Trump, Israel and the Palestinian Issue
In the objective evaluation of statements by a politician of the weight of the American president and in the political analysis of these statements, we must distinguish between what is for media consumption, usually populist rhetoric, and what has the value of strategic discourse from which we can analyze and read what he aspires to and truly wants to achieve.
Before delving into the analysis of Trump's statements regarding the Palestinian issue and the Zionist occupation state – Israel – general observations must be made concerning the Arab discourse and evaluation of the broader circle related to Israel and Jews worldwide, especially the Americans who follow the Jewish religion.
Firstly, in Arab discourse, especially official and media Palestinian discourse, the terms: Jew, Israeli, and Zionist are used, intentionally or unintentionally, as synonymous words; this grave mistake has cost the Palestinian people dearly for about a century with no significant return. Since the beginning of the Zionist-Palestinian and Zionist-Arab conflict (not all Arabs, a section of Arabs have been and remain friends, supporters, and sponsors of the Zionist movement and its colonial project in the Middle East), the Zionist movement tries to prove an anthropological fact that does not exist, as proven by Israeli Professor Shlomo Sand, namely the notion that there is a Jewish people!
In short, we must realize that not every Jew is a Zionist, not every Israeli is Jewish or Zionist, and not every Zionist is Israeli or Jewish. This dialectic must be deeply rooted in our minds and awareness to avoid falling into the trap set by the Zionist movement for the world since its establishment, specifically since the usurpation of the Palestinian people's land.
Secondly, we, the Palestinian people and the Arab nation, from ordinary citizens to politicians, media professionals, and academics, must learn to deal with and address followers of the Jewish religion worldwide primarily as citizens of their countries: Germans, Russians, French, Hungarians, Moroccans, Indians, etc., and secondly as Jews by religion. They, as individuals and their Jewish communities, are not representatives of the Zionist state. Addressing Jews outside the Zionist entity, even if they support and back the Zionist state, as a homogeneous bloc is a free service we provide to the Zionist movement, and we must stop blowing this bad trumpet.
Thirdly, not all followers of the Jewish religion in America support the Zionist state and its racist policies towards the Arab Palestinian people. According to various statistics and studies, a third support the Zionist state, a second third not only oppose and do not support Israel but a large section is hostile to the Zionist state, its ideology, and colonial practices in Palestine, exploiting the Jewish Holocaust for Zionist propaganda that fundamentally contradicts Jewish religious thought. The last third has no relation to either side. Talking about a 'Jewish lobby' in America is a grave mistake and serves the Zionists. Yes, there is a Zionist lobby in America, mostly not Jewish, serving the Zionist agenda as Arab and European Zionists serve their entity.
Returning to Trump's policy and regarding the Palestinian issue directly, the American president has not yet uttered anything that can be classified as strategic. His statements during the election campaign about moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, reiterated during Netanyahu's recent visit to the White House, were referred by Trump to the relevant American administration institutions for study. In other words, this file was put on hold indefinitely; these statements are merely for media consumption and arrogance. I have addressed this matter in a previous article with extensive analysis and evaluation of this step.
Netanyahu went to the White House certain, as was the American institution and Trump personally, that Israel has become, after its failed wars on Gaza and its 2006 aggression on Lebanon and defeat before the Lebanese resistance, incapable of waging wars and also incapable of making peace. Israel has become a weak, fragile entity whose internal political and social cohesion is guaranteed only by the conflict with the Palestinian people and the resistance alliance. In political science, this weakness is defined by the increasing strength of internal radical racist forces. This is the situation we have observed in Israel for years. Netanyahu wanted from his meeting with Trump to confirm Trump's and the American institution's personal support to maintain his throne and his government coalition, which has begun to crack. He wanted this support to compete with the racist movements in his government coalition, especially Naftali Bennett!
Most Arab and Palestinian commentators and analysts elaborated on Trump's statements about the end of the two-state solution and his remarks that Zionist settlement in occupied Palestine is not an obstacle to peace with the Palestinian people. The overwhelming majority of colleagues saw these statements as a new American strategy towards the Palestinian issue and a new strategy in supporting Israel. Personally, I oppose this reading and see nothing new in Trump's statements. The only novelty is that Trump's words are no longer open to interpretation, and his statements reveal the true face of American policies towards the Palestinian issue and Israel without ambiguity. Trump's statements are a clear message to Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans that the era of fishing in troubled waters and relying on America wanting a just solution to the Palestinian issue and the Middle East has ended. Will they understand the message? The question I pose to colleagues among analysts and politicians who saw something new in Trump's discourse after his meeting with Netanyahu: Has America ever abandoned its unconditional support for Israel? To avoid going far back in history, I only point to the policies of the three American presidents before Trump who led America after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the start of the American globalization and arrogance project worldwide: Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama. They all gave generously and cheaply to Israel in money, weapons, and political and moral support. They protected Israel and its colonial settlement project from condemnation in the Security Council and investigation committees for its crimes against humanity in its wars on the Palestinian and brotherly Lebanese peoples and from attempts to boycott Israel to punish it for its occupation and oppression of Palestinian human rights in occupied Palestine. Obama's last decision in his final days at the White House to condemn Zionist settlement was like a fig leaf after supporting this settlement by silence for about eight years. The strategy of the three American presidents can be summarized in one equation: You Israelis continue your colonial project in occupied Palestine and deal with us leniently to convince Arabs and Palestinians of the negotiation lie. The successful strategy was based on dragging the Arab majority into long, futile negotiations to neutralize them from the resistance option, if such an option was ever proposed! At the same time, working to neutralize the Palestinian middle class and distance it from the resistance circle by linking it economically to the Palestinian Authority project. This happened; currently, about 150,000 employees work in the Palestinian Authority, meaning we are talking about more than a million Palestinians, considering the employees' families and relatives, whose daily sustenance is linked to their salaries from the Authority and its continuation, thus excluding them from real confrontation with the occupying enemy. Only in this context do we understand the generous financial support provided by the United States and its Middle Eastern Arab allies to the Authority to continue its futile negotiation project.
In conclusion, I want to go further and say that Trump's statements after his meeting with Netanyahu will increase Israel's crisis and its racist policies. I base this analysis on my careful reading of these statements and comparing them with what Hillary Clinton said in 2010 before the annual conference of the American Zionist lobby AIPAC. In her speech before the conference, the former Secretary of State pointed to the crisis of Israeli policy, warning that ignoring the following points would destabilize Israel and its leadership, especially its then Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging the American institution to pressure Netanyahu. Immediately after Clinton's speech, Obama rushed to reassure Netanyahu that he would not pressure the Israeli government to change its strategy. Clinton said:
First, the flow of Jewish immigrants from the world to Israel has nearly stopped, and this 'demographic spring' to counter the 'Palestinian demographic bomb' if Israel annexes the West Bank has dwindled and nearly dried up. The situation since Clinton's speech has not changed but worsened. The number of Jewish emigrants from Israel abroad has become more than those coming to it. Considering the type of people coming to Israel and those emigrating, this worsening has increased in Israel's structural strategic sense. Here I ask the question: What will Trump do about this matter that previous presidents did not? Second, Israel is surrounded by a forest of rockets, meaning the rockets of Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iranian resistance. Since this statement, the rocket power of the resistance, acknowledged by Israeli, Western, and American strategic study centers, has increased. Bush and Obama supplied Israel with Patriot anti-missile batteries, which, according to Israeli military acknowledgment, cannot intercept all missile attacks. So why would Trump offer Israel more? Does he have another weapon? Certainly not. Third, Clinton said the moderate Arab alliance that accepted entering peace negotiations and normalization with Israel is weakening day by day and could not, due to Israeli intransigence, achieve any accomplishment for its peoples and the Palestinian people. This setback of the moderate Arab alliance worsened since the so-called Arab Spring, and Israel's response was three wars on Gaza, a war on Lebanon, and participation in the war on Syria. Their bankruptcy became their identity. Now Trump comes and declares he will move his embassy to Jerusalem and that the two-state solution is over, meaning he exacerbates their setback and deepens their crisis.
Fourth, Hillary Clinton said to the attendees that the resistance alliance is gaining strength and credibility before its peoples and the Palestinian people day by day. We all witness this success of the resistance alliance and its increasing strength, steadfastness, and determination. Here I ask again: What will Trump do about this matter that previous presidents did not? They repeatedly stated that the wars of the three presidents in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya brought nothing to America except increased terrorism and strengthened takfiris!
And this last statement by Trump and his assessment of America's wars in the East is the new strategy he has uttered so far. Meaning, we read that America will not engage in wars like those, and the era of regime change strategies by force adopted by the three presidents before him has failed, with no return to such strategies. The racist, arrogant Trump is allowed by the American institution that brought him to hint at power and intelligence wars, but it has placed a no-war strategy for one and no war for Israel afterward. This is the novelty in Trump's discourse, nothing more.
