How outrage can initiate dialogue
mercoledì 6 dicembre 2017 English 0 commenti
Il Giornale, December 6, 2017
The frantic opposition to Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and even, God forbid! to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to the Jewish State’s capital, isn’t a question of principle as it’s being presented or even a religious one as Erdogan suggests in his speeches as the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood more of Turkey’s president, and it’s certainly not born out of the concern to avoid a new wave of violence. It’s an expression of the usual, most insidious de-legitimization in which the State of Israel is continually subjected, accompanied by the usual choir, including Europe, as if it wasn’t obvious to everyone that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Or is'n it? The last threat of violence came last night when Abu Mazen spoke by phone with Trump, but beyond the Palestinian leader’s usual objections he and Trump must have discussed many things that for now are still unknown, and perhaps not entirely negative.
Trump intends to restart the peace process, the Palestinians who despite their bombastic speeches are at present weak and backed into a corner by overall abandonment, perhaps also desire something to move. However, the decision to defend the Al Aqsa Mosque even when the Jews have no intention to touch it is a fixed mantra that all Muslims adhere to, from the Palestinians to the Arab League, to the Jordanians and reaches even the Far East. The latter is the key rallying cry used by Erdogan, who doesn’t arouse any surprise when he expresses his usual hatred in relation to Israel... rather he enjoys the usual diligence on behalf of the Europeans, who have always been quick to blame Israel and side with the Palestinians from Mogherini to – what a pity, so new as a president and so old in his opinions about Israel- Macron who both immediately made passionate pleas to Trump via telephone.
In the reactions of the Arab world, the press and the European Union, we can notice again one more opportunity to de-legitimize not only the Jewish State, but also the Jewish people’s relationship with Jerusalem, an occasion to review the denial of the obvious historical fact that for 3,000 years it has primarily been the city of the Jews, that from 1948 the town was divided by the Jordanians, that since 1950 is Israel capital and that since 1967 has been a united capital in which all religions, cultures, and ethnic groups can worship freely and respectfully coexist. This certainly wasn’t the case back when the Jordanians ruled over the city until 1967 or even during days of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, the city was reunited following Jordan’s attack on Israel, and not vice versa, as the Palestinian seem to suggest, taking advantage of the general ignorance: considering it as "occupied territory" is simply part of a concerted desire to see the Jews disappear.
Yet the second issue is even more important: for 20 years the peace process has pursued a futile and disastrous path. Trump, along with his senior advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, is trying to get the Middle East to change course by pursuing peace between Israel and the Palestinians as they salvage the alliance with the Sunni world, which was lost during the years of the Obama administration.
It’s a very ambitious plan: It would represent an unprecedented achievement for Trump, secret fragments of which have been disclosed over the past months. Never before has a better moment presented itself: the majority of the Sunni Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia with its 15-year-old peace initiative, have many common interests with Israel, especially vis-à-vis Iranian aggression. Probably taking advantage of this new Middle East reality, knowing that a revolution in the Arab world is unlikely to occur against the decision to recognize (Putin has already done so) Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because their shared interests are greater than their differences with Israel, Trump seeks to launch his revolutionary project. Jerusalem, in essence, represents a chance for him to test the waters of a general peace process.
The alternative between moving the embassy and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital all seems like the leverage that probably was used during yesterday's phone call. If Abu Mazen firmly refuses, Trump can opt for the embassy quick move; if Israel adamantly will refuse any requested effort, Trump can retreat his favor. But if the two decide to sit down together, they will talk about a different plan, it’s said, which cancels the unacceptable idea for Israel that they return to the pre-1967 borders, which solely ensures ongoing war. A Palestinian state in the Trump era will have to renounce to part of the territories, and accept swaps in return, probably in the north of Sinai.
Time will tell how this ambitious strategy will unravel. It may represent a successful step in order to uproot the peace process from its perpetual deadlock, an ideal space for the infinite anti Israeli bias.
Translation by Amy Rosenthal