Arriving in Israel on 22
May, Donald Trump told the Israeli President that he’d ‘just got back from the
Middle East’. Not the most geographically informed start to the visit but from
then on it was all schmooze, to the obvious delight of Trump’s hosts.
Remarkably, Trump gave his twitter fingers a well-deserved rest and stayed on
script. This might have been welcome except for the script itself. It appeared
to include nothing of consequence – so even Trump’s critics acknowledged that
as he had nothing to say he said it well. As Trump settled back into the White
House, Saudi Arabia and Qatar – both important to US strategic interests in the
Middle East – resumed their spiteful relationship.
For a President who has spoken of Israeli-Palestinian peace as the ‘ultimate deal’ to finish the ‘war that never ends’ what was truly remarkable about Trump’s two-day sojourn in Israel was the public absence of any pointer as to how his administration plans to put that deal together. Nothing about Palestinian statehood – or the alternatives, nothing about Israeli settlements, nothing about borders and capitals, nothing about mutual security, nothing about Palestinian refugees. These issues are critical to any deal yet there was not the faintest hint of how the Trump administration might approach them. In the words of one Israeli commentator, Trump offered Israelis a diet consisting almost entirely of sugar and sweets.
For a President who has spoken of Israeli-Palestinian peace as the ‘ultimate deal’ to finish the ‘war that never ends’ what was truly remarkable about Trump’s two-day sojourn in Israel was the public absence of any pointer as to how his administration plans to put that deal together. Nothing about Palestinian statehood – or the alternatives, nothing about Israeli settlements, nothing about borders and capitals, nothing about mutual security, nothing about Palestinian refugees. These issues are critical to any deal yet there was not the faintest hint of how the Trump administration might approach them. In the words of one Israeli commentator, Trump offered Israelis a diet consisting almost entirely of sugar and sweets.
Some of the saccharine
quickly rubbed off when, on 1 June, Trump broke an election promise and signed
a presidential
waiver delaying the move of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem. Reaction from Israeli and Palestinian leaders was predictable, one
Zionist Union MP describing Trump as a ‘false Messiah’. But US Presidents have
signed the waiver every six month since 1998 and the fact that Trump broke a
pre-election undertaking surprised no-one. The White House said the waiver was
a ‘decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between
Israel and the Palestinians’. It’s a card to be dealt much later in any
negotiating process.
Media reports have
suggested the US is mulling over a ‘Principles
Paper to restart negotiations. We might ask what new principles are
left to be discovered? The elements of a resolution go back to the much
maligned (sometimes unfairly) 1993
Declaration of Principles. In late 2016, then US Secretary of
State’s, John Kerry, unveiled the six
principles which he said had to underlie a renewed search for peace based
on a two-state solution.
Perhaps these familiar
principles are now old hat. During Netanyahu’s visit to Washington last
February, Trump
declared that
the US ‘will encourage peace and really a great peace deal … But it is the
parties themselves who must directly negotiate such an agreement. To be honest,
if Bibi [Netanyahu] and the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are
happy – I’m happy with the one they like the best.’
Trump’s happiness is irrelevant. It is delusional to think that
the Palestinians will give up on a state of their own, or that Israelis will
accept a one-state solution in which, over time, Jews might become a minority.
Barely had Trump settled
back into the White House than Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain broke
off diplomatic relations with Qatar. There is a long history of antagonism
between the Saudis and Qataris, based on Qatar’s support for the Muslim
Brotherhood, its funding of Al-Jazeera and its less than openly hostile
relationship with Iran. The ostensible reason for the break was Qatar’s support
for ‘terrorism’, quite ironic given Saudi Arabia’s record of support for
extremist Islamic thinking.
But with his tweeting
fingers back on normal duty Trump
wrote with
usual modesty and understatement:
So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off … They said they would take a hard line on funding … Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!
We’ve
yet to see Trump’s analysis of the possible effect on the operation of al-Udeid
air base in Qatar, home to the US military’s Central Command and about 10,000
American troops. Vladimir Putin will be watching with interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment