#of 'the Prime Minister gives them a standing weekly interview' status
Text
New Zealand always shuts down over the Christmas-New Year period in a way that Northern Hemisphere countries simply don't because it's also our long summer break, but I think it's a sign of how...everything...2022 has been that it's December 20th and pretty much everything is already shutting down - and was as of the 19th. This will mean nothing if you don't live here but we've already hit a 7am start for Morning Report! Everybody is simply Done.
#new zealand#morning report is the flagship public radio news show#of 'the Prime Minister gives them a standing weekly interview' status#runs 6am-9am during the year#7am Morning Report (with fill-in hosts) is one of THE key signs we are on Summer Time
358 notes
·
View notes
Text
Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home?
Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home? Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home? http://www.nature-business.com/nature-jacinda-arderns-progressive-politics-made-her-a-global-sensation-but-do-they-work-at-home/
Nature
Image
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand at the United Nations this week.CreditCreditLucas Jackson/Reuters
By Charlotte Graham-McLay
Sept. 26, 2018
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, shared the debut of a new assistance package for families from her couch in a Facebook live video in which she could be seen cradling her 10-day-old daughter, Neve, in a bundle of blankets.
Between parenting jokes and policy explanations, she called the $5 billion package of tax cuts and payments “the most significant change to the country’s welfare system in decades.” Of all her government’s efforts, “this is the thing I’m most proud of,” she said, telling the audience that if she looked tired it was only because she was not wearing makeup.
The video from July was just one example of Ms. Ardern testing the reach of what she describes as politics “with a bit of heart.”
In many ways — temperament, style and policy, among them — Ms. Ardern is the polar opposite of President Donald J. Trump and other brash male leaders.
She has become a subject of global fascination for her progressive values, her youth and charisma, and her status as a new mother who has garnered more attention than any previous leader of this small Pacific country.
This week, with her partner and daughter, now three months old, she is bringing her pitch to New York. She will deliver New Zealand’s national statement at the United Nations on Thursday.
She is also doing interviews with the Today Show, Christiane Amanpour and Stephen Colbert. The international news media are fond of promoting her as a new kind of unconventional 21st century leader — the unmarried mother and policy wonk who wore a traditional Maori cloak, while pregnant, to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen.
But even as her star soars abroad, Ms. Ardern increasingly faces challenges at home. Corporate interests are lining up against her agenda after the country’s business confidence rating dropped to a 10 year low in July; the confidence rating has since improved, according to new figures released this month, but it remains weak nonetheless.
Important policies, including tax reform, are still being decided, and critics have cast doubts on Ms. Ardern’s ability to maintain discipline within her governing coalition.
Experts say New Zealand exemplifies the difficulty of enacting a progressive agenda at a time when politics are fractured and conservatives worldwide are emboldened. Ms. Ardern’s supporters say she must push even harder for transformative change.
“The gestures of kindness and care need to be matched sometimes with more concrete and meaningful aspects of kindness in practice,” said Max Harris, a fellow at All Souls College, Oxford, and the author of “The New Zealand Project,” a new book about the country’s politics. He added that true success for Ms. Ardern would require structural shifts in social and economic systems — and it remains to be seen whether Ms. Ardern can get it done.
Image
Ms. Ardern last year. “Supporters of the government have some expectations of quite big change happening, but I don’t really know yet whether this is a transformative government or not,” an analyst said.CreditMatthew Abbott for The New York Times
“Jacindamania”
Ms. Ardern, 38, grew up in small-town New Zealand, studied communications in college and joined the Labour Party at a young age.
She has spent her whole career in politics, working as a staffer for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and later for Helen Clark, a former New Zealand prime minister, before entering Parliament in 2008.
[Sign up for the Morning Briefing to get the global news you need to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.]
Ms. Clark has often described her protégé in glowing terms. In an interview last month, she predicted that Ms. Ardern’s presence at the United Nations General Assembly would lead to a clamor from world leaders who want to be seen with her.
Video
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand brought her 3-month-old daughter along with her to the United Nations General Assembly.Published OnSept. 26, 2018
This week, images of Ms. Ardern, the first head of government to bring her baby to the United Nations, were published in newspapers and shared on social media around the world.
She also made headlines for declining to sign a draft pledge on combating drugs that was introduced on Monday by Mr. Trump. Ms. Ardern said she preferred to view drug abuse not as a national security issue, but rather as a health matter with a focus on treatment for those in need.
“She’s definitely struck a chord with the comments about kindness, and she exhibits that herself; you don’t hear a mean word come out of Jacinda’s mouth,” Ms. Clark said. “She is genuinely a nice and decent and kind person. But we’re also seeing as she develops into the office that she’s firm.”
It is that last point that remains an open question — at least for some.
Ms. Ardern came to power in October 2017. After nine years of center-right government in New Zealand, voters chose Ms. Ardern and her party because of their promise of a better deal for ordinary people, especially the marginalized and vulnerable.
Image
A pregnant Ms. Ardern wore a traditional Maori cloak to Buckingham Palace in April.CreditPool photo by Daniel Leal-Olivas
But her power is limited. In New Zealand, a party does not have to win an outright majority in Parliament to govern. Labour formed a governing coalition with minor parties and in recent weeks, disputes between Ms. Ardern’s party and the party of Winston Peters, the deputy prime minister whose support was crucial to her victory, have become more frequent, leading critics to argue that Ms. Ardern is not in charge of her own government.
Further undermining her standing, two of her cabinet ministers have been forced out in the past month: one was accused of an altercation with a staff member and another failed to disclose meetings with stakeholders tied to specific legislation.
Ms. Ardern said that in both cases, she acted decisively, but opponents accused her of being weak and failing to manage her team.
Opposition lawmakers have also criticized her tendency to appoint expert panels to explore dozens of topics, leaving the details vague on her plans for major issues like taxes.
“Supporters of the government have some expectations of quite big change happening, but I don’t really know yet whether this is a transformative government or not,” said Bryce Edwards, a New Zealand political analyst. With all the panels, he added: “it does feel a bit like they’re avoiding some of the hard issues, and giving them to the technocrats.”
Still, in its first year, her government has been busy. It approved a program of investment in New Zealand’s rural regions; passed housing affordability measures and tax credits for new parents and vulnerable families; and halted new offshore oil and gas drilling.
One of her most common refrains is: “This is the right thing to do.” She used that line this month when announcing that New Zealand would accept 500 more refugees per year starting in 2020, raising the country’s quota to 1,500. The phrase also appeared in her speeches announcing policies to freeze lawmakers’ pay and increase paid parental leave.
In an interview last month, she argued that values and government go together. “You can be pragmatic and grow an economy and improve well-being and do all of the things you have an expectation governments do, but do it with a bit of heart,” she said.
But some New Zealanders, including local journalists, also wonder if her moralism helps her avoid scrutiny.
“It will wear thin if it is overused,” Mr. Edwards said. “It can be used opportunistically, to justify something where you don’t have to come up with any evidence or proof that this is a good decision.”
[Want more coverage and discussion of New Zealand and Australia? Sign up for the weekly Australia Letter, and join us in our Facebook group.]
Politics and Parenting
After Benazir Bhutto in 1990, Ms. Ardern is only the second world leader in modern times to give birth while in office.
She announced her pregnancy in January, delivered her daughter in late June and returned to work in August. In between, while on parental leave, she appeared on Facebook live for the families assistance package.
Her status as both Prime Minister and mother has sparked an international conversation about the role of working women, and there is a sense that both she and the rest of New Zealand are still exploring the boundaries of what that means.
In August, a television outlet posted a clip of Ms. Ardern breast-feeding in the background of an event, and then deleted it after being deluged by complaints from the public.
She was also recently chided by media commentators for the cost of her decision to fly to the Pacific Islands Forum for a single day, and then return home to nurse because her daughter had not yet been vaccinated.
[Read More: New Zealand Leader Vows Daughter Will Learn Maori]
In person, she seems unfazed by the criticism. She is an accomplished media performer, quick with the retort when facing opponents, but careful in interviews. Her partner, Clarke Gayford, the host of a television fishing show, said they have learned a lot about adjusting to the international attention.
“It’s funny how things have unfolded and as your life becomes more public,” he said in an interview at the family’s home last month. “You find yourself holding some of the things back just to create a bit of, it’s not like protection — everything gets picked up and pulled apart.”
Ms. Ardern sees her mission as global. She’s a strong proponent of multilateralism and while New Zealand is a small nation accustomed to not being “the most powerful voice in the room,” she said, “power comes in many forms now.”
And, she added, it’s not just New Zealand that could benefit from more inspiration and less fear.
“To retain the strength of democracy people have to believe in it, and they have to believe in politicians,” she said before she left for the United Nations General Assembly.
“That idea that power cannot be accompanied by notions of compassion and kindness and empathy,” she added. “That’s something that I refuse to accept.”
Want more coverage and discussion of New Zealand and Australia? Sign up for the weekly Australia Letter, start your day with your local Morning Briefing and join us in our Facebook group.
Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/world/asia/jacinda-ardern-un-new-zealand.html |
Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home?, in 2018-09-26 20:41:45
0 notes
Text
Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home?
Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home? Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home? http://www.nature-business.com/nature-jacinda-arderns-progressive-politics-made-her-a-global-sensation-but-do-they-work-at-home/
Nature
Image
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand at the United Nations this week.CreditCreditLucas Jackson/Reuters
By Charlotte Graham-McLay
Sept. 26, 2018
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, shared the debut of a new assistance package for families from her couch in a Facebook live video in which she could be seen cradling her 10-day-old daughter, Neve, in a bundle of blankets.
Between parenting jokes and policy explanations, she called the $5 billion package of tax cuts and payments “the most significant change to the country’s welfare system in decades.” Of all her government’s efforts, “this is the thing I’m most proud of,” she said, telling the audience that if she looked tired it was only because she was not wearing makeup.
The video from July was just one example of Ms. Ardern testing the reach of what she describes as politics “with a bit of heart.”
In many ways — temperament, style and policy, among them — Ms. Ardern is the polar opposite of President Donald J. Trump and other brash male leaders.
She has become a subject of global fascination for her progressive values, her youth and charisma, and her status as a new mother who has garnered more attention than any previous leader of this small Pacific country.
This week, with her partner and daughter, now three months old, she is bringing her pitch to New York. She will deliver New Zealand’s national statement at the United Nations on Thursday.
She is also doing interviews with the Today Show, Christiane Amanpour and Stephen Colbert. The international news media are fond of promoting her as a new kind of unconventional 21st century leader — the unmarried mother and policy wonk who wore a traditional Maori cloak, while pregnant, to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen.
But even as her star soars abroad, Ms. Ardern increasingly faces challenges at home. Corporate interests are lining up against her agenda after the country’s business confidence rating dropped to a 10 year low in July; the confidence rating has since improved, according to new figures released this month, but it remains weak nonetheless.
Important policies, including tax reform, are still being decided, and critics have cast doubts on Ms. Ardern’s ability to maintain discipline within her governing coalition.
Experts say New Zealand exemplifies the difficulty of enacting a progressive agenda at a time when politics are fractured and conservatives worldwide are emboldened. Ms. Ardern’s supporters say she must push even harder for transformative change.
“The gestures of kindness and care need to be matched sometimes with more concrete and meaningful aspects of kindness in practice,” said Max Harris, a fellow at All Souls College, Oxford, and the author of “The New Zealand Project,” a new book about the country’s politics. He added that true success for Ms. Ardern would require structural shifts in social and economic systems — and it remains to be seen whether Ms. Ardern can get it done.
Image
Ms. Ardern last year. “Supporters of the government have some expectations of quite big change happening, but I don’t really know yet whether this is a transformative government or not,” an analyst said.CreditMatthew Abbott for The New York Times
“Jacindamania”
Ms. Ardern, 38, grew up in small-town New Zealand, studied communications in college and joined the Labour Party at a young age.
She has spent her whole career in politics, working as a staffer for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and later for Helen Clark, a former New Zealand prime minister, before entering Parliament in 2008.
[Sign up for the Morning Briefing to get the global news you need to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.]
Ms. Clark has often described her protégé in glowing terms. In an interview last month, she predicted that Ms. Ardern’s presence at the United Nations General Assembly would lead to a clamor from world leaders who want to be seen with her.
Video
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand brought her 3-month-old daughter along with her to the United Nations General Assembly.Published OnSept. 26, 2018
This week, images of Ms. Ardern, the first head of government to bring her baby to the United Nations, were published in newspapers and shared on social media around the world.
She also made headlines for declining to sign a draft pledge on combating drugs that was introduced on Monday by Mr. Trump. Ms. Ardern said she preferred to view drug abuse not as a national security issue, but rather as a health matter with a focus on treatment for those in need.
“She’s definitely struck a chord with the comments about kindness, and she exhibits that herself; you don’t hear a mean word come out of Jacinda’s mouth,” Ms. Clark said. “She is genuinely a nice and decent and kind person. But we’re also seeing as she develops into the office that she’s firm.”
It is that last point that remains an open question — at least for some.
Ms. Ardern came to power in October 2017. After nine years of center-right government in New Zealand, voters chose Ms. Ardern and her party because of their promise of a better deal for ordinary people, especially the marginalized and vulnerable.
Image
A pregnant Ms. Ardern wore a traditional Maori cloak to Buckingham Palace in April.CreditPool photo by Daniel Leal-Olivas
But her power is limited. In New Zealand, a party does not have to win an outright majority in Parliament to govern. Labour formed a governing coalition with minor parties and in recent weeks, disputes between Ms. Ardern’s party and the party of Winston Peters, the deputy prime minister whose support was crucial to her victory, have become more frequent, leading critics to argue that Ms. Ardern is not in charge of her own government.
Further undermining her standing, two of her cabinet ministers have been forced out in the past month: one was accused of an altercation with a staff member and another failed to disclose meetings with stakeholders tied to specific legislation.
Ms. Ardern said that in both cases, she acted decisively, but opponents accused her of being weak and failing to manage her team.
Opposition lawmakers have also criticized her tendency to appoint expert panels to explore dozens of topics, leaving the details vague on her plans for major issues like taxes.
“Supporters of the government have some expectations of quite big change happening, but I don’t really know yet whether this is a transformative government or not,” said Bryce Edwards, a New Zealand political analyst. With all the panels, he added: “it does feel a bit like they’re avoiding some of the hard issues, and giving them to the technocrats.”
Still, in its first year, her government has been busy. It approved a program of investment in New Zealand’s rural regions; passed housing affordability measures and tax credits for new parents and vulnerable families; and halted new offshore oil and gas drilling.
One of her most common refrains is: “This is the right thing to do.” She used that line this month when announcing that New Zealand would accept 500 more refugees per year starting in 2020, raising the country’s quota to 1,500. The phrase also appeared in her speeches announcing policies to freeze lawmakers’ pay and increase paid parental leave.
In an interview last month, she argued that values and government go together. “You can be pragmatic and grow an economy and improve well-being and do all of the things you have an expectation governments do, but do it with a bit of heart,” she said.
But some New Zealanders, including local journalists, also wonder if her moralism helps her avoid scrutiny.
“It will wear thin if it is overused,” Mr. Edwards said. “It can be used opportunistically, to justify something where you don’t have to come up with any evidence or proof that this is a good decision.”
[Want more coverage and discussion of New Zealand and Australia? Sign up for the weekly Australia Letter, and join us in our Facebook group.]
Politics and Parenting
After Benazir Bhutto in 1990, Ms. Ardern is only the second world leader in modern times to give birth while in office.
She announced her pregnancy in January, delivered her daughter in late June and returned to work in August. In between, while on parental leave, she appeared on Facebook live for the families assistance package.
Her status as both Prime Minister and mother has sparked an international conversation about the role of working women, and there is a sense that both she and the rest of New Zealand are still exploring the boundaries of what that means.
In August, a television outlet posted a clip of Ms. Ardern breast-feeding in the background of an event, and then deleted it after being deluged by complaints from the public.
She was also recently chided by media commentators for the cost of her decision to fly to the Pacific Islands Forum for a single day, and then return home to nurse because her daughter had not yet been vaccinated.
[Read More: New Zealand Leader Vows Daughter Will Learn Maori]
In person, she seems unfazed by the criticism. She is an accomplished media performer, quick with the retort when facing opponents, but careful in interviews. Her partner, Clarke Gayford, the host of a television fishing show, said they have learned a lot about adjusting to the international attention.
“It’s funny how things have unfolded and as your life becomes more public,” he said in an interview at the family’s home last month. “You find yourself holding some of the things back just to create a bit of, it’s not like protection — everything gets picked up and pulled apart.”
Ms. Ardern sees her mission as global. She’s a strong proponent of multilateralism and while New Zealand is a small nation accustomed to not being “the most powerful voice in the room,” she said, “power comes in many forms now.”
And, she added, it’s not just New Zealand that could benefit from more inspiration and less fear.
“To retain the strength of democracy people have to believe in it, and they have to believe in politicians,” she said before she left for the United Nations General Assembly.
“That idea that power cannot be accompanied by notions of compassion and kindness and empathy,” she added. “That’s something that I refuse to accept.”
Want more coverage and discussion of New Zealand and Australia? Sign up for the weekly Australia Letter, start your day with your local Morning Briefing and join us in our Facebook group.
Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/world/asia/jacinda-ardern-un-new-zealand.html |
Nature Jacinda Ardern’s Progressive Politics Made Her a Global Sensation. But Do They Work at Home?, in 2018-09-26 20:41:45
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-15/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-14/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-13/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-12/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-11/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-10/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-9/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-8/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-7/
CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House
Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.
This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.
“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.
The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.
Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Iran
Netanyahu’s view:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.
Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.
But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.
READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied
Trump’s view:
Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”
The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.
Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.
Settlements
Netanyahu’s view:
One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.
“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”
Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.
The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”
Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.
Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.
Trump’s view:
In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.
Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.
But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”
In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”
But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.
The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Peace process
Netanyahu’s view:
The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.
Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.
Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.
“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.
But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Trump’s view:
Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.
He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.
Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.
Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.
In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”
US Embassy
Netanyahu’s view:
It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”
If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.
READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Trump’s view:
During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.
He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.
“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”
Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.
These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.
Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.
Syria
Netanyahu’s view:
Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.
“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.
Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.
READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel
But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.
“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.
In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.
READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on
Trump’s view:
Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.
He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.
In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.
But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.
During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.
“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content.
Source link
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
mrcspectr
the woods have remembered you
mizunomegami
~*Dreamscape*~
estranjercins-blog
ESTRANJER CINS
honxedew
Soft
republic-of-illjika
Illjika Blog... Praise the Goddess