From Ian:
Mordechai Kedar: Trump, Israel and the Middle East
Mordechai Kedar: Trump, Israel and the Middle East
Trump's attitude towards US Jewry is complex. On the one hand, he is surrounded by Jews - his daughter Ivanka underwent an Orthodox conversion, his son-in-law is Jewish, and he is also surrounded by Jewish advisers, some of whom wear kippahs without giving it a second thought. On the other hand, the Republican party has some voters who speak about Jews as worthy candidates for genocide.Pro-Israel Groups to Erect Gigantic Pinocchio Near UN to Protest Jerusalem Resolutions
In all fairness, it must be noted that the Democratic party has no shortage of anti-Semites. The last DNC included PLO flags waving outside the convention hall, and former president Jimmy Carter, one of the party's respected figures, published a book whose title calls Israel an apartheid state - implying that it is worthy of disappearing just as South Africa's apartheid regime did.
I am concerned about America's reaction to the fact that Trump is surrounded by Jews, because even if they play no part in the formation of his policies, there will be those who will accuse them of pro-Israel bias and of influencing Trump's policies in that direction. We have already seen people accusing the Jewish Lobby, during the days of George W. Bush, of running US foreign policy and of instigating the Iraq War (2003). There are even two academics who published a book about it. Trump's time in the White House may unleash the same anti-Jewish genies from the bottle.
And one last point: There are approximately two months until Trump enters the White House, on the afternoon of January 20, 2017. President Obama has full presidential authority up to that date and can make decisions that create a problematic reality for Israel and Trump, such as a UN Security Council decision recognizing a Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem. I suspect that there are those, such as J Street, who will respond to Trumps' victory by trying their utmost to get Obama to recognize a Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem while he still can. Israel will need all its diplomatic skills and all its real friends in the USA and the world to prevent this from happening.
My blessings and best wishes to Donald J. Trump from here for a successful presidency. (h/t Elder of Lobby)
Pro-Israel groups will erect a giant Pinocchio effigy across from the United Nations headquarters in New York City in protest of the recent resolutions passed by its cultural body, UNESCO, which deny Jewish and Christian connections to Jerusalem.Dore Gold: Middle East Looks to America for Leadership
The Pinocchio display will be put up in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza across from the UN following a “We Stand Together” rally at New York City’s Israeli Consulate Thursday afternoon. The rally is organized by AMCHA-Coalition for Jewish Concerns and co-sponsored by StandWithUs New York and other groups.
Roz Rothstein, CEO of StandWithUs, said UNESCO through its resolutions not only negates 3,000 years of Jewish roots in Jerusalem, but also “deprecates and belittles” Judaism.
“These are lies that betray UNESCO’s own mandate to ‘contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture.’ Instead of contributing to peace by building bridges between Israel and its Arab neighbors, UNESCO has become a vehicle for fomenting conflict and strife,” Rothstein said.
The countries of the Middle East are looking for America to be an ally. They are looking for America to lead the peoples of the Middle East. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency in certain parts of Washington in recent years to try and see how to fix America’s relations with its adversaries – with Syria’s Assad in the Levant, with the Iranians and with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and with other radical groups across the Middle East. This leaves America’s allies, like the famous situation with President Mubarak of Egypt, in the lurch.Douglas Murray: Donald Trump won’t be as bad as you think
There is a hope that is common to Israel under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with Egypt under President Sisi, with Saudi Arabia under King Salman, and with the United Arab Emirates under Mohammed bin Zayed. All of these leaders are hoping for a United States that will lead them against the twin radical threats of ISIS and Iranian imperialism.
For 18 months, Donald Trump was amazingly useful to British politicians. Whatever their party, he provided them with the most magnificent means with which to polish their liberal credentials. In January, when the British Parliament spent three hours debating a public petition to ban Trump from entering the country, we learned from Labour’s Rupa Huq that he was ‘racist, homophobic, misogynist’, from the Conservative Marcus Fysh that he was ‘the orange prince of American self-publicity’ and from the SNP’s Gavin Newlands that he was not only ‘racist, sexist and bigoted’, but ‘an idiot’.
So perhaps now that the giggling has subsided, we can get down to a more realistic assessment of the man and his views. Some unsavoury personal moments aside, the accusation that Trump was a misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic racist simply constituted the liberal press’s best effort at holing his campaign below the waterline. In reality, Trump is a man who holds liberal New York opinions and would be unable to set about ‘rolling back’ liberal rights even if he wanted to.
The other accusations against him have been equally cynical. For months there has been a hysterical insistence, by everyone from Democrat peaceniks to Cold War nostalgists, that a Trump presidency would fundamentally undermine and even end Nato — the centrepiece of the UK’s defence capability. The basis for this claim lies solely in Trump’s complaint during his campaign that America should not be bailing out its Nato allies if they are not willing to pay a fair share for their own defence. Though it was expressed more forcefully than is usually the case, there was nothing so surprising about this. For decades, US presidents have implored their European partners to fulfil the minimal 2 per cent spending requirements that membership of Nato should require. There is nothing immoral or unstrategic about asking European powers to demonstrate a commitment to their own security. Rather than ‘weakening’ Nato, such a stance is likely to underpin and strengthen it.
Then there are the fears about American trade protectionism. But these would have pertained whoever won the White House. Pulled to the left by the Bernie Sanders insurgency within her own party, President Hillary Clinton would have been at least as protectionist as Trump will prove to be.






















