I’ve talked in the past about Donald Trump’s virtue signaling (he really is the most amazing troll I’ve ever seen), but what he did at the UN on December 23, 2016 was on a whole other level.
With one phone call, Donald Trump gained control over the Israeli/Palestine peace process, destroyed the legacies of Obama, Clinton, and Carter, started the (eventual) Muslim ban, banked a (future) favor from Egypt, and stumped the UN into showing their true anti-Semitic colors.
Here’s how he did it.
So what happened on Friday, December 23?
Egypt was planning to submit a resolution to the UN that would’ve declared that the West Bank was occupied territory, including the Western Wall.
Donald phoned Egypt, whom promptly cancelled their plans. New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia, and Venezuela thus submitted the Resolution instead. The Security Council, which has 15 members, voted 14 – 0 in favor of the resolution. The United States (under Obama) however, abstained whereas previous American foreign policy dictated a veto.
While Obama claimed that he had nothing to do with the resolution, this was one of the few times the United States had failed to support Israel. Of the 226 anti-Israel Resolutions passed previously, only 17 were abstained from by American foreign policy, making this a significant event for all sides.
The UN Resolution 2334, now adopted, “reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity.” As well, the resolution also condemns acts of terrorism, provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric – heavily implied against the Palestinians. “Settlements” include anything annexed after the 1967 war with Jordan.
So on the face of it, it would appear that Obama’s abstaining is in line with his administration’s politics – as a means of supposedly punishing Israel for building the settlements while providing a condemnation of rhetoric that leads to conflict.
While this was nearly the opposite of long-standing American foreign policy doctrine with regards to the two-state solution and the inherent borders therein, this course of action was the best thing possible for Israel, and while it looks like Donald was finally stumped, he’s really just playing the part.
During the Primaries, Marco Rubio mentioned that Donald’s stance of neutrality was anti-Israel in nature. And while Rubio would be right in that regard (if he were dealing with any other person wherein one’s anti-war pacifism would only serve to support the inflammatory rhetoric of the opposition), Donald always has another trick up his sleeve.
Donald’s nimble navigating:
The thing to remember is that Donald is pro-Israel even though he puts on the guise of being indifferent. After all, his daughter’s Jewish, his grandchildren are Jewish, he grew up in New York City and entered the Real Estate Business. Simply put, he has always been pro-Jewish:
“You know, you have both sides, really, but one side in particular growing up learning that these are the worst people these people are the worst people, etc. etc.,” he said. “I was with a very prominent Israeli the other day, he says it’s impossible because the other side has been trained from the time they’re children to hate Jewish people.”
As evidenced by his Facebook message a day before the UN vote, while he claimed he’d be neutral, Donald really plays all sides in pursuit of the greater goal. And with the Facebook post and the phone call, Donald changed the game:
“As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position, and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”
First off, in even commenting on the matter, he solidified the fact that Obama would abstain purely on the principle of the matter and ensured that the democrats would only double-down on their support (due to their irrational hatred of Donald himself).
Previously, the Obama administration weren’t sure how they’d vote, and were virtue-signaling to gauge liberal reactions. Donald forced them to choose on his terms. Thus, whichever side he took, Obama had to take the opposite.
More importantly, Donald united GOP establishment Republicans to his cause. He now has a carrot to dangle over them, as they need Israel to exist to fulfil their End Of Days prophecy in the Book of Revelations:
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a statement, “[T]he consequences of this disgraceful U.N. resolution should be severe. I look forward to working with Sen. Graham, and with the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump, to significantly reduce or even eliminate U.S. funding of the United Nations, and also to seriously reconsider financial support for the nations that supported this resolution.”
Now we know Donald was responsible for the immediate result, but is this detrimental to his incoming Presidential policy? A reversal of campaign terms (like Obama did to Israel several times over, much to Alan Dershowitz’s chagrin)?
See, Donald isn’t sabotaging his own platform, he’s sabotaging everyone else’s by only appearing to destroy his.
And he’s played people before.
He did it at the Colorado Convention, when he threatened to go 3rd Party if the GOP chose Cruz. He made both himself and Ben into “media victims/underdogs” in highlighting how Cruz stole votes from Carson, as well as in how Cruz was playing by unfair voting rules with Delegates. The same happened with “Pussygate” and his public apology.
He didn’t attack the issue head-on, he made it seem like he was vulnerable. It’s classic misdirection on his part, and while the liberal media is focused on the superficiality of how Donald presents himself, he’s already advanced three, four, five steps ahead.
Trump is no stranger to priming worldviews, he’s working overtime to combat Obama at every step. After Obama helped pass the UN Resolution, Trump again started enforcing the worldview that everything Barack Obama does turns out terribly. One of his latest Tweets at the time was “The world was gloomy before I won – there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!”. He was actively hammering home the point that Obama was a failure as a President, and that this is simply another one of his terrible decisions.
As petty as it sounds, he’s even resorted to taking the legacy of Obama’s catchphrase.
Imagine that tweet later being appended with “Obama tried and failed to bring peace to the Middle East for 8 years. Just another one of his failed schemes for greatness. Sad!”.
In the media landscape, Donald might appear to have “lost”, but it’s all posturing. And if his “As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20th” tweet is considered, he’s not going to waste time leaving Obama in the dust. In fact, Trump is already considering inviting Israeli PM Netanyahu to the White House as well as moving the American Embassy to West Jerusalem (a section of land even Palestinians officially admit is Israeli territory).
Of course, this isn’t to say that Donald has ensured his victory in a peace deal, but he completely defined the narrative of things to come. A false sense of (Obama’s) security, and people start to believe the lie.
“Well, Iran has done it again. Taken two of our people and asking for a fortune for their release. This doesn’t happen if I’m president!”
This nutshell of a foreign policy will (arguably) also extend to “Palestine”, which has kidnapped Israeli civilians and soldiers before, demanding the release of thousands more Palestinian terrorist prisoners in an exchange.
Now that Donald is our President, this Islamic sabotage will no longer be an acceptable option under a Trump administration.
What also won’t be acceptable are Islamist terror cells in Israel. You know, things Obama never cared to mediate with in his weak eight years as a mediating President.
It’s like playing football and scoring on your own team (Obama BTFO):
Obama is really, really bad at foreign diplomacy, as “he has alienated the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates and other allies by his actions and inactions with regard to Iran, Syria, Egypt and Iraq”. Donald is much better (and he wasn’t even president yet), as we saw with his appointment of David Freidman as Israeli Ambassador.
For those unawares, David Friedman believes that Palestinian mayhem, rather than the settlements, are to blame (to put it lightly). The Palestinian Leadership considers David’s opinion to be a “green light” to Israeli “extremists” and “racists”.
Bit of an odd reaction to take, isn’t it? Everyone I don’t like is an extremist and racist? Where have we heard that before?
Weird, since if Israel were an apartheid, as Palestinians claim, one wouldn’t be able to vote, work, gain citizenship, reside in, marry, etc. if they weren’t Jewish – everything they can do in Israel. The crux of it is that the “minority” feel they are oppressed, when the reality highlights anything different. Simply put, they are professional victims, and because no one challenges their narrative, they remain as such.
Obama’s Resolution calls for a two state solution. This is incredibly impractical because the thing we have to understand about the Palestinian Authority is that calling for a two-state solution publicly is more acceptable than calling for Israel to not have one at all. For the Palestinians, it’s never been about “settlements” or “UN Statehood recognizance”. It’s all Taqiyya (professional Islamic lying) designed to cripple the stance of the Israelis as much as possible, until all the land is sequestered away.
“The United States acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” Kerry said Friday. “Two states is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.”
See, the Palestinian Authority rejects the Holocaust wholesale (even though they actively participated in it). Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel in their Charter, and the PLO (Fatah’s predecessor) was responsible for the terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s – the most famous of which was the Munich Massacre – when an Israeli Olympic team was murdered. Not to mention everything else, like the frequent hijackings in the 60s and 70s of Israeli commercial planes.
Additionally, after an earlier attempt to overthrow the Jordanian kingdom (referred to as Black September), the Palestinians realized they were running out of legitimacy in terms of their status as a “victimized” people. This is actually why the Oslo Accords (based on the 1978 Camp David Accords) happened, since Israel didn’t want to govern a hostile population and Jordan and Egypt definitely didn’t want to take them either (the three places considered in the British Mandate of Palestine and the Sevras Treaty). Funny then, how the First Intifada (or, “uprising”) only came to an end after the paperwork was signed. Was it a peace accord, or a ransom negotiation deal?
Even after the existential wars. We were faced with daily bombers and attacks during active negotiations in the early 90s, and again later by suicide bombers in the early 2000s, and again later when we took those settlements out of gaza with no conditions (Hamas was voted in, sworn on Israel destruction) So we received tens of thousands of rockets in exchange. Consider that anyone who is 21+ lived through those backstabs.
The narrative that jews are subhuman and should be ethnically cleansed from the land of our forefathers is the norm in the palestinian society, which western media often fails to report. We’ve been fooled, especially when we reached out our arm to peace.
Simply put, reality does not have a Palestinian bias. Through Taqiyya, the Palestinians subvert and destroy – and the media and “inter-governmental organizations” / “activism industry” helps them through it.
And Obama is definitely practicing Taqiyya, as he did with the Iran Deal wherein Obama gave Iran nuclear capabilities with the Deal in order to build up the country as an excuse for a future invasion. A sweet side-benefit for Obama was the inherent delegitimization of Israel, a country he’s never respected. Taqiyya, and it would have worked here if it hadn’t been for Donald.
So how did Obama extraordinarily mess up (something Donald has taken full advantage of)?
He passed the UN Resolution under the wrong Chapter!
UN Resolution 2334 was passed under Chapter VI, rather than VII. The former is for resolutions meant for peaceful negotiation and mediation, whereas the latter is for resolutions that require the use of the Security Council’s military forces.
If this truly were about peace negotiation with two nations already hostile towards each other, then the matter would have been referred to Chapter VII because the end goal in that format is to prevent war. Or as VP Mike Pence states, “Peace through Strength”.
Chapter VII is a better fit to actually maintain anything more than a courtesy ceasefire – which Hamas uses to stockpile up on food and weapons – if one is truly looking for long-lasting peace. That Chapter allows the Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security”.
The Obama administration was thus fully aware that since this resolution was passed under Chapter VI rather than Chapter VII of the UN Charter, there is no enforcement mechanism to implement it, and it is not necessarily binding, and UN military presence isn’t granted.
Therefore, the entire resolution either highlights that the Palestinian intifadas don’t matter, or they very much do – in this scenario, where there’s been 70 years of war, you only pass something in Chapter VI if you’re angling for UN Statehood in an otherwise purely symbolic gesture with no intent of actually following through. Because it’s evidence that “mediation” is never going to work without military force backing it.
Obama’s aim was to give the Palestinians a boost in support and blame the (eventual) breakdown in the peace process on the Trump administration.
But this strategy will only work if Palestine is pressured into actually accepting Statehood status, instead of just whining about it. Trump defined any weaseling of Arab nations as a “put up or shut up” moment. Fortunately, given the change of circumstances in which this Resolution was passed, an educated guess can be made as to how it will all end.
What’s extremely telling is that Egypt wanted to pass the UN Resolution first – despite being the ally of Israel. It’s nothing personal, just incredibly long-term business. It’s not that they’re trying to de-legitimize Israel as Obama was, it’s that they’re trying to end the Palestinian “cause” once and for all. They’re tired of playing “politically correct” at the expense of Egyptian lives.
While the reversal in Egypt’s opinion is odd in submitting a proposal and then rescinding it, it revealed a deeper thinking of Donald’s – the resolution couldn’t be passed by Egypt because they needed plausible deniability, they needed diplomacy.
Egypt’s end goal was to recognize Palestine so the next skirmish that occured would mean Palestine (and all their leadership) were committing acts of war, “justified” for retribution (and not necessarily on behalf of Israel).
If necessary, some could be tried for War Crimes, and that is why the Palestinian Authority would previously shout about being accepted, but always shirk away from actual state recognition. It’s like a restaurant owner who yells about being up for certification, saying their kitchens are the cleanest, but never goes through with the inspection because the Health Inspector would find rat excrement in the soup.
Expect that favor to be cashed in later regarding the Suez Canal. To that end, recognizance of Palestine (and the legacy of the brokerage regarding the Suez Canal) has been important for ex-President Jimmy Carter, and he just got played.
Donald’s proposal to ban all Muslims (Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton BTFO):
The Resolution was ultimately sponsored by countries that have no interests strategically in Israel, like Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal and New Zealand. Deeply, deeply misinformed countries with no dog in the fight.
The most NZers ever hear about these things is “settlements on occupied Palestinian land breaking international law”. They don’t stop and ask ‘what is a settlement’, what is ‘occupied’, what is ‘Palestinian’ and how do we know whose land it is, or what law applies to it. Most people would just accept that statement at face value, especially when they see ostensibly “neutral” people & countries who ought to know the complexities of the situation agreeing with the UN resolution, and that’s it – the Israel govt must be in the wrong, case closed. My impression is that NZers believe they took a moral and idealistic stand against “illegal settlements”, they want to stick up for the underdog and don’t see themselves as part of some big conspiracy against Israel or Israelis, even though they are justifiably pissed off at how Mossad was using NZ passports. So yeah, that’s not really a sense that there is even another side and an historical basis to the settler argument… so “what we have here is a failure to communicate” – among many other failures of course 😦
“I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short, ” Carter wrote. “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine.”
Carter’s sentiment is exactly what Donald wants, because both Obama and Carter unwittingly played into Trump’s hands. Now the Palestinians have to actually follow through for once in attaining UN Statehood! So how does that affect them (in ways it didn’t before)? Why will Palestinian resistance in following the rules finally matter in terms of warfare?
The Fourth Geneva Convention:
First, let’s do away with any notion that the UN is some bastion of morality and peace in the conflict. In 2015 alone the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism — and only 3 resolutions on the rest of the world combined. This is despite the Palestinian Authority still paying terrorists salaries, and “losing” over 1.6 billion in aid money…
The Jewish state is the U.N.’s scapegoat for anything and everything,” Greenfield continued. “These days, the United Nations is a forum for Islamist powers and the rotting remains of the Communist front to continue its war against the free world while seducing weak-minded nations into going along.”
UNRWA schools are turning out students who want to fight for ISIS. The UN’s email system has been used to distribute child pornography. UN staff members have smuggled drugs, attacked each other with knives and pool cues, not to mention a tractor. This month the UN marked Anti-Corruption Day despite refusing to fight its own corruption. The former President of the UN General Assembly was arrested on bribery charges last year. He had also headed UNICEF’s executive board. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is battling accusations of bribery.
So why is the Fourth Geneva Convention so important?
The Convention essentially makes it illegal for nation-states to either move populations, or establish settlements on occupied land. While violating the Fourth Geneva Convention offers no sanctions, there are talks of this new resolution justifying cases to be sent before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. For War Crimes (or rather, the conduct both nations must adhere to in order to not be accused of committing war crimes in the first place).
“the resolution makes it possible to file lawsuits against Israel and Israeli officials as well as Israeli citizens involved in settlement activity at the International Criminal Court and for sanctions to be imposed on Israel both by the UN and by individual countries”.
But to the Palestinians, it’s really never been about the “settlements” (which comprise 3% of actual land in the West Bank), it’s always been about the land Israel won in their existential wars after 1967.
So why are the settlements important to Israel? Because they were de facto spoils of war. And why are the condemnations of violence import to the Palestians? Because it “undermines their right” to Statehood. This Resolution may not have been legally binding, but Donald made it spiritually binding. He’s forced the hand of the Palestinians (just as Obama inadvertenly did in filing the resolution under the wrong Chapter).
In fact, the argument regarding the settlement’s legality is based on Fourth Geneva Convention, an international treaty governing the treatment of civilians in a war zone or in territory occupied in the course of a war. It was adopted in 1949 as a humanitarian measure in reaction to the annexation of Czechoslovakia by Hitler’s Third Reich. Article 49 of the convention forbids the transfer by an occupying power of its civilians into the occupied territory. Note that the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan occurred in 1947. No one claimed it was illegal.
That’s why the UN is so hypocritical. The Fourth Geneva Convention / Article 49 was passed as an act of collusion, similar to what we’ve seen last month. The UN is a mouthpiece for the will of the Arab Nations – it always has been. Just as it was during the League of Nations.
Extraordinary tolerance has been granted towards Islamic Nations by those suffering from white guilt, and only now is it so drastically showing. It is no different than the Democratic National Party standing for Progressivism yet promoting Islam which kills gays and stones women.
The territory was slated under the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan to become an Arab state alongside the Jewish state of Israel. When the Palestinians rejected the partition plan and refused to set up their state, Jordan captured the territory and annexed it. Only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, recognized Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as valid and legal.
Israel maintains that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the West Bank. The treaty states at the outset, in Article 2, that it addresses situations in which one signatory state captures the territory of another signatory state in the course of war. Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 from Jordan, which had no legal claim to it, so it didn’t capture the territory “of” another state.
The issue has been a source of frustration for U.S. administrations ever since Arabs attacked Israel in 1967, only to lose the West Bank and Gaza and then demand the return of the territories. Israel gave back Gaza but its government maintains the tiny Jewish state needs to retain the West Bank and allow settlers there in order to maintain a buffer zone against terrorists and any future invasion.
This is actually a great thing, because according to Foreign Policy:
“British and U.S. diplomats, as well as the American and European press, may be fooled by Palestinian and Peace Now complaints that Bibi is gobbling up Palestinian territory, but the settlers live in those places and know better — construction is slowing down.”
Here’s the official settlement activity report, as released by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. Note that how the only reason we hear about “settlements being built” is by the “activist” groups on the ground (the exact same thing we’ve seen in Syria) – many funded by Soros with the clear goal of delegitimizing Israel’s status in the world stage.
You know what the “activist groups on the ground” don’t report (because it’s not in their interest)?
War Crimes (of the 4th Geneva Convention, again, the very charge the Palestinians try to pin on the Israelis).
The Palestinian Authority is no stranger to those accusations, especially during the last (third) intifada!
None of this will be tolerated by Donald’s administration. When Palestine is granted official UN Statehood, they will be finally held accountable for war crimes, with the “authority” coming from the very institution that thought they had finally stumped Trump.
But the 4th Geneva Convention only applies to those who sign it, right?
Well, the Palestinian delegation has to sign everything now “in the pursuance of peace” (under pressure from Obama, Clinton, Carter, and Trump). Hilariously, Obama therefore just inadvertently signed the Palestinian’s death warrant (an act he would know well from Yemen). It’s amazing, because no matter which way the Palestinian’s turn, either they’ll be spiritually defeated, or actually defeated.
The 4th Convention applies to non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
All of which the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have violated in recent years.
And here’s the best part: it’s a good pretext for Arab nations to declare war, due to “a violation of UN law”.
Because of the incorrect Chapter filing, and the peer pressure to become signatories to conventions and ratified resolutions they’d rather not be a part of, eventually the UN Resolution will have to be voided by the Palestinians. The filing of the Resolution under the wrong Chapter means that if they want to pursue anything other than peace (and have military strength to back it up) they themselves will have to do the very thing they blame the Israelis for. And while it is possible that the Arab nations could convince the UN to deploy troops against Israel, on behalf of the PLO, regardless of the logistics of its possibility, it would still look really, really bad diplomatically. Even though they’ve performed such actions before against Israel, they’ve never been held accountable as they will be from now on. If it were to happen that the very organization that demands its members follow the UN Resolutions was working back-room deals to violate their own decrees, well, that level of collusion would be completely contradictory in its nature.
In fact, the only nation (and terror proxy group) that could really go to bat for the Palestinians are Iran and Hezbollah. And even that relationship will be tenuous (if even possible) as Iran is comprised of Shia Muslims, and Palestinians are majority Sunni Muslims, embroiled in their own religious sectarian war.
As for the other usual suspects, as Alan Dershowitz previously mentioned, Iraq still hasn’t recovered from Bush era (through actions led by Obama), Egypt and Jordan are steadfast allies with Israel, Libya was destabilized, Syria’s undergoing a civil war, and Saudi Arabia is busy fighting ISIS/won’t be able to get America to do their dirty work.
Indeed, thanks to the boost of confidence they received from the previous Obama administration, they’re now officially a threat. If fact, it is questionable if another reason the Iran Deal was made was specifically to help the Palestinians as their ally in the long-run.
The beautiful part about giving the Palestinians Statehood also means that any historical arguments regarding the logistics of war are then completely off the table. Should Palestine start a war with Israel (both being recognized by the UN), the outcome of that war then sets the precedent. To lose in 1967 is one thing. To lose in 2017 will be another.
It’ll be fair game, a clean slate. Not only for the evidence of previous war crimes committed by the Palestinians, but also for actual land takeovers (even though all previous land was actually legal as spoils of war).
Because you cannot pretend to be for peace and then commit acts of kidnapping, rocket launching, knifing attacks, van attacks, school bus attacks and then claim to be a victim.
And this, of course (if it happens), will only strengthen Donald’s proposal to ban all Muslims:
Donald’s been wishy-washy in public about the exact requirements for the ban – first claiming that a full and complete ban would be in place until they could figure out what was going on. Then adjusting his views to include extreme vetting (albeit no contradiction in terms actually exists).
But why re-invent the wheel to keep out dangerous radicals, when Carter showed us how he did it (a guideline for Donald to follow, no doubt)?
During the hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter banned Iranian students as a result of the Iranian turmoils, an event bolstered heavily by his anti-war pacifism. If there’s an uptick in Jihadi Palestinians, Donald will be ready.
“The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”
“Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
The funny thing is that had Carter not gone on a crusade of pro-Palestinian advocacy, he’d be remembered as a great leader in the region.
Carter maneuvered the Israeli-Egyptian landmark peace treaty. Israel gave the Sinai peninsula back, Egypt agreed to station no soldiers in the Sinai without Israel okaying it, and Egypt and Israel both got the most military weapons and funding from the US amongst American allies. And it wasn’t even equipment that we were going to use, it was obsolete equipment that our own Army wouldn’t buy back from the paramilitary organizations we contracted out labor to!
Egypt and Israel have been peaceful since 1978, and Carter was a large part of that. And that is why Egypt “betrayed” Israel – they both have the same Palestinian problem. Israel and Egypt are allies and both have border enforcements and blockades in place against Gazan/West Bank terrorism. If Carter had understood this and not sided with the Palestinians in spirit, he would have furthered Middle Eastern relations even more!
But he didn’t, and in doing so trashed his legacy.
Funnily enough, even at the “failed” Camp David Summit, hosted by none other than Bill Clinton himself, a man Donald has raked over the coals (in every stance possible) for the last 2 years, he’s been given congratulations by Liberals and Republicans alike for at least recognizing his errors. Bill saw that the problem wasn’t the Jewish negotiating side, but the Palestinians.
In reference to Yasser Arafat congratulating him on trying at the Summit, Clinton replied, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.”.
If Donald pulls off this deal (and he’s definitely underway in actually doing it), he will have trashed the final vestiges of what remains of the legacies of Clinton, Obama, and Carter – all the while setting up the machinations to not only support his Muslim ban (should the need arise), but also dealing with the Palestinian (and by proxy, the Saudi Arabian) problem that both Israel and Egypt were having. With one phone call.
4D Chess, folks. 4D Chess.
The best part of all this? This mishap occurred under Obama’s administration, meaning if anything goes wrong, Obama’s tenure is to blame.
Donald, you played the world and won. And you weren’t even in the room. Kudos.