by Boaz Bismuth
ANALYSIS: The media was quick to pick up on the critical element of the White House's statement on the settlement enterprise, ignoring the historic wording which underscores that the U.S. does not see the settlements' existence as an obstacle to peace.
Construction in Givat Ze'ev,
near Jerusalem [Illustrative]
|
Photo credit: Reuters  |
Former U.S. President Barack Obama did not
stop the U.N. Security Council from passing Resolution 2334 just before
him term ended. The resolution declared that "the establishment by
Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967,
including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a
flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the
achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace." The main thing was that Obama insisted he was a
"friend." The main thing was that Obama was committed to peace.
He was so nice to us that he even sent his
secretary of state, John Kerry, to speak on camera against Israel for an
hour, proving [trying to prove] that the settlements were the root of the trouble and the
cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- the settlements, not
religion, and not the Palestinians' lack of recognition of the other or
their ongoing refusal to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist.
On Thursday evening, it was the media that
thought that new U.S. President Donald Trump had adopted his
predecessor's attitude after the White House put out an announcement
saying that the president had not yet put together an official policy on
the settlements, but that the administration believed "the construction
of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond
their current borders may not be helpful" in achieving peace.
Obviously, this line immediately garnered
headlines. Everyone in the media was quick to jump on the critical part
of the announcement, which wasn't even aimed at the settlement
enterprise itself, but at the intent to build a new settlement in place
of Amona. The
line of "condemnation" led people to decide that Trump was turning out
to be Obama's twin, and actually opposed the settlements. Some even see
the new administration headed for a crash course with Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, even before the two leaders meet later this month.
Oh, come on. After a war between Israel and Mexico was declared (in the
media), we can expand it to include all of North America.
But in fact, the announcement refers to the
expansion of existing settlements and the construction of new ones, not
construction itself. If you think about it for a minute, you'll realize
the complexity of the statement and the significant coup for Israel it
comprises: this is the first time that the White House has openly
declared that the settlements themselves are not an "obstacle to peace."
He's barely been in the White House two weeks, and Trump is already
giving us a huge present in the form of a historic declaration -- the
polar opposite of Obama, Kerry, and of course their parting gift to us
in the U.N. Security Council.
So the American statement could be a historic
moment, maybe even a defining one: Even former President George W. Bush,
who in his famous letter said that the prospect of evacuating the
settlement blocs was an unrealistic one, never said that the U.S. does
not "believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace." So
Trump has shrewdly managed to slip in a historic declaration while
calming things down with the Palestinians, who are afraid he intends to
giver Israel a free hand.
There's more: Note that the supposed
"condemnations" didn't come during a press briefing, but rather in a
laconic statement published on the White House website shortly after
King Abdullah of Jordan's visit there.
We need to look at the American statement in a
historical context. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has
kept tabs on the U.S. administrations of the past 50 years, none of
which -- Republican or Democrat -- was in favor of new settlements. The
position certainly won't surprise anyone who has followed the Senate
confirmation hearings for Trump's senior appointments, including Nikki
Haley as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., James Mattis as defense secretary,
and Rex Tillerson as secretary of state. In those hearings, one could
definitely see that the Trump administration supported Israel and was
not ruling out legitimizing the settlements, but at the same time would
not go out of its way to encourage the Israelis to take controversial
steps. Just like Trump is not as of now going out of his way to move the
U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or change the birthplace
appearing on U.S. passports of citizens born in Jerusalem to read
"Israel" (a matter that, you will recall, reached the Supreme Court,
which ruled that the American president was the only one with the
authority to decide what would appear in that section of the passports).
The rush to draw conclusions from the White
House announcement only shows how hard a time the American and
international media are having reading and understanding the new
president. The way the administration sees it, Trump -- a businessman
through and through -- shouldn't tip his hand on problematic issues,
such as the Middle East. On issues like immigration, the Affordable Care
Act, and regulation, we can assume that he will do exactly what he
promised to do. We've already seen a long line of presidents who came
ready to solve the Middle East conflicts, only to leave the White House
in poor relations with one or both of the sides involved.
Since he was sworn in, Trump has consistently
refused to condemn the Israeli announcements that thousands of new
housing units would be built in Judea and Samaria. At White House press
briefings, journalists have tried in vain to get White House spokesman
Sean Spicer to speak out against the Israeli construction notifications,
but he refused to go along with the media, saying that the sides
involved would discuss the matter during Netanyahu's upcoming visit to
Washington. Imagine for a moment how the administration in the time of
Obama or Hillary Clinton, if she had been elected, would respond to the
Israeli government announcing that it would build 3,000 housing units
beyond the Green Line.
As we've said, Trump is willing to accept
construction within already-existing settlements, but he's having a
harder time with open, controversial moves. This is why his
administration made it clear that new construction beyond the borders of
existing settlements "may not be helpful." For those who didn't notice,
Tillerson also used the phrase "not helpful" when he attacked the
Security Council for its anti-settlement resolution. The last thing
Trump wants is new settlements as the embassy is being moved, for
example, or as the Iranian arena heats up, as it's doing.
Not only Iran: President Trump knows that the
Sunni Gulf states are evaluating him too, and he wants to send the
message that the old U.S. approach on Iran is no longer. The U.S. will
no longer let the Islamic Republic slide. He is willing to put his money
where his mouth is, even if it means making announcements meant to
constrain Israel. But it's a symbolic cost that even Israel will be
willing to accept if it wipes the smirk off Iran's face and sends it
back to its corner.
So even if Trump supports the Israeli strategy
and the U.S. is fully in line with the settlements "not being an
obstacle to peace," he prefers from a tactical point of view to avoid
unusual steps, since they don't serve his purpose at the moment.
Trump is sending Israel another clear message:
Don't surprise me. I might be pro-Israel, but I also want to make a
deal between you and your neighbors, some of whom (the moderate Sunni
bloc) aren't my enemies. The base for a good deal with the Palestinians
is them recognizing that Israel and Trump are in sync.
The conclusion is that despite the perceptions
and portrayals in the media, Trump isn't cut off from the world. He
needs to take into account the moderate Sunni axis, the struggle against
Iran, and also how to soften his pro-Israeli statements. Do you
remember the recent dispute on the Israeli Right about annexing Maaleh
Adumim? Could Trump and Netanyahu already be in step on that?
Boaz Bismuth
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=40119
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment