By Josh Hammer
Cruz and Rubio repeatedly hammered Trump for his vow to stay strictly “neutral” in terms of trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Â Rubio even called it an “anti-Israel” position in its effect, if arguably not in its intent. Â Both Cruz and Rubio discussed how the blame for the stalled peace process lies with the Palestinians, and not with the Israelis.
I do not intend to hash out intricateÂ details on the conflict in this post, but suffice it to say Sens. Cruz and Rubio are spot-on on the basic dynamics. Â The Palestinian Authority government in Ramallah is brutally corrupt, indoctrinates its children in the most abhorrently raw and vile anti-Semitism, names street names and public monuments after jihadist martyrs, and hasÂ repeatedly turned down generous Israeli peace offers. Â In Gaza, moreover, the Islamic supremacist terrorist group Hamas—which literally calls not just for the destruction of all of Israel, but also for the death of every global Jew, in its founding charter—quickly took over upon Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Strip in 2005, thus proving naive then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s hopeÂ that the withdrawal would allow the Palestinians to prove they could build a “Singapore on the Mediterranean” as a necessary condition to a lasting peace.
Anyway, suffice it to say that Trump’s claims to strict “neutral[ity]” between America’s foremost regional ally and the terrorist-enablers who seek its destruction are ill-informed, ill-advised, and reek of the morally relativistic nonsense that permeates Leftist and United Nations discourse.
But there is actually an even more important takeaway here. Â Trump’s candidacy is based, in part, on his purported dealmaking mastery. Â (“Omg, he wroteÂ The Art of the Deal!,” and all that.) Â But his entire approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proves all that to be a smokescreen and, indeed, a farce. Â Last night, Trump repeatedly said that his top goal was to get a deal—any deal. Â Forget about the terms! Â Forget about Israel’s wholly legitimate security concerns! Â It is the very concept of The Dealâ„¢ that proves itself the shiny object of his true desire.
Note that this isÂ precisely the same asÂ Barack Obama and John Kerry’s approachÂ when they kowtowed to the forces of fundamentalist jihadist evil in the self-flaggelatingly humiliating capitulation known as the Iran nuclear deal. Â All Kerry’s State Department minions wanted was a legacy-defining deal—any deal! Â Forget about the terms! Â And thus, we ended up where we are today, with the Islamic Republic of Iran getting hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate sanctions relief and a situation where the mullahs already openly flout the accord’sÂ (non-binding!) terms.
This is basic negotiation theory that any business, economics, or public policy student learns in school. Â When you start out desperate, the opponent senses blood and forces all sorts of concessions. Â You have to start from a place of strength in order to end at a place of strength.
The guy who wroteÂ The Art of the Deal really should know this, but apparently he does not. Â Or, alternatively, he just does not care about Israel. Â You can be the judge.