Meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Tuesday, President Trump raised the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, “We’re working very hard on it, we’ll see what happens. Historically people say it can’t happen, I say it can happen.”
Netanyahu, however, was far less positive. That speaks to something: Israel and the U.S. disagree on whether this is a good time to push for peace.
On the Israeli side, Netanyahu doubts that the Palestinians would be willing to make the compromises necessary to achieve a lasting settlement. Indeed, just this weekend we learned that President Abbas’ Fatah movement and Israel’s mortal enemy, Hamas, might now form a unity government. If that happens, or even appears close to happening, Netanyahu will be loath to offer even the smallest of concessions. Doing so wouldn’t just weaken Israel without reciprocity (in its present ideological form, Hamas will never take serious steps towards peace), it would destabilize Netanyahu’s government.
As I’ve noted, the current Israeli government is balanced between various moderate and hardline political parties. But were Netanyahu to entertain serious concessions with the Palestinians, he would face a withdrawal of hardline elements from his government. Before he takes such a great risk, Netanyahu would need confidence that the Palestinians are serious about taking equal political risks. Until then, he’ll choose to placate the hardliners with actions such as his statement last month ruling out shuttering Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Trump, of course, sees things differently.
From the president’s perspective, a lasting settlement here would represent one of history’s greatest deals.
And he’s right, it would be a historic diplomatic success. Since Israel was admitted to the United Nations in 1949, there have been numerous efforts at peace but very few successes. In turn, the bloodshed and political instability that flows with the conflict has remained a constant part of life in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Israelis continue growing up cautious about public places, and Palestinians grow up in a poverty that their leaders redirect into externally focused anger.
In this sense, Trump’s determination to see things change is inherently morally positive. But it’s also important for U.S. national security. That’s because Islamic extremist groups of all ideologies use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a key propaganda narrative to mobilize their supporters.
While Palestinian suffering is partly a result of Israeli policies, it has much more to do with the endemic corruption that embodies Fatah, and the fanatical total-war zealotry that defines Hamas. But the terrorists expertly lie about this reality, instead blaming all Palestinian ills on Israel and its primary supporter, the United States. A key driver of terrorist recruitment, financing, and moral legitimacy (via Imams), this narrative explain why Hamas’ opposition to peace is as much about power dynamics as ideological ambitions.
Regardless, Trump is right to push for progress even if the chances of success are low. Keeping both sides talking, the president can hopefully reduce the prospect of a new Palestinian uprising.
Still, the differences between Israel and the U.S. on this issue shouldn’t be underestimated.
