Donald Trump has doubled down on his statement at a town hall last week that he aims to be neutral in his comments on the Israel/Palestine conflict so as not to injure his ability as president to negotiate a deal between the parties. On Meet the Press yesterday he pointedly did not buy into the Republican “orthodoxy” on Israel, saying he’s very pro-Israel but peace there is the “ultimate deal” and he wasn’t going to prejudice matters.
Chuck Todd: Let me give you one more issue where you sort of went counter to what is perceived as Republican orthodoxy, and that is on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians… Explain what neutral means, because some heard that in the pro-Israeli community and thinks, “Oh, he’s going to be anti-Israel.” Explain what you mean by neutral.
Trump: If they want me, look, no, I’m very pro-Israel. In fact, I was the head of the Israeli Day Parade a number of years ago, I did a commercial for Netanyahu when he was getting elected, he asked me to do a commercial for him, I did a commercial for him. I am. But I don’t want to be– look, the hardest thing to do is that, in terms of deals, you’re a deal person, right? The ultimate deal is that deal. Israel, Palestine, if you’re going to make it, that probably is the hardest deal there is to make. People are born with hatred, they’re taught hatred. And I have to say, it’s mostly on the one side, not on the other side. But they’re taught hatred. I say this. If I’m going to be president, I’d rather be in the position, because I will try the best I can, and I’m a very good dealmaker, believe me, to try and solve that puzzle. You’re not going to solve it if you’re going to be on one side or another. Everyone understands that. If I’m going to solve the problem, I want to go in with a clean slate. Otherwise, you’re never going to get the cooperation of the other side. So that’s all I’m saying.
Trump somewhat tempered his smear of Palestinians as the haters that he issued last week. And he sorta flicked off the fact that he endorsed Benjamin Netanyahu before the 2013 elections in Israel as a polite gesture. Message: that guy has nothing on me.
Hillary Clinton has responded to Trump with an emphatically pro-Israel statement. Remember that Trump thumbed his nose at the Republican Jewish Coalition in December and a month later baited Hillary Clinton on her support for Israel’s apartheid wall:
Hillary Clinton said that it is O.K. to ban Muslims from Israel by building a WALL, but not O.K. to do so in the U.S. We must be vigilant!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2016
Back in October, Trump made fun of Marco Rubio for sucking up to Sheldon Adelson:
Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2015
Trump surely senses that he can gain by exhibiting independence of the Israel lobby. Here are some other straws in the wind:
–A new poll shows that the number of Americans holding a favorable view of Israel has declined 16 percent in the last year, to 59 percent. And in the same interval those holding a favorable view of the Palestinians has surged 42 percent, to 25 percent, and even Iran has had an image-makeover, with 16 percent of Americans regarding the country favorably, up considerably. Grant Smith of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy says the data reveal “a stunning turn in U.S. public opinion.”
–The MSM are reflecting the thaw. Last week Newsweek ran a defiant piece by Hanin Zoabi, the Palestinian Israeli legislator who has been suspended from the Knesset as a troublemaker, explaining Palestinian violence as a response to occupation and discrimination. Boldly titled, “Why Israel Is Fighting the Indigenous Palestinians,” it included these lines: “The occupier does not have the right to self-defense. We, the occupied, have the full and only right to fight it, by all means recognized within the framework of international law.”
–Did you notice A.O. Scott’s review of a new Israeli documentary on the Rabin assassination in the New York Times a few weeks ago? This intervention, on behalf of Palestinians, comes late in his piece, but it is highly intentional. The “film’s silences” are “troubling,” Scott avers:
The Palestinians, to the extent that they are mentioned, function as an abstraction, as if the polarization of Israeli politics didn’t concern them at all. And while it’s true that Rabin’s killing exposed and deepened a schism within Zionism, it’s also true that Zionism exists in a larger political context. Acknowledging this would not have made “Rabin, the Last Day” less upsetting but might have relieved some of the claustrophobia.
So Zionism exists in a larger political context! Scott is referring to Europeans who have soured on Zionism, Arabs who can’t stand Zionism, and anti-Zionists in the Jewish community too. He is as weary as we are of the claustrophobia. (Wikipedia says Scott is half-Jewish, flavor of the century).
I throw in these stray facts to say that American public opinion is changing (as is Jewish opinion) and there is political hay to be made of the changes. Donald Trump surely senses this, in his populist campaign. And so he is preparing to run against Marco Rubio by saying that Rubio is Sheldon Adelson’s “perfect little puppet”, and preparing to set up a general election campaign against Hillary Clinton in which he can call out her beholdenness to the billionaire Haim Saban.
In his reissued autobiography of last fall, Bernie Sanders refers with disdain to Sheldon Adelson and the “Adelson primary” on the very first page. But that’s the last we hear of it: Adelson, who is in bed with Hillary Clinton’s good friend Haim Saban. Sanders is ignoring a populist political opportunity that Donald Trump has seized upon. Go figure.
Update: Aaron David Miller believes Trump’s statements reflect his ambition to cut the deal of deals. But he feels the chill: “Donald Trump’s rhetoric is decidedly less effusive and his tone much cooler and more detached than his rivals when it comes to Israel and Jewish issues.”
Thanks to Peter Feld and Scott McConnell.
Trump is difficult to grasp, because most writers attempt to caricature him as a simple bigot defined by his offensive tweet or politically incorrect statement of the day.
I think that, 1) he is his own man, with outsized self-confidence that has allowed him for most of his life to keep his own counsel, and f*** what everybody else thinks. 2) an astute celebrity skilled at branding and at reading people and crowds and presenting his Alpha Male on steroids persona to bully individual opponents WWF-style, and to rile up the crowd, also WWF-style; 3) an astute deal-maker who has made a lot of money developing real estate, and who relishes pulling deals together in which he is a winner, especially the major winner. But real estate deals (except for the occasional [2 or 3%] bankruptcy) are substantial win-win projects, in which, while he as the developer makes lots, also make winners of everyone else joining him: the workers who build it also get good work, the suppliers of materials and subcontractors get business, the tenants and purchasers get improved real estate they desire, the jurisdiction gets enhanced property values, even the lenders make their fees and interest. It requires vision, a lot of operational talent, and a high risk tolerance, coupled with good judgment in choosing which risks to take and which to pass on. It’s a rare skill-set not to be dismissed nor under-estimated, nor under-valued in a leader.
In his remarks about Israel and the Middle East, he reflects that 1) he is not going to be owned by that special interest group, just as he is not owned by any other; 2) he’s feeding his ego by pursuing the most powerful political leadership position in the world, and views I-P and the Middle East in those terms, and shows multiple signs that he will blow up the orthodoxy that has poisoned America in its dealings there these last twenty years and more, but to feed his ego, not to do justice for the Palestinians, nor to act out some [non-existent] deep-seated Anti-Semitism, nor to suck up to AIPAC or the RJC, but to show that he can succeed where others have failed, by 3) being the ULTIMATE deal-maker. He can already taste the glory.
All those snipers firing charges of Anti-Semitism, Anti-Islamism, Anti-[insert minority] misread him. He’s anti-everyone who isn’t himself, unless he can get them to defer to his Alpha-maleness, whereupon, he basks in the glow. If you’re not going to defer, he’s going to read you warily, look for your weakness, while he calculates what deal he can make without you, how he can remove you from his path, or force you to join him.
He’s been snubbed and disrespected by Netanyahu, despite his having delivered an endorsement to him when he needed it, and he’s not going to forget that knife he can twist when it will do him some good.
The Palestinians, he regards as future celebrators of his extraordinary deal-making abilities, even if they’re Muslims and spawn a lot of terrorists. He’s aware of Israel’s wall, and of the enormous corruption of American politicians by Israel’s supporters, which he’s not offended by, since he has used his money to play that corruption game himself. He’s the kind of person who would repeat the joke about a politician who he supports and who comes through for him when he needs it, “Now that’s what I mean by an honest politician: when you buy him, he stays bought.”
He sees the election as a deal, which he’s taken over the driver seat of, and all the critics he dismisses as not yet deferring to his leadership. He’ll do what he can and needs to get the nomination, then, I predict, he will pivot on many issues as he goes after the general election win. And he will pound away at his rivals weaknesses whatever they are. Once elected, if elected, he will strive to do deals, to win accolades. I even think he’ll start thinking of his place in history, comparing himself to his best-regarded predecessors, striving to find ways to outdo them.
While Hillary defends the health insurance industry, Trump – like Sanders – sees clearly how they and the pharmaceutical industry use political influence to structure policy to deliver outsized – and socially unnecessary and destructive – profits. Unlike Sanders, Trump has no fear in taking on the vested interests. The bigger they are, the greater is the ego boost when he bests them or makes them bend to acknowledge his leadership.
He is not a simple person to be underestimated or dismissed lightly. And I think he is the vehicle that will make Phil’s dream come true – an election in which the war of ideas in the Middle East bursts into the general election and coverage of it.
He’s scary, for sure, but maybe he will at least force Hillary to re-set her corrupt positions, because you know he’s going to expose them.
Trump repeats neutrality vow on spousal dispute: I’m very much in Joe’s corner In fact, we’re drinking buddies. Now, all people have anger in them, so I’m not saying that Jane is to blame for what happened. But we all know how bitchy women are, especially at that time of the month – am I right? – and so, well, maybe she was just asking for it. Anyway, I’m going to remain neutral on this.
Phil, you’re unending good will and optimism towards Trump says more about you, than Trump. You are so engulfed in self-hatred, and have internalized so much antisemitism, that you simply can’t resist the pleasure of seeing Israel cut loose by its benefactor and self destruct, just like Nazi Germany before it.
That’s all that matters to you huh Phil? Who cares about the millions of Muslim Americans, Hispanics and POC that will be infinitely worst off if Trump is elected, because it’s an acceptable sacrifice for them to make in order for your dreams to come true. Sorry, but to me your support of Trump appears to rooted in your own narcissistic goals, to satisfy whatever complexes you got, rather than for the noble pursuit of justice or due to genuine empathy for the Palestinians. Or am I totally wrong on this Phil?
What’s so interesting about Miller’s piece today is he argues Trump wants to stay neutral to “make a deal” but doesn’t mention his own 2005 article (which he appropriately aimed at himself and Dennis Ross) which said America had become “Israel’s lawyer” and therefore couldn’t be effective in negotiations, a situation that’s continued under Obama and likely to worsen under Hillary. He completely skips acknowledging that, by his own past words, Trump is right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200883.html
What happened with my comment? Why didn’t it pass moderation?