Displaying posts published in

December 2017

Merkel Condemns Trump Decision on Jerusalem, Pushes Two-State Solution By Michael van der Galien

President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital and his announcement that he would move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to that city has not only sparked outrage in the Middle East, but also in Europe.

One European leader who has condemned Trump’s announcement is Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. Although you’d expect her to tread extremely carefully when talking about the Jewish nation-state — considering her country’s horrible record regarding the treatment of Jews — nothing could be further from the truth.

“The federal government doesn’t understand this decision because the status of Jerusalem must be negotiated within the framework of the two-state solution,” the Bundeskanzlerin said through her spokesman Steffen Seiber. That is why, she adds, the German government does not support Trump’s decision.

Her foreign secretary, Sigmar Gabriel, agrees with Merkel’s position. “I believe that it carries the risk that an already difficult situation in the Middle East and in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians will escalate even further,” he added to Merkel’s statement. He also complained that Trump’s announcement supposedly ignores the Palestinians’ interests and marks a 180-degree turn of the previous U.S. policy. “And that worries us,” Gabriel said. “We hope that this concern can be taken away, but this turnaround is already a big problem.”

“We all know the far-reaching impact this move would have,” Gabriel added. “Germany’s position on this issue remains unchanged: A solution to the Jerusalem problem can only be found through direct negotiations between both parties. Everything which worsens the crisis is counterproductive.”

Of course, both Merkel and Gabriel forgot to mention that the Palestinians haven’t given “peace a chance” for decades — not even when Israel was willing to make serious concessions when the United States still considered Tel Aviv Israel’s capital. It’s difficult to imagine what more they could do to undermine the peace process than purposefully blowing them up time and again.

EUROPE PICKS THE WRONG SIDE AGAIN MELANIE PHILLIPS

For years Israel has been blamed for standing in the way of peace with its Arab neighbours. When it rejected a “peace plan” by the the Saudi regime which would have brought about Israel’s destruction, it was excoriated for turning down a chance to end the Middle East conflict.

Now the new Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has proposed another peace plan. Unlike its predecessor, according to the New York Times, this one would enable the Palestinians and the Arab world to live in peace and harmony alongside the State of Israel. The century-old Arab war of extermination against Israel would end.

Prince Mohammed has told the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to accept this plan or he’s finished. The Palestinians have been screaming betrayal ever since to anyone who will listen.

Lo and behold, Europeans have a new bogeyman. Prince Mohammed is now being painted as a weak, useless dilettante and his plan is being opposed and rubbished in Europe. Why? Because this astonishing Saudi reversal (assuming these details are at least mostly true) is being driven by the Saudis’ need to prevent the Iranian regime from achieving the regional hegemony towards which they are steadily driving, and to do that the Saudis need both America and Israel to join the fight against their common enemy. And to that end, the Saudis are not prepared to allow the Palestinians to get in the way. They have become dispensable.

The Iranian regime oppresses its own people, is driven by deranged hatred of the Jews and states that its goal is to destroy Israel. The Palestinian regime oppresses its own people, is driven by a deranged hatred of the Jews and states (in Arabic) that its goal is to destroy Israel.

The Europeans support the Palestinians and do not see the Iranian regime as their enemy – even though it has been in a state of self-declared war against the west since it came to power in 1979 and is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Instead they are turning the Arab leader who is fighting their common enemy, and who may be prepared to make a historic peace with their ostensible ally, into a foe.

Go figure.

Thoughts on US Embassy Move to Jerusalem By Charles Lipson

“For people who say “all this sets back the peace process,” the short answer is “what peace process?“

Since Jerusalem is actually Israel’s capital and since it will continue to be so in any putative peace settlement, I don’t see how this blocks such a settlement.

The US Consulate–and future Embassy–are in WEST Jerusalem. Everyone (except people who believe in Israel’s annihilation) understand that West Jerusalem will be part of Israel forever. No voluntary peace settlement will change that.
There was no American statement that the embassy move prevents some part of Jerusalem from being a Palestinian capital, too.
I don’t like hecklers’ vetoes on campus and I don’t like rioters’ vetoeselsewhere. That threat was used to try and block the move. It failed. Good.
The Palestinians have not exactly proven themselves partners for peace since Oslo.
Until now, the US had not made them pay any price for their truculence.
Now, it has.
The only way there will ever being peace, IMO, is if Israel thinks it is absolutely secure against Palestinian threats and has firm US backing against such threats.
Obama’s strategy made the opposite assumption. It made US support for Israel and other allies more problematic, more contingent on following US directions, and, of course, more hectoring. US friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and across the region understood and adjusted–against the US.
Trump has fundamentally reversed that policy, not only in Israel but in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.
The only way many other Arab states will back off their rejectionist, maximalist demands to eliminate Israel is for them to be utterly convinced it is impossible and costly to continue.
Fundamentally, only Israeli military strength can convince them Israel will not be eliminated.
US support, including the moving of the embassy, shows that Israel cannot be completely isolated diplomatically. (Again, Obama’s moves against Israel raised question marks about diplomatic isolation.)
What will change the cost of Arab/Muslim/European opposition to Israel? Two calculations:
Fear of Iran, for states in the Middle East. They will edge toward alliance with other anti-Iranian states, of which Israel is the most powerful, the most technically sophisticated, and the most capable in its intelligence services.
Desire for trade with a growing, sophisticated, and technologically-innovative economy. It is called “start-up nation” for a reason. (The GDP per capita of once-poor Israel is now equal to Italy and about 20-30% below the wealthier European states. It is about 3.5x higher than Turkey, 7x higher than Iran, 10x higher than Jordan on a per capita basis.)