While the specifics on what exactly he is proposing aren’t at all clear, President Trump surprised Israeli officials and press on Tuesday night with comments announcing that Israel is going to have to pay a “higher price” during peace talks in return for him moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem earlier this year.
When the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was announced, and followed by the embassy move, President Trump had suggested it was intended to remove the issue of the city’s status fro mthe talks. Now, he is promising the Palestinians will “get something very good” in return, “because it’s their turn next.” He did not elaborate.
This suggests Trump is trying to unilaterally dictate compromises between the two sides instead of negotiating those compromises between the two. Trump reiterated that the goal was to take Jerusalem “off the table” and that it should have been done years ago.
Whether Trump’s strategy is at all plausible remains to be seen. Israel was quite happy to get the US recognition and embassy, while the Palestinians were furious. In both cases, this was expected to be a unilateral US move, and not the early part of a very long “trade” whose details neither party was privy to.
The problem is, now that Trump says it is the Palestinians’ “turn,” he’s going to repeat a process that angered a lot of people the first time, conceding something of Israel’s to the Palestinians in a seemingly unilateral way, inevitably to anger Israel in the process.
While Trump could conceivably just keep making such announcements, there is no reason to think either side is ever going to be satisfied with the whole package, when neither side had any role in negotiating it. Moreover, the longer this goes on, the more reasons both sides will have to refuse to join US-led talks.
Israel has plenty of land it can cede to Palestine, making it happen is another problem.
That’s almost sensible… but we’ll see if he can successfully follow-through on imposing anything on Israel. If not, it’s just more big talk from a big buffoon.
What Trump did with Jerusalem worked because he had the position to do it unilaterally, that is to move the US Embassy and re-state the US position.
What he “gives” the Palestinians next, if anything, would have to be like that, or Israel can and would just refuse. It isn’t clear from this what that could possibly be.
For Trump to even say this is an astonishing thing, as there is no way that I can think of that the Zionists will be happy about it. This is the unthinkable in US politics, a shot across the bow of AIPAC and the Neocons.
This is the level of unpredictability that Trump has consistently demonstrated. Now we have to see what it means, what comes of it.
Look guys, you know I’m a Trump supporter, and I know that most of you are anti-Trumpers of various level of animus. Fine. But now let’s have a civil discussion, because this is such a radical act on Trump’s part, that it deserves a thoughtful treatment.
Could he land the marines in Gaza and use them to create a protective shield? Could he provide a US Navy presence offshore of Gaza to break the Israeli blockade? Could he propose a Palestinian homeland in the Upper Euphrates valley, now nominally under US “control”?
One thing is certain: in his “narcissism” he wants the recognition of being a successful (if not a “great”) president. And I have no doubt that he sees chopping up the Gordian Knot of the Israel/Palestine issue as a huuuugely great achievement, and achievement of “Trumpian” scale.
Or is it just bs, a sideshow to distract from the Russia nonsense, and a ploy to enhance the GOP’s fortunes in the upcoming mid-terms?
Dial down the animus and have at it.
“Could he land the marines in Gaza and use them to create a protective shield? Could he provide a US Navy presence offshore of Gaza to break the Israeli blockade?”
If he proposed to do either one, non-interventionists wouldn’t support him.
Non-intervention means non-intervention, not intervention on the side one approves of.