How the NYT awkwardly and indirectly acknowledges Trump’s Jerusalem embassy might be ‘transformational’
Trump-haters have a real problem defending their belief that President Trump is an idiot that is going to lead us into disaster, now that the dimensions of his achievement in Middle East policy are starting to become undeniable. Yesterday, the New York Times pointed out that the Arab world is not exploding with rage, and n fact, cited an in-the-record “expert” that Trump’s move may be “transformational.”
In titled Tapes Reveal Egyptian Leaders’ Tacit Acceptance of Jerusalem Move, David D. Kirkparick revealed that the al-Sisi administration is using influential Egyptian talk shows to sway public acceptance of the announcement of the move of the American embassy (and now other counties’ as well) to Jerusalem.
“At the end of the day, later on, Jerusalem won’t be much different from Ramallah. What matters is ending the suffering of the Palestinian people,” Captain Kholi concluded. “Concessions are a must and if we reach a concession whereby Jerusalem will be — Ramallah will be the capital of Palestine, to end the war and so no one else dies, then we would go for it.”
Egypt is far from alone in accepting, and even tacitly supporting, the move:
… a de facto alliance against shared foes such as Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State militants and the Arab Spring uprisings is drawing the Arab leaders into an ever-closer collaboration with their one-time nemesis, Israel — producing especially stark juxtapositions between their posturing in public and private.
Mr. Trump’s decision broke with a central premise of 50 years of American-sponsored peace talks, defied decades of Arab demands that East Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state, and stoked fears of a violent backlash the Middle East.
That backlash was not spontaneous, and has been limited to demonstrations organized the weekend after the decision was announced, which amounted to very little by Middle Eastern standards of outrage.
When it wants to offer a conclusion or judgment, the New York Times often finds an “expert” to speak the verdict that a news reporter is not supposed to offer as a personal opinion.
Shibley Telhami, a scholar of the region at the University of Maryland and the Brookings Institution, called the Arab states’ acceptance of the decision “transformational.”
“I don’t think it would have happened a decade ago, because Arab leaders would have made clear they wouldn’t live with it,” he said. Instead, he said, preoccupied by concerns about their own stability, the Arab leaders signaled that — while they may not like the decision — they “will find a way to work with it,” and “with a White House that is prepared to break with what had been taboos in American foreign policy.”
Now that the taboo has been broken and Jerusalem is “off the table” in President Trump’s words, real discussions can proceed on issues where a deal may still be possible. For five decades, since Israel recaptured East Jerusalem repelling an invasion, the so-called “peace process” has accomplished nothing other than gainfully employing squads of diplomats, occupying luxury hotel rooms and squandering megabucks on aid to the Palestinians (much of which has been used to finance terror and fatten the bank accounts of Palestinian “leaders”).