Basic HTML Version
6 HASHALOM December
2016 / January 2017
December
2016 / January 2017
HASHALOM
7
ISRAEL
ISRAEL
Analysis: Forget about the election campaign’s provocateur
and chatterbox. The US president-elect’s victory speech made
it clear that he feels the full weight of responsibility hanging
on his shoulders. So in what direction does he plan to navigate
America, and where do Israel and the Palestinians come in?
White America wanted a change at all costs, possibly as a reaction
to the election of black, liberal President Barack Obama and what
it symbolizes, and thus did not vote for Hillary Clinton. Trump
promised a revolution, without elaborating, and that was enough
for them to forgive him for everything and vote for him against any
political-governmental logic.
Trump must have realized that in order to gain votes one must
intimidate, offend and convey hate. This is a language which
most voters in the US, and in Israel too, understand very well
and respond to like a terrified child running into the arms of the
adult who promises to defend him or her. But in order to govern,
and to lead people to the better future that they expect, they must
be presented with a positive agenda that creates hope. Trump’s
victory speech, therefore, focused on a vision, on a promise for a
better future.
Unlike the campaign speeches, the president-elect’s first speech
was completely free of intimidations, insults, lies and blood libels.
Like a responsible leader of a large nation, he stressed his desire
to reunite the people and be everyone’s president, including those
who voted for Clinton. He reiterated his promise that he would be
everyone’s president with the clear intention of alleviating the fears
of blacks, Hispanics, the LGBT community, Muslims and even
Jews, who were put on defensive alert by his election.
Trump’s victory speech also cleared some of the uncertainty that still
surrounds the plans he intends to implement during his presidency
and his future policy. Assuming, of course, that he does have
plans and he does have a future policy, and that is not all certain.
It is quite likely that Trump and his advisors are just beginning to
shape them, with the help of the serious people who have gathered
around him: Rudy Giuliani, for example, Vice President-elect Mike
Pence, Governor Chris Christie and others. In addition, in the initial
stages, Trump will rely on the staff of the last Republican president,
George W. Bush, in shaping his government and policy.
In his first speech as the elected president, he provided a “taste” of
the directions in which he plans to navigate the American ship. As
always, he did it with very few explicit words and mostly with hints
which he will be able to shirk later on. For example, he stressed
time and again that he is the head of a “movement,” not a party or a
political body – a hint towards his future relations with Congress. In
other words, with “Washington,” the hated political establishment.
There may be a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress,
but Trump doesn’t even trust his own party, so he is reminding
Congress that it must cooperate with him, or he will stir up the
“movement,” the nonparliamentary independent power base which
accepts his authority.
In the economic field, Trump made it clear that he plans to multiply
the growth rates through massive reconstruction and development
of national infrastructures: roads, bridges (half of which are unusable
across the US as a result of neglect and lack of investment),
electricity, water, etc. Investing in infrastructures requires a lot
of manpower and resources and is definitely, according to many
economists, an engine for growth and increasing employment. The
question is from where will Trump bring the huge budgets required
for such a major project across the US.
The president-elect implied indirectly that he does not plan to
dissolve the welfare services system and the transfer payments, as
he had threatened to do in the campaign, but he does plan to give
it a new emphasis and direction which will compensate those who
voted for him, members of the middle class and lower-middle class,
which is mostly comprised of white people but also of Hispanics and
blacks who join the armed forces (there is no compulsory military
service in the US, and the soldiers are in fact salaried employees
of the state for all intents and purposes).
He promised to expand the social welfare system spread out
under this neglected sector. He will make sure to rehabilitate army
veterans who served their country in the wars and demonstrated a
patriotic spirit, and should therefore be rewarded. This means that
from now on, the leading criteria for receiving welfare aid in the
US is not belonging to weak social-economic populations, but a
person’s contribution and sacrifice to the nation so that “American
will become great again.”
The new, level-headed Trump
Netanyahu and Trump in New York in September (Photo: Kobi Gideon, GPO)
As for Iran, it’s quite unlikely that Trump will cancel the nuclear
agreement it signed with the Obama administration. So what if he
promised to do so during the campaign? An American president
cannot cancel an agreement which was ratified by Congress by
mere words. It is possible, on the other hand, that Trump will
accept Israel’s requests to tighten the intelligence supervision
on Iran and to respond to any violation on its part with serious
sanctions. Trump will also generously accept Israel’s arming
requests so that the IDF would be able to respond with all its
might in case Iran makes a breakthrough towards a nuclear bomb.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two-state-for-two-people
formula will likely enter a deep freeze for a long time. Trump will
probably not try to impose any solution on the two sides or even
peace negotiations, not to mention a solution based mainly on
Israeli concessions. The combination between the current Israeli
government and the Trump administration in Washington will likely
lead to a deep freeze in the talks with the Palestinians, as opposed
to – or perhaps because of – the tireless efforts made by former
American presidents on the issue. We should remember, however,
that a stalemate in the peace process may lead to a violent outbreak
in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, a major bloody outbreak which we
should prepare for.
On this historical day, in which a very unexpected and
nonconventional person was elected as the 45th president of the
United States, we should expand our gaze. Even those who see
Israel’s interest as their top priority should know that the really
important thing is what kind of president will Trump be for America
and for the Americans. A good president who will strengthen and
advance our protective world power is also a president who will
strengthen and advance us – and the other way around.
Through direct talks, Israelis and Palestinians will one day decide
the final borders that separate them. No matter what the outcome,
however, Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital.
Will Donald Trump when president stick to his promise of moving the
US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? We hope so.
If he fails to it will not be for a lack of reminders. Justice Minister
Ayelet Shaked called on Trump to keep to his promise when she
congratulated him for his win. So did deputy foreign minister Tzipi
Hotovely. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat reminded Trump, as did Marc
Zell, the head of the GOP in Israel.
If Trump follows through on his campaign promise he would be
upholding existing US legislation.
In 1995, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act,
which calls for the initiating and funding of the relocation of the
Embassy of the US from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The deadline for the
move was set to be no later than May 31, 1999. The act also called
for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized
as the capital of the State of Israel.
Unfortunately, despite passage in large majorities in both the Senate
(93-5) and the House (374-37), the bill has not been implemented
due to the opposition of consecutive US presidents Bill Clinton,
George Bush and Barack Obama.
Each president has justified his refusal to implement the bill by
claiming – under influence from the State Department – that the
reversal of US policy could provoke uproar throughout the Arab and
Muslim world and seriously damage US relations.
The balance of powers set out in the US Constitution empowers the
executive branch with authority over foreign policy, which includes
the sole power to recognize the sovereignty of foreign states. Any
attempts by the legislative branch to dictate to the president on issues
of foreign policy are viewed as an infringement on his autonomy.
Consecutive US presidents have insisted on using their executive
powers to uphold an anachronistic reading of history. According
to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Jerusalem was to be placed under
international control or custodianship. While Israel accepted
partition, the Palestinians and neighboring Arab nations rejected
the UN resolution and launched a concerted effort to snuff out the
Jewish state at its conception. They failed.
Parts of Jerusalem that fell under Israeli control following the War of
Independence were outlined in the 1949 armistice line – or Green
Line. These areas include a large part of Jerusalem.
But the US – and most other countries – never recognized Israeli
sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. As a result, official US policy
is to view all parts of Jerusalem as illegally occupied by Israel.
US administrations have fastidiously adhered to this anachronistic
policy, even in the most extreme cases. Just last month, in an
embarrassingly obsessive adherence to the minutiae of diplomatic
protocol, the official transcript of US President Barack Obama’s
eulogy to Shimon Peres was amended to reflect the US position that
Jerusalem should be under an international custodianship, and not
a part of the Jewish state.
The transcript originally listed the eulogy ceremony as being held
in “Jerusalem, Israel.” Six hours later, the White House sent out a
corrected version with the word “Israel” crudely crossed out of the
header.
The US State Department goes to such extreme measures in
order not to provoke the Arab and Muslim world. But, as we have
argued in the past, caving in to extremists who refuse to recognize
Israeli sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem only encourages more
extremist behavior, because it proves that intimidation works.
Just walking around Jerusalem, a city that has flourished and grown
beyond recognition for the betterment of both Jews and Arabs during
the years it has been reunified under Israel’s control, one is struck by
the sheer absurdity of the US’s position.
Trump is a man who appears to be willing to break with diplomatic
protocol. It remains to be seen whether he will stand behind his
promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv, and thus officially
recognize contemporary reality. Doing so does not preempt a
negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Through direct talks, Israelis and Palestinians will one day decide
the final borders that separate them. No matter what the outcome,
however, Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital. US policy should
reflect this simple fact. Will Trump be the president to make it
happen?
Will Trump stick to his Jerusalem promise?
By: Jerusalem Post- EDITORIAL