RUTHFULLY YOURS

“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.)

This essay first appeared at Quadrant Online in January, 2017.
Today, as President Donald Trump makes it official
and recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it is well worth a reprise

The last time Arabs ruled eastern Jerusalem and the Old City all but one of the Jewish Quarter’s 35 synagogues was demolished. Trump’s pledge to recognise the city as the capital of Israel will go a long way towards preventing history from repeating itself.

As a candidate in the 2016 election season Donald Trump often talked of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It was easy enough to dismiss. After all, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had made the same promise before winning the White House.

This time around might be different. For a start, David Friedman sounds like a very different kind of U.S. ambassador to Israel. Here’s Friedman responding to Trump endorsing him for the post: “I intend to work tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries and advance the cause of peace within the region, and look forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

Should the United States relocate its embassy to Jerusalem? A lot of opinion in Australia is against it, although Tony Abbott saw merit in the idea. Australia joining a move by President Trump to shift its embassy to Jerusalem could “demonstrate its unswerving support for Israel, as the Middle East’s only liberal, pluralist democracy”. Members of the Turnbull government rebuffed “talkative” Abbott’s latest idea. Shifting the embassy would exacerbate an already problematic situation, especially with regards to the “two-state solution”. Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce referred to Abbott’s comments as “not helpful”, while Foreign Minister Julie Bishop gave her former leader short shrift: “The Australian government does not have any plans to move the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

Greg Barton, professor in global Islamic studies at Deakin University, made this case for retaining the status quo:

“The future of Israel for Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis and for people living on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank depends upon trust and negotiation…If we went ahead and moved our embassy, following suit after the Americans to Jerusalem, we would be closing off doors of opportunity to play that mediating role.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s, not surprisingly, took an even harder line, and warned that changing the US embassy would unleash a “crisis we will not be able to come out from” for “the peace process in the Middle East and even peace in the world”. Departing Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to be reading from the same script, characterising the planned embassy change as dangerous: “You’d have an explosion, an explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank, and perhaps in Israel itself, but throughout the region.”

But so many explosions are already taking place in the Middle East and none have anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Syria’s civil war alone has resulted resulting in as many as 470,000 deaths. Perhaps this outgoing secretary of state might have found better things to do than trying to foist on Mahmoud Abbas a Palestinian mini-state (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) instead of his real goal, a fully-fledged Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

President Trump is reportedly ready, according to senior U.S. officials, to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital immediately, while delaying the U.S. embassy’s relocation from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for another six months. The president missed the Monday deadline for signing a six-month waiver to a law requiring such relocation and is said to have directed his aides to begin planning for the move. President Trump informed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi King Salman of his plans. The reaction from the Palestinians as well as Arab and Muslim leaders in the region was predictably fierce.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said President Trump’s plan to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel is a “red line” for Muslims, which could cause Turkey to break off diplomatic relations with Israel. Jordan, normally an American ally, is coordinating the convening of an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to “discuss ways of dealing with the consequences of such a decision that raised alarm and concern,” a senior Jordanian diplomatic source told Reuters. Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, warned Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that such a decision could “trigger anger across the Arab and Muslim world, fuel tension and jeopardize peace efforts,” according to Jordan’s state news agency.

Abbas warned of “dangerous consequences.” This could include, according to Abbas’s diplomatic adviser, the end of contacts between the Palestinian leadership and the U.S. Last week, Abbas’s office issued a statement declaring that “East Jerusalem is the key to war and peace and any solution must guarantee East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.”

Palestinian leaders have called for “days of rage” in the streets to follow President Trump’s announcement of any changes to the status of Jerusalem they consider inimical to the Palestinians’ claim to East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state. The anger they and other Arab and Muslim leaders incite is likely to lead to violence, not only within the West Bank, Gaza and Israel itself, but throughout the Middle East and beyond. U.S. embassies and consulates will be likely targets, with blame for any deaths or injuries no doubt wrongly placed on President Trump rather than on the perpetrators and inciters of the violence where it belongs.

The State Department froze travel for diplomatic personnel to the West Bank and Jerusalem’s Old City as Palestinians declared three days of rage in response to President Trump’s expected announcement Wednesday that the U.S. Embassy will be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“With widespread calls for demonstrations beginning December 6 in Jerusalem and the West Bank, U.S. government employees and their family members are not permitted until further notice to conduct personal travel in Jerusalem’s Old City and in the West Bank, to include Bethlehem and Jericho. Official travel by U.S. government employees in Jerusalem’s Old City and in the West Bank is permitted only to conduct essential travel and with additional security measures,” said the security notice from the U.S. Embassy.

“United States citizens should avoid areas where crowds have gathered and where there is increased police and/or military presence,” the notice added. “We recommend that U.S. citizens take into consideration these restrictions and the additional guidance contained in the Department of State’s travel warning for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza when making decisions regarding their travel.”

Trump, who is scheduled to give a statement on Jerusalem at 1 p.m. Wednesday from the White House, was supposed to decide by Friday whether to move the embassy or issue another six-month waiver. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 requires that the president move the embassy to Jerusalem, but each president has invoked the law’s national security waiver every six months since — including Trump’s waiver in June.

Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Saudi King Salman, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi today to discuss “potential decisions regarding Jerusalem,” the White House said. Each of the Arab leaders issued statements afterward decrying a planned move.

“The president reaffirmed his commitment to advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the importance of supporting those talks,” the White House said. “He underscored the importance of bilateral cooperation with each partner to advance peace efforts throughout the region.”

In the Saudi version of the call, King Salman told Trump “that any U.S. declaration on the status of Al-Quds before reaching a final settlement would harm peace negotiation process and escalate tension in the region.” CONTINUE AT SITE

In order to test whether a peace settlement is possible between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. embassy must be relocated to Jerusalem as soon as possible. Close to 25 years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, it appears that Israel and the PA are no closer to peace. It is high time that the U.S. takes a different path to test whether the PA is ready to make true peace with Israel or whether this long-winded peace process is no more than a seemingly endless charade.

Israel has repeatedly taken actions in its quest for peace, including multiple transfers of territorial control in the West Bank, total abandonment of Gaza, and a 10-month long building freeze. Little, if any, good has come of it. The Palestinian Authority instead was involved in a murderous intifada against Israel that claimed the lives of roughly 1,000 Israelis, as well as frequent terrorist attacks over the years. The PA also actively seeks a unity pact with the Hamas terrorist organization, and has consistently been involved in incitement to murder and attack Israelis and Jews in all forms of the Palestinian media. This is reminiscent of the verse, “I am peace; but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalms 120:7)

In addition, the PA and Mahmoud Abbas have refused to even make the most basic of gestures critical to any peace deal. The Palestinian Authority has refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, refused to recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and even threatened that if the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (even if that recognition is limited to part of Jerusalem) it would amount to a “complete destruction of the peace process.”

If the U.S. seeks to test the feasibility of the peace process, it must therefore move the embassy to Jerusalem and not hold itself captive to terroristic threats of widespread violence made by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

Instead, President Trump should refuse to maintain a decades-old mentality of subservience to threats of radical Islamic terrorism. It is immoral for the world’s #1 superpower to allow itself to be swayed by terroristic threats. Such behavior by the U.S. does nothing to discourage terrorism; on the contrary, it implicitly rewards terrorism by demonstrating that threats of terrorism achieve results.

President Trump demonstrated leadership rarely seen in recent history by delivering a historic speech to leaders of Islamic countries in Saudi Arabia calling for the total defeat of radical Islamic terrorism. He is right.

Not only does it secure the future of both Israel and the Palestinians, it enables Arab states like Saudi Arabia to work openly with Israel to defeat their joint Iranian enemy.
Monday, The New York Times published the Palestinian response to an alleged Saudi peace plan. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly presented it to PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas last month.

According to the Times’ report, Mohammed told Abbas he has two months to either accept the Saudi proposal or leave office to make way for a new Palestinian leader who will accept it.

The Palestinians and their European supporters are up in arms about the content of Mohammed’s plan. It reportedly proposes the establishment of limited Palestinian sovereignty over small portions of Judea and Samaria. The Gaza Strip, over which the Palestinians have had full sovereignty since Israel pulled its military forces and civilians out in 2005, would be expanded into the northern Sinai, thus providing economic and territorial viability to the envisioned Palestinian state. While the Palestinians would not receive sovereignty over Jerusalem, they would be able to establish their capital in the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis.

There are several aspects of the alleged Saudi peace plan that are notable. First, the Palestinians and their many allies insist that it is a nonstarter. No Palestinian leader could ever accept the offer and survive in power, they told the Times. The same Palestinian leaders from Hamas and Fatah, and their allies, also noted that the Saudi plan as reported strongly resembles past Israeli proposals.

Awaiting a Trump administration “peace plan,” hoping to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, it would be wise to recall foreign minister Abba Eban’s observation that “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” It is important, however, to understand that this persistent failure is not because of poor judgments or unintended mistakes; it is deliberate PLO policy, strategy and ideology.

Rather than lament the absence of a “Palestinian Sadat,” willing to make peace, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should explain why this false scenario is inevitably doomed to fail. Calling for an Israeli leader like Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Rabin, willing to make territorial concessions, is worse because it keeps the fantasy of a “two state solution” on life support when there have been no vital signs for many years.Arab Palestinian leaders recognized this nearly a hundred years ago, when, led by the pro-Nazi Mufti Haj Amin Husseini, they rampaged in murderous attacks against Jews. After the State of Israel was established, many Israeli Arabs accepted the new reality, but many did not and never will. The reason is simple: Arabs view Jewish success as their defeat. Moreover, unlike Arabs who migrated to what was called Palestine, Jewish nationalism, Zionism, is rooted in a historical and biblical attachment to the land. Nor did local Arabs imitate Zionist institution-building during the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s. Jews built hospitals and agricultural settlements; Arabs raided them. Jews built schools and parks; Arabs initiated pogroms.