![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmut posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsNow that we've been assured by Dear Leader that the State of the Union has never been more awesome, let's look at Dear Leader's foreign policy - his Middle East policies, to be precise.
See, Dear Leader's Middle East policy, or his approach to the Palestine peace process in particular, is determined by three main principles.
Principle one. Stating the facts, rather than being hostage to the political interpretations of the facts. This explains why the US embassy was moved to Jerusalem a couple years ago, and why last year Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights was recognized by the US. In both cases, the US said they weren't doing anything but acknowledging the existing realities. You know, stating the facts.
Principle two. Refusal to act as mediator between Israel and Palestine, practically rooting 100% for Israel. If the US really wanted to be a mediator, they wouldn't have closed the office of the Palestinian autonomy in Washington DC, or stop funding the Palestinians (through two programs, the UN refugee program and the US fund for supporting the security forces in the Palestinian territories).
Principle three. Putting the emphasis on the security policies rather than alternative policies. Example: recognizing the Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights, and the planned recognition of Israel's sovereignty on the Jordan valley. Both areas have a key geostrategic importance for Israel, they're very important for controlling its national security (both from a military and a resource standpoint).
These three principles were all on display in the so called Deal of the Century (or as it's officially called, Vision for Peace, Prosperity and a Brighter Future). In other words, a plan to Make Israel Great Again. Actually the deal comes in two parts. The first one we already saw last year in Bahrain where the economic stimulae for finding a solution to the Palestinian question were presented. In a nutshell, this first economic segment included a 68 billion dollar investment in production and infrastructure into what was supposed to become a Palestinian state one day.
The second half is political, and was presented now. There are a few key elements there, showing America's shifting approach that's so typical for Trump.
Element one. The US will recognize Israel's sovereignty over the West Bank (or what Israel calls Judaea and Samaria). This includes all those fenced settlements, a large part of East Jerusalem, and the Jordan valley.
Element two. Israel will now have a blank check to actively pursue the plan, i.e. consolidating and legalizing the now existing control on those territories, without seeking explicit approval from the Palestinians. The US argument is that neither Israel nor the Middle East peace process can be allowed to be hostages to the Palestinian autonomy. Having recognized that the time is right for the realization of this plan, Netanyahu now says Israel will be stepping towards enforcement of the Israeli law on those territories (whether a temporary government with a limited term, as is the case with Netanyahu's administration, has the legal rigth to do such a thing, but he doesn't seem to care anyway).
Element three. The US is practically now rejecting the right of the Palestinian refugees to return - these will have to choose between getting a legal status in a future Palestinian state or in their current country of residence. As for their homeland, they can forget about it.
Element four. The US is refusing to stick to the 1967 borders for the two future states. In this respect, the US is not so much opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, as it rejects the borders that the 1967 agreement proposed. Instead, Trump believes the new borders should be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.
Element five. The very way Trump's administration chooses the character of a possible future Palestinian state. Trump believes that state should have a limited sovereignty, with Israel retaining its leading role for the national security and border control of that state. Furthermore, the Palestinian borders should be demilitarized, full control on the Gaza strip should be established, and Hamas should be disarmed - those are Trump's terms.
What Trump is offering in return, is to help solve the basic problems of the Palestinian territories through funds through proxies (the other Arab states in the region), like unemployment, electricity shortage, and access to fresh water (the main sources of that resource now being controlled by Israel - notice the irony here?)
Overall, the US plan shows a few particularities. One, there's some nice communication between the US president and the Israeli prime-minister. Hence the US "tilting" towards the Israeli cause. Two, the way Trump chooses his foreign policies, i.e. the stronger side can change the rules at will as it suits them. And three, the US plan essentially promises the Palestinians prosperity in exchange for compromises with their territorial and national sovereignty.
Although the main Palestinian factions like Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have flatly rejected the US proposal, and it was met with hostility by Turkey and Iran, that doesn't mean the Deal of the Century is doomed. To realize it in practice and not just on paper, Israel will be needing three ingredients, which it already has.
Ingredient one. US support. Naturally, Israel already has it.
Ingredient two. Cooperation from Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia. All three countries have sent signals that they aren't opposed to the plan, albeit cautiously (the reasons are mostly domestic). In any case, they've practically supported it. Also, the three big regional players are in principle allied with the US against Iran, and they wouldn't want to sacrifice that alliance for some obscure cause, like the Palestinian sovereignty.
Ingredient three. Russia's tacit approval. What Netanyahu asked Putin on their latest meeting was that Russia should only limit their criticism of Trump's plan to mere formalities, and nothing real.
Trump's plan is of course nowhere near being a true Deal of the Century. Rather, it looks like some severe arms-twisting, not a compromise, and definitely not a consensus. It's more likely to bring new conflict rather than peace. But that's no reason to underestimate the prospects of its realization, now that Trump has given Netanyahu all the trump-cards to play around with. And Bibi is not particularly known for wasting such opportunities.
See, Dear Leader's Middle East policy, or his approach to the Palestine peace process in particular, is determined by three main principles.
Principle one. Stating the facts, rather than being hostage to the political interpretations of the facts. This explains why the US embassy was moved to Jerusalem a couple years ago, and why last year Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights was recognized by the US. In both cases, the US said they weren't doing anything but acknowledging the existing realities. You know, stating the facts.
Principle two. Refusal to act as mediator between Israel and Palestine, practically rooting 100% for Israel. If the US really wanted to be a mediator, they wouldn't have closed the office of the Palestinian autonomy in Washington DC, or stop funding the Palestinians (through two programs, the UN refugee program and the US fund for supporting the security forces in the Palestinian territories).
Principle three. Putting the emphasis on the security policies rather than alternative policies. Example: recognizing the Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights, and the planned recognition of Israel's sovereignty on the Jordan valley. Both areas have a key geostrategic importance for Israel, they're very important for controlling its national security (both from a military and a resource standpoint).
These three principles were all on display in the so called Deal of the Century (or as it's officially called, Vision for Peace, Prosperity and a Brighter Future). In other words, a plan to Make Israel Great Again. Actually the deal comes in two parts. The first one we already saw last year in Bahrain where the economic stimulae for finding a solution to the Palestinian question were presented. In a nutshell, this first economic segment included a 68 billion dollar investment in production and infrastructure into what was supposed to become a Palestinian state one day.
The second half is political, and was presented now. There are a few key elements there, showing America's shifting approach that's so typical for Trump.
Element one. The US will recognize Israel's sovereignty over the West Bank (or what Israel calls Judaea and Samaria). This includes all those fenced settlements, a large part of East Jerusalem, and the Jordan valley.
Element two. Israel will now have a blank check to actively pursue the plan, i.e. consolidating and legalizing the now existing control on those territories, without seeking explicit approval from the Palestinians. The US argument is that neither Israel nor the Middle East peace process can be allowed to be hostages to the Palestinian autonomy. Having recognized that the time is right for the realization of this plan, Netanyahu now says Israel will be stepping towards enforcement of the Israeli law on those territories (whether a temporary government with a limited term, as is the case with Netanyahu's administration, has the legal rigth to do such a thing, but he doesn't seem to care anyway).
Element three. The US is practically now rejecting the right of the Palestinian refugees to return - these will have to choose between getting a legal status in a future Palestinian state or in their current country of residence. As for their homeland, they can forget about it.
Element four. The US is refusing to stick to the 1967 borders for the two future states. In this respect, the US is not so much opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, as it rejects the borders that the 1967 agreement proposed. Instead, Trump believes the new borders should be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.
Element five. The very way Trump's administration chooses the character of a possible future Palestinian state. Trump believes that state should have a limited sovereignty, with Israel retaining its leading role for the national security and border control of that state. Furthermore, the Palestinian borders should be demilitarized, full control on the Gaza strip should be established, and Hamas should be disarmed - those are Trump's terms.
What Trump is offering in return, is to help solve the basic problems of the Palestinian territories through funds through proxies (the other Arab states in the region), like unemployment, electricity shortage, and access to fresh water (the main sources of that resource now being controlled by Israel - notice the irony here?)
Overall, the US plan shows a few particularities. One, there's some nice communication between the US president and the Israeli prime-minister. Hence the US "tilting" towards the Israeli cause. Two, the way Trump chooses his foreign policies, i.e. the stronger side can change the rules at will as it suits them. And three, the US plan essentially promises the Palestinians prosperity in exchange for compromises with their territorial and national sovereignty.
Although the main Palestinian factions like Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have flatly rejected the US proposal, and it was met with hostility by Turkey and Iran, that doesn't mean the Deal of the Century is doomed. To realize it in practice and not just on paper, Israel will be needing three ingredients, which it already has.
Ingredient one. US support. Naturally, Israel already has it.
Ingredient two. Cooperation from Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia. All three countries have sent signals that they aren't opposed to the plan, albeit cautiously (the reasons are mostly domestic). In any case, they've practically supported it. Also, the three big regional players are in principle allied with the US against Iran, and they wouldn't want to sacrifice that alliance for some obscure cause, like the Palestinian sovereignty.
Ingredient three. Russia's tacit approval. What Netanyahu asked Putin on their latest meeting was that Russia should only limit their criticism of Trump's plan to mere formalities, and nothing real.
Trump's plan is of course nowhere near being a true Deal of the Century. Rather, it looks like some severe arms-twisting, not a compromise, and definitely not a consensus. It's more likely to bring new conflict rather than peace. But that's no reason to underestimate the prospects of its realization, now that Trump has given Netanyahu all the trump-cards to play around with. And Bibi is not particularly known for wasting such opportunities.
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/20 09:53 (UTC)"Palestinians officially thrown under the bus."
And three hundred years after we will still have violence and problems (q.v. Northern Ireland).
All victories are only temporary; as the defeat of fascism in '45 and its subsequent resurgence demonstrates. As a species we do seem to favour kicking the can down the road for someone to pick up later. Getting to the next phase with minimal damage or harm always seems the best way. Is that Utilitarian or anti-Utilitarian? The smallest harm rather than the greatest good?
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/20 09:17 (UTC)