We were deeply concerned by some of Donald Trump’s comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during last Thursday’s Republican debate. Moderator Wolf Blitzer noted that Mr. Trump had recently said that as president he would try to bring peace between the two sides – but not by favoring one side or the other.
Mr. Blitzer recounted that Mr. Trump had said, “Let me be sort of a neutral guy. I don’t want to say whose fault it is. I don’t think it helps.”
Mr. Blitzer then pressed him as to the obvious: “How do you remain neutral when the U.S. considers Israel to be America’s closest ally in the Middle East?”
Mr. Trump’s response was disturbing. He said,
I was the Grand Marshal down Fifth Avenue a number of years ago for the Israeli Day parade [sic]. I have very close ties to Israel. I’ve received the Tree of Life Award and many of the greatest awards given by Israel. As president, however, there’s nothing that I would rather do [than] bring peace to Israel and its neighbors…. I think it serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy…. Now, I may not be successful in doing it. It’s probably the toughest negotiation of anywhere in the world, of any kind, OK? But, it doesn’t help if I start saying I’m very pro-Israel, very pro-Israel, more than anybody on this stage. But it doesn’t do any good to start demeaning the neighbors. Because I would love to do something with regard to negotiating peace, finally, for Israel and for their neighbors.”
So, for this man who would be president, any of the positive feelings for Israel he has articulated in the past would be of no moment on the practical level once he became president. They would play no role once he was embarked on his self-proclaimed mission to resolve the Israel-Palestinian confrontation.
What we take away from this is that a President Trump would not possess a sympathetic understanding of Israel’s need for defensible borders and would treat the respective Israeli and Palestinian narratives on an equal basis with no room for any tilting. Everything would be up for grabs. And as has been the case under President Obama, Palestinian recalcitrance would continue to be rewarded with ever-increasing pressure on Israel to make concessions in the name of arriving at a deal.
In truth, this is not the first time we have heard this sort of approach. In the course of his 2004 campaign for the presidency, John Kerry said this:
Obviously yesterday’s vote [Likud’s rejection of Ariel Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal plan] raises questions about where things are going. Israel has long wanted to be out of Gaza. We all understand that…. And whatever the future of this particular plan, if elected president, I will guarantee you that I will work continuously, never disengaging as [the Bush] administration did for so long, in a way that will advance that cause. And I believe that it is critical that from the first days of a Kerry administration, the world understands that we are going to be prepared…to fight for a safer world and build a stronger America. And that is the first responsibility of the president, but there is no way to do that without being more engaged as an honest broker always in the effort to try and advance the cause of peace. [Emphasis added.]
So forgive us if we’re inherently skeptical of candidates who promise to be “an honest broker” or “a neutral guy” when the Palestinians matter-of-factly insist they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that terrorist killers of Jews are heroes and martyrs.