OF THE
TIMES
"Rex [Tillerson]... hinted to me that the United States is expecting to strike a 'deal of the century,' which would resolve the Palestinian-Israeli problem in one swoop," Sergey Lavrov said. "We certainly want to understand how they see this happening."According to Mark Perry at The American Conservative, the Jerusalem decision was decided in November, coordinated with Netanyahu and supported by Kushner, Pence, Greenblatt and Pompeo. Mattis and Tillerson were reportedly the sole voices arguing that the move was a bad idea that
...
Lavrov joined an international chorus of criticism over the move by the Trump administration. "The fact is that the statement [of recognition] goes against all the previous agreements," he said, adding that it divided global communities into two "very, very unequal parts." Israel is the only nation openly endorsing the move, but some US allies like Canada have refrained from criticizing it too loudly.
Lavrov, who was speaking to journalists in Vienna, said the Trump administration has shot itself in the foot with the decision, undermining their own Middle East strategy. "They previously said, let's normalize the relations between Washington and the Arab world, and once it is done, the Palestinian issue can be resolved," he said. "By taking the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem the Trump administration have undermined their effort to normalize the relations with the Arabs."
would endanger American diplomats serving in the region, undermine the administration's efforts to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and result in condemnations from both Arab countries and America's most important allies in Europe. Trump could expect almost no support in the international community, they said. America would "have to go it alone."Trump apparently acknowledged the concerns, but "said that he would dampen them by repeating U.S. assurances that it was committed to a two-state solution. More so, he argued, the U.S. did not need to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem immediately - which would serve as a further reassurance."
Trump, this official added, was actually anxious to make Wednesday's announcement because he was so encouraged by the progress made on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by Jared Kushner and his team. "I know a lot of that progress isn't visible," as this official was overheard saying to a prominent television reporter, "[but] it's partly because that progress is not visible that they've been able to make so much progress."So does Trump have a plan? Is he deluded? Or is he just following orders?
Domestically, it would seem Trump has little to worry about. The Democrats have spent the last 70 years (since 1948), fawning over Israel and defending it, while the Republicans' Christian Evangelical base is in full-throated support of the embassy move. Furthermore, the GOP has been desperate to break into what was once a Democrat - only monopoly on Jewish-American political funding-and Jewish votes. In this sense, Mr. Trump's Jerusalem announcement can be seen as a kind of coming out party - a celebration that the monopoly has been broken, that the Republicans have arrived. Then too, the bedrock of progressivism of American Jews (who supported any number of progressive movements over the last decades), has been overawed by concern that Israel can best be defended by backing pro-military conservative interventionists.
And so it is that President Trump's Jerusalem announcement might well be seen as a significant and decisive victory - for Israel, for the Republican Party, and for those Jewish Americans who have had to choose between their progressive ideals and their support for a nation that is anything but. The result is stark, discomforting. It may be that the controversy will fade, that the Arab world will remain quiet, that the Trump administration will use the Jerusalem decision as a springboard to launch a creative and fair resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That Jared Kushner will succeed where George Mitchell did not. But that doesn't seem likely.
Comment: Russia took charge in Syria not because of Western aloofness nor any other of the reasons Obama supplied as an excuse. It did so because its leaders understand how to solve problems and how to leverage the Western mask of deception against itself in the world community.