On getting out of control – Aaron David Miller and Lauren Morganbesser in Haaretz:
‘Emerging from his first meeting with newly minted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in June 1996, an exasperated President Clinton exploded: "Who's the fucking superpower here?" Turned off by Netanyahu's brashness, his Democratic successors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, might well have asked the same question. Donald Trump seems to be the first American president to finally answer it.’
(…)
‘Trump's first term was a veritable sugar high for Netanyahu, delivered by a president who cast himself as the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. Embassy there, and affirmed Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. And yet, even then, their relationship was never one of mutual trust, let alone affection.’
(…)
‘Even so, a few months into his second term, the Vulcan mind meld that seemed to bind Trump and Netanyahu on so many issues seemed to be weakening. What has become evident this time around is Trump's willingness to act independently of Israel in ways that none of his predecessors dared. A more astute Netanyahu might have seen this as a signal that Trump's patience should not be taken for granted, and that Israel no longer had carte blanche to do what it wanted without cost or consequence.’
(…)
‘What finally brought matters to a head was Israel's September 9 strike on Doha – the proverbial straw that broke Trump's back. We still don't know exactly what Trump knew about Israel's strike on Hamas' leadership in Doha or when he knew it. The White House claims it was only notified when missiles were already in the air, while Israeli officials maintained that the administration was aware earlier, even if "the timeline to stop it would have been tight."’
(…)
‘ According to Kushner, Trump reportedly felt the Israelis "were getting a little bit out of control" and that it was "time to be very strong and stop them from doing things that he felt were not in their long-term interests."’
(…)
‘The way Trump dealt with Netanyahu had no precedent in the history of U.S. peacemaking. As in the past, Israel got a look at the 20-point plan in advance. But this time, Trump reportedly wanted no "yes, buts" from Netanyahu.
He forced Netanyahu to issue an apology to Qatar and pressed him hard to accept the deal.
When Trump received what was a clear conditional response from Hamas, he treated it as a yes, ignoring Netanyahu's complaints and pressing him on why he was "always so fucking negative," telling him to "take it." Trump was in no mood to negotiate and made it clear that neither Hamas nor Israel wanted to disappoint him. Suffice it to say, Netanyahu had no choice.’
(…)
‘Two features stand out in Trump's unique risk-ready, tough-minded, transactional approach.
First, his unsentimentality. Trump may have been staunchly pro-Israel, but he lacks much of the emotional investment and identification with Israel's history that constrained past presidents. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, who wrote in his memoir "My Life" that "by the time he was killed, I had come to love [Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin] as I had rarely loved another man.".
Nor is Trump Joe Biden, a self-described Zionist whose long career in the Senate gave him decades of experiences with Israel and who seemed in love with the people, its security, and the very idea of a Jewish state.’
(…)
‘Moreover, how could anyone criticize such a stalwart defender of Israel, now pushing a tough-minded Israeli prime minister to do what most Israelis and Americans wanted him to do: end the war in Gaza? Trump, after all, owned the very constituencies Netanyahu had spent years cultivating – evangelicals and conservative Republicans. Indeed, Trump was far more popular than Netanyahu himself.
The question now is whether Trump's firmness with Netanyahu is a one-off headline or the start of a more sustainable trend. Trump is known for moving quickly from one issue to another, claimingto have resolved seven conflicts, and, in the wake of the cease-fire in Gaza, adding number eight to that list.’
(…)
‘Beyond that, does Trump envision an initiative to tackle the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and perhaps secure himself his long-sought Nobel? One thing, however, is unmistakably clear: None of this peacemaking is self-implementing. Success will depend on a president who truly owns his Gaza initiative, pressing a tough-minded Israeli Prime Minister hard to see it through, and prepared to impose real costs and consequences if he does not.’
Read the article here.
Qatar was worse than hubris, it was uberhubris. But I assume that Trum would have had enough without Qatar.
The lack of sentimentality can help.
I’m still seceptical of Turmp’s endurance, but who knows, something has shifted in the US-Israel relationship.
The dead Sinwar can count this as an achievement, but also his enemies might gain from this. If you believe that you are fulfilling by living in the Holy Land you might see this differently.
The nation state as redemption, it remains a rather mundane redemption.