Robert M. Danin

Middle East Matters

Danin analyzes critical developments and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


President Trump: Peace Processor

by Robert M. Danin
February 13, 2017

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) speaks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the Monroe Room of the State Department in Washington September 2, 2010 (Jason Reed/Reuters)


President Donald Trump’s evolving views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appear to be coming into greater focus as he prepares to welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House later this week.

Over the past few months, Trump has expressed two broad sentiments seemingly in tension with one another. In his first interview after the November 2016 vote, then President-elect Trump reiterated a previously expressed desire to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling it “the ultimate deal.”

His desire to pursue such a deal has been matched, however, by a second strand of thinking, reflecting an admiration not only for Israel but also for its far-right settlers. The Israeli settlement movement opposes the idea of a Palestinian state and seeks Israel’s annexation of the entire West Bank. The president seemed to be reinforcing his earlier financial support for the settlement enterprise when he appointed staunch settler supporter and fundraiser, David Friedman, to become the next U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman immediately announced his intention to live in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, since, he suggested, President Trump would soon be recognizing the Holy City as Israel’s capital.

For months, many Middle East observers have wondered how President Trump will reconcile these two strains in his thinking—the quest for the ultimate deal and his support for the settlers who claim all the land as their own. One indicator emerged over the weekend when Israel’s largest circulation Israeli daily newspaper, Israel Hayom, published an interview with President Trump. The president had dined at the White House the night before with the free tabloid’s pro-settlement founder and financier, Sheldon Adelson.

In a seeming rebuke to his dinner guest of the night before, President Trump clearly stated his concerns about continued Israeli settlement activity and their potential to impinge upon peace-making: “The [settlements] don’t help the process, I can say that. There is so much land left. And every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left.” That could only have meant: land left for the Palestinians. But lest there remain any ambiguity, President Trump stated clearly: “I am not somebody that believes that going forward with these settlements is a good thing for peace.”

At that moment, President Trump acknowledged not only the tension between continued settlement expansion and peace making efforts with the Palestinians, but his clear preference for peace-making. In doing so, Trump fell into line with 50 years of American thinking that has seen Israeli West Bank settlement expansion as unhelpful, at best.

Lest the Israel Hayom interview be taken as a one-off, Netanyahu disclosed yesterday to his cabinet that two days after his inauguration, President Trump had privately informed the prime minister of his intention to pursue an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Told by Netanyahu that the Palestinians are unwilling to make a deal, Trump’s response was, according to the Israeli leader: “They (the Palestinians) will want, they will make concessions.” Having been put on notice by Trump of his intention to pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace, Netanyahu told his cabinet: “we mustn’t get into a confrontation with him.”

How President Trump intends to pursue peace and how he will succeed where his predecessors have all stumbled is yet to be determined. It seems that President Trump himself is not yet sure. He is taking a decidedly different approach in launching his efforts than that of his predecessor, President Barak Obama, who announced his intention of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with fanfare just two days after his inauguration. In contrast, President Trump is gradually revealing his intentions while consulting in an uncharacteristically low-key fashion with regional partners.

Yet Donald Trump, in one stark and unmistakable way, is no different than the eight presidents that preceded him: He is clearly and unambiguously a peace-processor.

Post a Comment 6 Comments

  • Posted by James

    You acknowledge that he has expressed contradicting views on the subject, and we’ve all seen how capricious the man is. How, then, can you conclude that he is clearly and unambiguously a peace-processor?
    It seems to me that he is a peace-processor as long as his closest advisors and most influential peers want him to be. If those people change their minds and want war, it’s obvious he would be more than amenable to that position.

  • Posted by Robert M. Danin

    Thanks for your comments. I’m suggesting that there have been different strains to his thinking. But that he has now come down on one side of the divide. You are correct that he may change his mind. But nowhere did I suggest in my piece, nor do I subscribe to the notion that his views are the result of manipulation by others.

  • Posted by Brien Doyle

    Force Israel to move back some of the settlements (certainly not as far back as 1967 as the Palestines have lost any rights to claims while they have refused to recognise Israel’s right to be a nation).
    Then force Hamas to sign a recognition form and if they refuse still take all the land away – create a nominal nation under UN military and offer it to those who sign up. Throw out the rest.

  • Posted by Pleb

    Leave the entire Middle East to it’s own devices. A total waste of time and money. Concentrate on your infrastructure and other more pressing needs in the USA.

  • Posted by S.lakshma reddy

    Israel Palestine two nations within the boundaries fixed by sovereign UN on some non discriminatory globally acceptable criteria is the right solution.but the criteria evolved for establishing national boundaries also to be applied to many existing defective state boundaries where national oppression and struggles for recognition of self rule pending settlement all over the world.This is more visible in middle east where monority nationalities oppressed by majority or dominant national groups and espoused by religious terror groups like alquida,Taliban,is is.

    21st century highlights the rise of human rights issues more than predecessor centuries corresponding to the growth of benefits of new technology.governing institions and political systems are lagging in many countries due to the fixed notions of international boundaries and laws.
    Times demand changes to distribute the benefits of technical and economic globalisation to all aspiring human beings.dissatisfied with existing political and legal institions where such minority nationals/tribes find no effective remedy are finding mercenary terror groups as support system.

    History and Times will find the solutions through laboringth depths to destruction of sometimes civilisations like in Roman fall to end in dark days unless changes in political institutions at global level democratised to include changed higher human aspirations.else hatred,suicidal violent tendencies,longing for violence as god wish in the place universal love and brotherhood may increase.

  • Posted by Hisamuddin Farooqi

    President Trump will go in history if he solves the problem of settlements and consolidates West Bank position. Only a strong US President can resolve BB’s hubris.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required