authority to do to the West Bank what it is now doing to the Gaza Strip.
They can’t, precisely because they do not believe that the Israelis would be able to resist the temptation to impose just such a siege.
Even the present situation – as unbearable as it is – is better than that inevitable future.
Be honest James: if Israel controlled the border do you really believe that a future Prime Minister Bennett or Liberman would be able to resist the temptation to impose a siege?
YR, You asked me a question, perhaps rhetorically, what I would do if I were the Gazans. I gave you the answer. Now, you say it is irrelevant. No it is not, the Gazans absolutely do need to sign a peace treaty and sue for peace. They are going to have to trust the good will of the Israelis, just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had no choice but to trust the good will of the Allies who had complete control of their borders.
Hamas is the continuation of decades of attempted Jew extermination so Hamas to make the first step to justify its further existence.