Trump Comes to Israel Citing a Palestinian Deal as Crucial
Source: New York Times
JERUSALEM — President Trump began a two-day visit to Israel on Monday with a blunt assessment for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: If Israel really wants peace with its Arab neighbors, the cost will be resolving the generations-old standoff with the Palestinians.
For years, Mr. Netanyahu has sought to recalibrate relations with Sunni Arab nations in a mutual bid to counter Shiite-led Iran, while subordinating the Palestinian dispute as a secondary issue. But as Mr. Trump arrived in Jerusalem after meetings in Saudi Arabia, the president indicated that he and those Arab states see an agreement with the Palestinians as integral to that new regional alignment.
“On those issues, there is a strong consensus among the nations of the world — including many in the Muslim world,” Mr. Trump said. “I was deeply encouraged by my conversations with Muslim world leaders in Saudi Arabia, including King Salman, who I spoke to at great length. King Salman feels very strongly and, I can tell you, would love to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians.”
Mr. Trump added that line to the remarks prepared for him, in effect tying the future of the anti-Iran coalition to the Palestinian issue despite Mr. Netanyahu’s longtime efforts to unlink the two. “There is a growing realization among your Arab neighbors that they have common cause with you in the threat posed by Iran, and it is indeed a threat, there’s no question about that,” Mr. Trump said.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-israel-visit.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The front page title was, "Trump Pushes Israel to Make Palestinian Deal a Priority"
Not sure what to make of that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
C_U_L8R
(49,134 posts)The orb taught him nothing
forgotmylogin
(7,945 posts)"Okay, we're going to make Eggs Benedict. Step one. Call room service and order Eggs Benedict..."
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)I read the article. Thank you for the link. Alliances are shifting, and the timing is right. I would rather DT not get the credit, if it is even possible.
Israel needs protection, but broaching the subject, however inarticulately, is good.
Wouldn't it be something if that was his accomplishment, and then he goes to prison.
karynnj
(60,834 posts)It has always been pretty clear that there is a very narrow range for each parameter that must be in the deal. Nothing he says here was not said at one time or another by almost every President and Secretary of State since Carter. They and their diplomats all spoke of how it would happen whenever the status quo becomes worse than a deal on both sides. On I/P, the biggest problem is that with the status quo, Israel, though suffering from Palestinian attacks has actually moved the facts on the ground in their favor. The Palestinians have long concluded that time is on their side because they consider they will become the majority before the country is split into 2 pieces.
Given that Netanyahu now heads the most far right coalition Israel would ever have, I suspect that he would need to completely change his cabinet, pulling in one or more moderate parties and kicking out the far right settlers' party. In leaks that came late last year, there was the potential for that in early 2016 when there were secret negotiations and it was Netanyahu who got cold feet. It might be that Netanyahu emotionally could not really be the man who agrees to give up parts of what he calls Judea and Samaria. ( However, he may eventually be seen as the leader without the vision to see that a democratic Jewish state required having the courage to do that.)
On the Palestinian side, the first question is whether they have a leader with the ability to negotiate for all the Palestinians. That is a pretty big problem - in addition to the actual details to be negotiated. It may also be that any window of opportunity really has closed and the concept of a two state solution, that liberals have supported for decades, is becoming just a mirage to hide that Israel is becoming defacto one state.
What I see is that the biggest unifying force in Trump's push in both Saudi Arabia and Israel is to lead both against Iran, which Israel, Saudi Arabia and Trump are all blaming as the biggest <state> sponsor of terrorism. In fact, both Al Qaeda and ISIS are Sunni and they have been behind more terrorism in the Middle East and in the rest of the world. This is not to say that Iran's support of Hezbollah is acceptable - it isn't - just that there is more Sunni terrorism.
IMO Trump is jumping in, with both feet, to a Shia/Sunni battle. This is the ultimate neocon dream. The US has long sided with the Sunni nations, but Obama halted the sales of precision weapons because Saudi Arabia was using them in Yemen and the US was completely unable to stop them from attacking civilians. Part of it might be a ploy to claim that all his "changes" were the reason that they reclaimed all the land that ISIS controlled rather than the fact that they are essentially continuing the careful, slow effort that Obama's coalition of 68 countries started.
What is confusing is that these steps put Trump completely against Putin - because Iran is Russia's and Syria's ally. I seriously can not figure out where this leaves him on the confusing Syria mess.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)
no_hypocrisy
(54,588 posts)How is Trump going to effect peace with that impediment?
