Displaying posts categorized under

FOREIGN POLICY

FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL Comments turned off

U.S. Drops Insistence on Two-State Solution to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Trump administration’s policy shift comes on the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House By Felicia Schwartz*****

By on February 15th, 2017

WASHINGTON—The White House said Tuesday that finding a solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians doesn’t have to include an agreement to establish two separate states, marking a dramatic break from decades of U.S. policy.

On the eve of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House to meet President Donald Trump, a senior administration official said the Israelis and Palestinians have to agree on what form peace between their countries will take—and that didn’t necessarily include two states.

“A two-state solution that doesn’t bring peace is not a goal that anybody wants to achieve,” the official said. “Peace is the goal, whether it comes in the form of a two-state solution if that’s what the parties want or something else, if that’s what the parties want, we’re going to help them.”
Two states for two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, has been the official U.S. policy of Democratic and Republican administrations for decades, and was the tenet guiding historic talks at Oslo and Camp David. Most governments and world bodies back that principle as well and it had been embraced by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started meetings with U.S. officials in Washington, ahead of a critical summit with President Donald Trump on Wednesday. Mr. Netanyahu said he expected the pair would “see eye-to-eye on the dangers emanating from the region.” Photo: AP

The U.S. historically has said it supports direct negotiations between the two sides that would end in a two-state solution. Toward that end, Washington has opposed Israeli construction of settlements in the Palestinian territories.

A spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the White House message, noting that Israel would wait for the meeting between Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu later Wednesday for more clarity on the U.S.’s approach to the conflict.

A spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

The comments from the White House create a dilemma for the Israeli prime minister. Mr. Netanyahu has officially advocated for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since a landmark speech in 2009, but in practice he has continued to approve settlements that the international community believes undermine that goal.CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Beyond the Failed “Two-State Solution” by Guy Millière *****

By on February 14th, 2017

“No one should be telling Israel that it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away… When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one… There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, March 21, 2016.

Many Western leaders behave as if they genuinely want the destruction of Israel and the murder of Israeli Jews. They have Jewish blood on their hands and many skeletons in their closet.

In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO leader, said bluntly that the Palestinian people were invented for political purposes.

During the British Mandate (1922-1948) the Arabs never used the word “Palestine,” and called the area a “province of Damascus”.

For 19 years (1948-1967), the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, and Judea and Samaria were occupied by Jordan. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never said that Egypt and Jordan were “occupying powers,” and never described the Gaza Strip and Judea-Samaria as “Palestinian”.

The failed two-state model could be replaced by alternative solutions requiring the dismantling of Palestinian Authority and its replacement by something infinitely better for Israel and the Arab population of the area.

The “peace conference” held in Paris on January 15, 2017 was supposed to be a continuation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (voted on December 23, 2016), and John Kerry’s speech five days later. It was supposed to isolate Israel even further and provide a new step towards the declaration of a “Palestinian State”. It was a total washout. The final declaration, prepared in advance, was not ratified, and the resolution published at the end was so watered down it was meaningless. The United Kingdom’s representatives refused to sign it. US Secretary of State John Kerry chose to remain silent. French President François Hollande delivered a speech full of empty words, praising resolution 2334 and desperately stressing the need to “save the two-state solution”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the conference as the “death throes of yesterday’s world”. He may be right.

The Obama years are gone. The Trump years will be different. US President Donald J. Trump stated on March 21, 2016:

“No one should be telling Israel that it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away… When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one… There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists.”

The Republican Party platform adopted on July 12, 2016 went in the same direction, clearly stated an opposition to “any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms”, and called for “the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so”. It added that the Republican Party is “proud to stand with Israel now and always”. It did not refer to the “two-state solution”.

One of Donald Trump’s first decisions was the appointment of David Friedman as US Ambassador to Israel. Friedman has said often that he wanted the US Embassy in Israel to be located in Jerusalem, and regarded the two-state solution as a “dangerous illusion.”

The two-state solution is much worse than a dangerous illusion. It places on the same level a democratic state and a rogue entity that glorifies terrorism and uses its media and schoolbooks to incite hatred and the murder of Jews. The two-state solution does not demand that the Palestinian Authority (PA) change its behavior; it therefore endorses what the PA does.

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL Comments turned off

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu Prepares for High-Stakes Talks With Trump U.S. and Israeli leaders may be on a collision course after their early efforts to foreshadow warmer relations By Rory Jones and Carol E. Lee

By on February 14th, 2017

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began meetings in Washington Tuesday ahead of a critical summit with President Donald Trump that officials in both countries hope will clarify the new U.S. administration’s policies in the Middle East.

Mr. Trump made lofty promises during his campaign, such as pledging to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem if he were elected, a move that would effectively recognize Israel’s claim to the holy city as its capital. Relations are ripe for a reset after eight years of tensions with the former administration over settlements and the deal with Iran to restrain its nuclear program.

Yet as Mr. Trump tempers some of his campaign positions that were cheered by Mr. Netanyahu, the Israeli leader heads into their White House meeting on Wednesday under pressure from hard-liners at home to abandon his commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a solution the U.S. has long advocated.

The dynamic complicates efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and potentially sets the U.S. and Israeli leaders on a collision course after their early efforts to foreshadow new, warmer relations between the two countries.

“I think both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have a very big stake in wanting to demonstrate that whatever the problems were with the last administration, they’re now gone,” said Dennis Ross, a veteran U.S. diplomat in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

Mr. Trump has now put off moving the embassy from Tel Aviv and said settlements could hamper efforts to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, telling an Israeli news outlet last week that they “don’t help the process.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

What Social Epidemiology Means for Foreign Policy By Herbert London

By on February 14th, 2017

If one relies on Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America, the great strength of the U.S. in the nineteenth century was its mediating structures that maintained social equilibrium. By that, Tocqueville meant the family, the church, the schools and the associations – institutions that created coherence and solidarity without reliance on government.

However, a different America has emerged. As books like Charles Murray’s Coming Apart and Yuval Levin’s The Fractured Republic indicate, America is facing disequilibrium due to a host of harmful social trends.

The family is in disarray with the percentage of children living at home with two married parents in their first marriage going from 73 percent in 1960 to 46 percent in 2014. Illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed among most groups with 72 percent of Afro-American children born without fathers in the home. Labor force participation rates have sunk to levels last seen during the Great Depression.

The garment of social bonds is gossamer thin. Community volunteer activity is in decline and organizations like Rotary and the Lions Club are filled with aging participants. Mainline Protestant churches are devoted to a left wing social justice agenda, but lack a devotion to religious principles. Popular culture has been debased by vulgar and common-place boorishness. Fewer Americans believe in God than ever before and manners and morals have been buried beneath the tide of tolerance.

While some of these trends are worldwide the U.S. is still considered the “trendsetter.” As a consequence, nations view with interest the ability of the U.S. to overcome these new social contingencies in order to deal with the demands and expectations of foreign policy. For example, can the U.S. mobilize a fighting force large enough and committed to the sacrifice militaries in the past have exhibited? Or have Americans grown soft and uninterested in foreign commitments?

Chinese leaders are perplexed by conditions in the United States. There is the widespread belief that the cultural advantage the U.S. had is on the wane, but they are mystified by the rapidity of the change. Vladimir Putin believes – to the extent his beliefs are discernible – that the U.S. desire to withdraw from foreign commitments offers an opportunity for the enhancement of Russian interests, i.e. the restoration of empire. Iranian leaders are persuaded the U.S. under former president Obama’s guidance will do whatever it can to maintain the flawed and one-sided deal so that former President Obama can contend he avoided a war with the putative representative of the Shia people.

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL Comments turned off

Bravo to Ambassador Haley, for Blocking UN Ploy on ‘Palestine’ By Claudia Rosett

By on February 13th, 2017

On Thursday United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres sent the Security Council a letter nominating as the new head of the UN’s mission to Libya a former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad — who was described in the letter as “Salam Fayyad (Palestine).”

America’s new ambassador, Nikki Haley, said no. Having thus blocked Fayyad’s appointment, Haley then put out a statement explaining why:

For too long the UN has been unfairly biased in favor of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of our allies in Israel. The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations, however, we encourage the two sides to come together directly on a solution. Going forward the United States will act, not just talk, in support of our allies.

Haley’s statement is important not only for its broad message — that President Trump’s administration will steer by his pledges of support to Israel — but also for calling out Guterres on his not-so-subtle attempt to abet the UN’s long push to confer by increments on the Palestinian Authority a legitimacy it has not earned.

The UN spokesman’s office responded by Haley’s objection by sending out a statement that:

The proposal for Salam Fayyad to serve as the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Libya was solely based on Mr. Fayyad’s recognized personal qualities and his competence for that position.

United Nations staff serve strictly in their personal capacity. They do not represent any government or country.

This UN claim is disingenuous in the extreme, as the UN spokesman’s office itself then underscored, in the rest of the same statement quoted just above, by saying:

The Secretary-General reiterates his pledge to recruit qualified individuals, respecting regional diversity, and notes that, among others no Israeli and no Palestinian have served in a post of high responsibility at the United Nations. This is a situation that the Secretary-General feels should be corrected, always based on personal merit and competencies of potential candidates for specific posts.

In other words, Secretary-General Guterres, while disavowing any interest in the origins or potential loyalties of any candidate for a UN post, is simultaneously claiming a special interest in appointing — specifically — Israelis and Palestinians. And — lo and behold — Guterres just happens to have kicked off this erstwhile neutral campaign by nominating to a high-level post not an Israeli, but a Palestinian. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Trump’s Winning Asia Diplomacy Promising signs from a call with Xi Jinping and golf with Shinzo Abe.

By on February 13th, 2017

President Trump has had a busy few days of Asia diplomacy, including his first post-inauguration phone call with China’s Xi Jinping on Thursday, a White House summit with Japan’s Shinzo Abe on Friday and 27 holes of golf with Mr. Abe on Saturday, followed by a joint press conference on North Korea’s latest missile launch. Unlike some of his earlier encounters with foreign leaders, this round demonstrated sobriety, careful planning and respect for allies.

The news out of the Xi call is that Mr. Trump affirmed the longstanding U.S. “One China policy” concerning Taiwan, which he previously said would be “under negotiation” with Beijing along with trade and other issues. Some of our friends in the media have portrayed this as evidence that the U.S. President is a “paper tiger,” citing Chinese officials who say Mr. Xi refused to speak with Mr. Trump until he softened his stance. But the substance of Mr. Trump’s shift isn’t surprising or dramatic.

Rather than embrace Beijing’s “One China principle,” which insists that Taiwan is part of China, Mr. Trump only endorsed the U.S. policy of acknowledging a Beijing-Taipei disagreement over Taiwan’s status, reserving U.S. judgment on the issue and calling for the peaceful settlement of disputes with the consent of Taiwan’s people. As has been true for decades, this amounts to little more than agreeing to disagree. It certainly doesn’t stop the U.S. from supporting Taiwan with means other than official recognition as an independent state.

Nor does it stop Mr. Trump from building on his December phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen by boosting economic, diplomatic and military ties with the island. On the contrary, by signaling that he won’t risk a destabilizing clash with Beijing over a matter as sensitive as Taiwan’s independence, Mr. Trump will now be able to secure more support for a cautious but still expanded Taiwan agenda from leaders in Taipei, Tokyo and other friendly capitals.

Which brings us to Mr. Trump’s strikingly friendly summit with Mr. Abe, a display surely not lost on Chinese leaders who rightly identify the Japanese Prime Minister as a devoted opponent of their ambitions to dominate Asia. “We have a very, very good bond—very, very good chemistry,” Mr. Trump gushed at a joint press conference. “When I greeted him at the car, I shook hands, but I grabbed him and hugged him because that’s the way we feel.” This is a turnaround from Mr. Trump’s campaign-trail criticisms of Japan as a freeloading ally.

“We’re committed to the security of Japan,” Mr. Trump declared. He also echoed his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, in reaffirming that the U.S.-Japan security treaty covers the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands that China has swarmed with civilian and paramilitary ships in recent years. On trade, a potential sore point with Mr. Trump even in the best of circumstances, the two leaders punted to a bilateral working group to be led by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso.

North Korea helped underscore the stakes of U.S.-Japan cooperation Saturday by shooting a Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, its first test on Mr. Trump’s watch. Though not the intercontinental missile launch Pyongyang has promised, this was a reminder that its nuclear program is advancing on many fronts. Mr. Trump, fresh off the golf course and a candlelight dinner with Mr. Abe and their wives, offered a brief statement: “The United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100%.” Hear, hear.

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Trump’s New Start With Russia May Prove Better Than Obama’s The new president’s reported disdain for his predecessor’s arms deal is an encouraging sign.By John Bolton

By on February 13th, 2017

Media tittle-tattle about President Trump’s telephone calls with foreign counterparts received new fuel last week after details leaked of a conversation with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. The usual anonymous sources alleged that when Mr. Putin raised the 2010 New Start arms-control treaty, Mr. Trump asked his aides what it covered—and then, once briefed, declared it to be one of those bad Obama deals he planned to renegotiate.

If so, Mr. Trump got the treaty right. From America’s perspective, New Start is an execrable deal, a product of Cold War nostrums about reducing nuclear tensions. Arms-control treaties, properly conceived and drafted, should look like George W. Bush’s 2002 Treaty of Moscow: short (three pages), with broad exit ramps and sunset provisions.

Although President Obama had considerable help from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in this diplomatic failure, Russia was hardly blameless. Moscow subsequently exploited the treaty’s weaknesses to rebuild and modernize its arsenal of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, while Mr. Obama stood idly by. Republican senators opposed New Start’s ratification, 26-13 (three of them didn’t vote), as did 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Mr. Trump’s remarks are therefore squarely in the party’s mainstream.

Not so, however, are some of Mr. Trump’s comments—or at least the inferences drawn from them—on Mr. Putin’s political and military adventurism in Europe. Many Republicans worry that, rather than strengthening the international economic sanctions imposed on Russia for its belligerent incursions into eastern Ukraine and its 2014 annexation of Crimea, Mr. Trump may reduce or rescind sanctions entirely.

This apparent difference is no small matter. Legislation to codify the existing sanctions is pending in Congress. It has overwhelming—most analysts think veto-proof—bipartisan support. Commentators wonder whether the remarkable Republican solidarity on Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominations might be shattered if Russia policy is the first area in which the new administration faces off with the Republican congressional majorities.

The sanctions on Russia for its interference in Ukraine are already under assault in Europe: Germany, France and others appear close to succumbing to their apparently hard-wired inclination to sacrifice geostrategic imperatives for economic ones. Elections across the Continent this year may produce results even more favorable to Moscow (possibly, in part, because of Russian meddling). By contrast, the Baltic republics and other NATO members in Eastern and Central Europe are alarmed that Russia’s adventurism would increase if its Ukraine aggression were brushed aside and sanctions lifted.

Yet amid the breathless press accounts about Mr. Trump’s purported fancy for Mr. Putin, one thing is clear: The Trump administration’s policy toward, and even its strategic assessment of, Russia is still under construction. Most important, if the substance of Mr. Trump’s comments on New Start was accurately reported, it shows him resisting items on Mr. Putin’s wish list, and not for the first time.

Mr. Trump has, for example, unequivocally opposed Mr. Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. On Feb. 1, National Security Adviser Mike Flynn put Iran “on notice” that the deal was on life support. New U.S. sanctions against Iran underlined the point. The White House is reportedly considering listing Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, which should have been done decades ago. Such a move would have a significant political and economic effect on Moscow’s military-industrial complex, particularly Rosoboronexport, its international arms-sales agency.

Washington should be also push back against Russia’s inserting itself militarily and politically into the Middle East by using the Syria conflict as a wedge. While Ukraine may seem an unrelated issue, it is not. Moscow’s diplomatic efforts to “solve” the Syrian conflict are in substantial part an effort to “help” Europe with the Syrian refugee problem, providing yet another inducement to wobbly Europeans to roll back sanctions. Any perceived American weakness on the sanctions would embolden Russian efforts to further penetrate the Middle East, increasing the dangerous, destabilizing effects of Moscow’s tacit alliance with Iran. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

U.K. Defense Chief, Following Prime Minister, Praises Trump Approach Michael Fallon said Trump has likely galvanized U.S. and U.K. efforts to strengthen NATO By Ben Kesling

By on February 12th, 2017

ERBIL, Iraq—U.K. Defense Minister Michael Fallon said Saturday that the British-American defense partnership has never been stronger and that President Donald Trump has likely galvanized the two countries’ efforts to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to push allies to contribute more to mutual defense.

Mr. Fallon, who is scheduled to speak with U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis next week, said in an interview that the longstanding defense alliance between the U.S. and U.K. hasn’t been affected by turmoil within the U.S. or internationally following Mr. Trump’s election.

Mr. Fallon became the most recent U.K. official to offer public support for Mr. Trump’s administration, despite widespread concern among Britons over a broad range of domestic and foreign stances. British Prime Minister Theresa May drew criticism at home after she invited Mr. Trump to visit London, extending the offer during her January visit to Washington.

Mr. Fallon said during a trip to the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Erbil that the U.S. and U.K. agree that NATO partners must do more to contribute to the alliance. Mr. Fallon was due to visit British troops training Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

“The president’s remarks have clearly turbocharged that process,” Mr. Fallon said of the push for increased defense commitments. “If President Trump has galvanized the alliance, then we’re in his debt.”

Mr. Fallon said, in particular, the historically strong relationship between the two countries continues to this day.

“The British-American defense partnership is the deepest, strongest defense partnership anywhere in the world,” Mr. Fallon said. “It was the British prime minister who was the first foreign leader into the White House. And defense and security were right at the top of the agenda. Indeed, it was our prime minister who confirmed the United States’ 100% commitment to NATO.”

When asked if Mr. Trump has caused consternation in the British defense firmament, he said that is in no way the case.

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

A beautiful friendship by Caroline Glick

By on February 11th, 2017

Less than a week after he was inaugurated into office, President Donald Trump announced that he had repaired the US’s fractured ties with Israel. “It got repaired as soon as I took the oath of office,” he said.

Not only does Israel now enjoy warm relations with the White House. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives in the US capital next week, he will be greeted by the most supportive political climate Israel has ever seen in Washington.

It is true that dangers to Israel’s ties with America lurk in the background. The radical Left is taking control of the Democratic Party.But the forces now hijacking the party on a whole host of issues have yet to transform their hatred of Israel into the position of most Democratic lawmakers in Congress.

Democrats in both houses of Congress joined with their Republican counterparts in condemning UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that criminalized Israel. A significant number of Democratic lawmakers support Trump’s decision to slap new sanctions on Iran.

Similarly, radical Jewish groups have been unsuccessful in rallying the more moderate leftist Jewish leadership to their cause. Case in point is the widespread support Trump’s appointment of David Friedman to serve as his ambassador to Israel is receiving from the community.

Whereas J Street and T’ruah are circulating a petition calling for people to oppose his Senate confirmation, sources close to the issue in Washington say that AIPAC supports it.Given this political climate, Netanyahu must use his meeting with Trump to develop a working alliance to secure Israel’s long-term strategic interests both on issues of joint concern and on issues that concern Israel alone.

The first issue on the agenda must be Iran. Since taking office, Trump has signaled that unlike his predecessors, he is willing to lead a campaign against Iran. Trump has placed Iran on notice that its continued aggression will not go unanswered and he has harshly criticized Obama’s nuclear deal with the mullahs.

In the lead-up to his meeting with Trump, Netanyahu has said that he will present the new president with five options for scaling back Tehran’s nuclear program. No time can be wasted in addressing this problem. Iran continues spinning its advanced centrifuges.

The mullahs are still on schedule to field the means to deploy nuclear warheads at will within a decade. Netanyahu’s task is to work with Trump to significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program as quickly as possible.

Then there is Syria. And Russia.

On Sunday, Trump restated his desire to develop ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Netanyahu must present Trump with a viable plan to reconstitute US-Russian ties in exchange for Russian abandonment of its alliance with Tehran and its cooperation with Iran and Hezbollah in Syria. Here, too, time is of the essence.

According to news reports this week, President Bashar Assad is redeploying his forces to the Syrian border with Israel. Almost since the outset of the war in Syria six years ago, Assad’s forces have been under Iranian and Hezbollah control. If Syrian forces deploy to the border, then Iran and Hezbollah will control the border.

Israel cannot permit such a development. It’s not just that such a deployment greatly expands the risk of war. As long as Russia is acting in strategic alliance with Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, the deployment of Iranian-controlled forces to the border raises the real possibility that Israel will find itself at war with Russia in Syria.

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL Comments turned off

America’s 19th nervous breakdown by Richard Baehr

By on February 9th, 2017

With apologies to the Rolling Stones, America’s nervous breakdown since President Donald Trump’s inauguration seems to be of a different order of ‎magnitude than the many other emotional meltdowns of recent decades (the Clinton, Bush, or Obama derangement syndromes). It will almost certainly worsen in the weeks ahead with continued ‎fights over immigration and the Supreme Court nominee.‎

Sunday night, America celebrated one of its true national holidays: Super Bowl ‎Sunday, an event watched by 100 million people, a third of the population. ‎This year, the political fog that envelops all matters these days naturally ‎also surrounded the football game, which turned out be a masterpiece as these games go. In the ‎weeks leading up to the game, one team became the Trump team, the other the anti-‎Trump team. A startling come-from-behind victory for the Trump team (the New ‎England Patriots) was immediately viewed as a repeat of the upset on Election Day, Nov. 8, and was caricatured as such.

The absurdity, of course, is that the owner of the Trump team is a ‎Jewish Democrat (though friendly to Trump), and the owner of the anti-Trump ‎team (the Atlanta Falcons) is a Jewish Republican. So, too, Trump carried Georgia ‎and was beaten badly in Massachusetts. The halftime performer, Lady Gaga, was ‎attacked from the left for not making a personal statement slamming Trump. Everything now has to be viewed as political. ‎

With the game over, America’s annual six-month nightmare without professional or college football has begun. This will allow ‎partisans to focus more intently on the heated political wars. On the U.S.-Israel ‎front, however, there is likely to be significant change and arguably far fewer ‎political battles between the two countries.‎

In the final weeks of President Barack Obama’s term, the administration seemed somewhat ‎obsessed with Israel. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power abstained on ‎Security Council Resolution 2334. Secretary of State John Kerry felt the need to ‎give an hour-long speech justifying the U.N. inaction that allowed the ‎resolution to pass, and fire a few parting shots at Israel and its prime minister over ‎settlements, as well as trying and failing one more time to make a persuasive case ‎for the Iran nuclear deal. The Obama team released money ($221 million) that had ‎been held up by Congress to send to the Palestinian Authority. ‎

Israel has been an afterthought in the early weeks of the Trump administration. ‎This is not a bad thing. There have been many presidential executive orders, but ‎none directing a move or directing planning for a move of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Iran nuclear agreement has not been torn up. The ‎administration has been far less fixated on Israeli settlement activity, despite ‎announcements by Israel of construction plans for 5,000 new units that in the ‎Obama years would have caused the faces of the administration spokespeople to ‎become purple with rage and scorn.

The administration, while releasing a short ‎statement on settlements, allowed that policy changes would not come until after ‎Prime Minister Netanyahu comes to Washington to meet with Trump next ‎week. The administration also sharply reversed policy toward Iran, choosing to ‎put the country on notice for its ballistic missile tests, which violated U.N. Security ‎Council Resolution 2231, the resolution that accompanied the nuclear deal. The ‎Trump White House also initiated sanctions against a few dozen Iranian individuals ‎and firms for the missile tests. Most dramatically, the Trump administration ‎seemed anxious to communicate to the leaders in Tehran that the days of America ‎serving as Iran’s lawyer and backstop — excusing away Iranian violations of one ‎agreement or another — were over.‎

The national newspaper of record for the anti-Trump forces, The New York Times, ‎chose to see in the release of the administration’s short statement on settlements ‎an action that fit a pattern of continuity of Trump foreign policy with Obama ‎foreign policy. They saw the same thing in the fact that Trump had neither disowned ‎the Iran nuclear deal nor had gone to war yet with the mullahs. Sadly for the paper, the ‎announcement condemning the ballistic missile tests and announcing sanctions ‎came shortly thereafter. The New York Times may have been clutching at straws ‎to suggest that it retained some semblance of balance in evaluating Trump (he is more ‎like Obama, so he is not that bad on X and Y).‎

Continue reading →