Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Fact - checking President Trump's 2020 State of the Union address (Washington Post)

Trump’s 2020 State of the Union, fact-checked | The Fact Checker
Once again, President Trump's annual address was full of dubious claims. (Sarah Cahlan/The Washington Post)
Feb. 5, 2020 at 3:25 p.m. GMT+3
President Trump’s State of the Union speech once again was chock-full of stretched facts and dubious figures. Many of these claims have been fact-checked repeatedly, yet the president persists in using them. Here, in the order in which he made them, are 31 statements by the president.
As is our practice with live events, we do not award Pinocchio ratings, which are reserved for complete columns.
“I am thrilled to report to you tonight that our economy is the best it has ever been.”
The president can certainly brag about the state of the economy, but he runs into trouble when he repeatedly makes a play for the history books. Our database of Trump claims shows he has made a variation of this claim some 260 times. There are several metrics one could look at, but the current economy falls short, according to experts we consulted. The unemployment rate reached a low of 3.5 percent under Trump, but it was as low as 2.5 percent in 1953. Trump has never achieved an annual growth rate above 3 percent, but in 1997, 1998 and 1999, the gross domestic product grew 4.5 percent, 4.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively. But even that period paled against the 1950s and 1960s. Growth between 1962 and 1966 ranged from 4.4 percent to 6.6 percent. In 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
“From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy … enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts.”
Trump constantly claims he passed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history, but that’s Four-Pinocchios false. The best way to compare tax cuts (or spending plans) over time is to measure them as a percentage of the national economy. The Trump tax cut, according to Treasury Department data, is nearly 0.9 percent of GDP — compared with 2.89 percent of GDP for Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, the actual largest tax cut. When measured as a share of the U.S. economy, Trump’s tax cut is the eighth-largest in the past century.
“Since my election, we have created 7 million new jobs.”
Trump often inflates the number of jobs created under his presidency by counting from Election Day, rather than when he took the oath of office. There have been almost 6.7 million jobs created since February 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Job creation under President Barack Obama’s last three years, 227,000 a month, still exceeds the monthly average of 191,000 a month under Trump.
“Incredibly, the average unemployment rate under my administration is lower than any administration in the history of our country.”
This is ingenious and worth fact-checking because the average over three years is hardly comparable to a four- or eight-year average for other presidents. For example, the unemployment rate average was lower in Lyndon B. Johnson’s second term than it has been under Trump. But when Johnson’s first term is factored in, Trump gains the edge.
“The unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported this rate since 2008, so it’s a big stretch to call it an “all-time low.” The rate was 7 percent in December.
“Under my administration, 7 million Americans have come off of food stamps.”
About 6 million people (not 7 million) have stopped receiving food stamps since February 2017, according to the latest data. (An earlier version of this article offered an out of date number.) But experts say the improvement in the economy may not be the only reason for the decline. Several states have rolled back recession-era waivers that allowed some adults to keep their benefits for longer periods of time without employment. Reports have also suggested immigrant families with citizen children have dropped out of the program, fearing the administration’s immigration policies. Moreover, the number of people collecting benefits has been declining since fiscal year 2014.
“In eight years under the last administration, over 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce. In just three years of my administration, 3.5 million people, working-age people, have joined the workforce.”
Trump never seems to remember — or prefers to forget — that Obama took office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, when 800,000 jobs a month were being shed. The labor force participation rate fell, sharply, as millions of jobs were eliminated and people had trouble finding work. In January 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7 percent, and it fell to 62.8 percent by the time Obama left office. It has since inched up a bit, to 63.2 percent, under Trump, but it is still not back to pre-recession levels of 66 percent.
As for Trump’s math here, we’re not able to replicate it. Over the course of Obama’s two terms, labor force participation times the working-age population gets you a gain of about 5.5 million under Obama and nearly 5 million under Trump.
“This is a blue-collar boom.”
In the past year, things have gotten grimmer for many blue-collar workers. The manufacturing sector is in a technical recession, and only 9,000 manufacturing jobs have been gained since June, compared with the 460,000 in the first 2½ years of Trump’s presidency. Job growth has slowed in many “blue-collar” sectors such as transportation, construction and mining.
“Since my election, the net worth of the bottom half of wage earners has increased by 47 percent — three times faster than the increase for the top 1 percent.”
Trump is just spinning here. Net worth for the bottom half has gone up, but it was from such a low base that it’s pretty silly to call it a boom. People in the bottom half have essentially no wealth — just 1.6 percent of the nation’s wealth — as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. The top 5 percent hold more than 70 percent of all net worth in the United States.
“Everybody said that criminal justice reform couldn’t be done, but I got it done and the people in this room got it done.”
Trump signed the First Step Act in 2018. One of the biggest pieces of the First Step Act — a provision that reduced sentences for crack cocaine offenses — was an extension of Obama’s efforts in 2010.
We gave Three Pinocchios to Trump for claiming that he accomplished what Obama could not. (In his speech tonight, Trump didn’t mention Obama when discussing the criminal justice law.)
“All of those millions of people with 401(k)s and pensions are doing far better than they have ever done before with increases of 60, 70, 80, 90 and even 100 percent.”
Trump often boasts that the value of 401(k) retirement accounts has skyrocketed during his presidency, even though there’s no evidence of such huge gains and even though the Census Bureau reports only 32 percent of Americans are saving for retirement with such plans. An analysis by Fidelity Investments showed the average 401(k) balance increased less than 1 percent when comparing the first quarters of 2018 and 2019.
“Thanks to our bold regulatory reduction campaign, the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world, by far.”
The notion that a revolution in energy began under the Trump administration is wrong. The United States has led the world in natural gas production since 2009. Crude oil production has been increasing rapidly since 2010. The United States was the top producer in 2013. In September 2018, the United States once again passed both Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the largest global crude oil producer. But the energy revolution he takes credit for began under Obama.
“With the tremendous progress we have made over the past three years, America is now energy independent.”
This is false. The United States continues to import energy. “In 2018, the United States imported about 9.94 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from nearly 90 countries,” according to an Energy Information Agency report, with 43 percent coming from Canada and 16 percent from Persian Gulf countries.
“After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration, with thousands upon thousands of plants and factories being planned or built.”
“Factories” conjures up images of smokestacks and production lines, but the data set Trump cited is not really about factories.
Trump is using a Bureau of Labor Statistics database set known as the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The data show that United States gained nearly 12,000 additional “manufacturing establishments” between the first quarter of 2017 through the second quarter of 2019. (There was also a gain of 10,000 in Obama’s second term.)
But more than 80 percent of these “manufacturing establishments” employ five or fewer people. If those sound like pretty small factories, that’s because many are not “factories.” The BLS counts any establishment “engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products,” so that also includes businesses “that transform materials or substances into new products by hand or in the worker’s home and those engaged in selling to the general public products made on the same premises from which they are sold, such as bakeries, candy stores, and custom tailors.”
“Following NAFTA’s adoption, our nation lost one in four manufacturing jobs.”
This is misleading, as Trump attributes all manufacturing lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) when many other factors were responsible, such as automation and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.
“Many politicians came and went, pledging to change or replace NAFTA — only to do so and then absolutely nothing happened. But unlike so many who came before me, I keep my promises. We did our job. Six days ago, I replaced NAFTA and signed the brand new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) into law.”
The USMCA is a modest reworking of NAFTA launched in 1994, with about 85 to 90 percent the same as the deal Trump repeatedly trashed as terrible.
The U.S. International Trade Commission, which is tasked with evaluating the impact of trade agreements, calculated the new deal would have a relatively minor impact: The USMCA would raise U.S. real gross domestic product by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent).
“The USMCA will create nearly 100,000 new high-paying American auto jobs.”
This is an invented figure. The USITC report said the agreement would create about 28,000 jobs in the auto sector. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative estimated that the deal would support 76,000 jobs in the auto sector -- 22,800 assembly jobs and then additional auto supply jobs.
“To safeguard American liberty, we have invested a record-breaking $2.2 trillion in the United States military.”
Trump is just talking about three years of defense funding added up together. On an inflation-adjusted basis, not one year of Trump’s defense budgets has exceeded the high point in 2010 under Obama.
“I have raised contributions from the other NATO members by more than $400 billion, and the number of allies meeting their minimum obligations has more than doubled.”
Trump gives himself too much credit. Since 2006, each NATO member has had a guideline of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense spending. Defense expenditures for NATO countries other than the United States have been going up — in a consistent slope — since 2014. That’s when NATO decided to boost spending in response to Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea region. NATO estimates that its European members and Canada will add $130 billion in cumulative defense spending through 2020, in 2015 dollars, as an increase over 2016 spending. NATO also estimates the cumulative figure will rise to $400 billion through 2024.
“Before I took office, health insurance premiums had more than doubled in just five years. I moved quickly to provide affordable alternatives. Our new plans are up to 60 percent less expensive.”
Trump often makes this claim, but we have not been able to verify the claim of a 60 percent reduction in costs. The new short-term health plans authorized by the Trump administration are less expensive for a reason: They offer skimpier coverage and thus provide less protection. As for the doubling in health insurance premiums, that claim is based on a White House report that made some questionable methodological choices.
“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions.”
In an ongoing court case, the Trump administration is supporting a total repeal of the Affordable Care Act — including its guarantee that patients can’t be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Republicans in Congress tried for years to repeal the whole law. Trump has not presented a plan to cover the gaps in case the court challenge is successful. Moreover, he has promoted short-term plans (which he touted in his speech) that are not required to cover preexisting conditions.
“Through our Pledge to American Workers, over 400 companies will also provide new jobs and education opportunities to almost 15 million Americans.”
Trump usually describes this as jobs already created, but apparently his language was tamed by a teleprompter. These are not new jobs but training opportunities. Moreover, the numbers reflect pledges over a five-year period, not something already achieved. Many companies signed up by offering training programs that already existed.
“I was pleased to announce last year that, for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”
The consumer price index for prescription drugs in 2018 fell for the first time in 46 years. But that’s only when measuring calendar years from January to December, which is somewhat arbitrary. The president’s record shrinks to 5½ years when measuring non-calendar years. (The CPI had last declined in the 12-month period ended July 2013.)
Experts say the CPI for prescription drugs fails to account for rebates, which can be substantial, and may be giving a skewed picture because of recent market shifts toward generics and electronic payments by third parties. Studies we found show drug prices have not declined, especially when it comes to branded drugs.
“As we speak, a long, tall, and very powerful wall is being built. We have now completed over 100 miles and have over 500 miles fully completed in a very short period of time. Early next year, we will have substantially more than 500 miles completed.”
Trump doubled down on a promise for 500 miles of new border fencing by “early next year,” which would require the current pace of construction to more than double. Department of Homeland Security officials have been trying to lower expectations lately, saying they will have that much built or “under construction.”
He also exaggerates the barrier’s sturdiness. The Washington Post has reported that the steel-and-concrete bollard fence can be cut through with a souped-up power saw and that a series of large floodgates “must be left open for months every summer during ‘monsoon season’ in the desert.”
“With unyielding commitment, we are curbing the opioid epidemic. Drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in nearly 30 years.”
Overall, drug overdose deaths fell in 2018 for the first time in 28 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But fentanyl overdose deaths increased 10 percent.
“Last year, our brave ICE officers arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults and 2,000 murders.”
Many of the “criminal aliens” Trump is describing are immigrants who were convicted of immigration or nonviolent offenses. He quickly switched from the total for ICE arrests (120,000) to a different number that includes all the different charges. It’s a misleading, apples-and-oranges comparison because one individual may face multiple charges — and not all arrests result in convictions.
“Before I came into office, if you showed up illegally on our southern border and were arrested, you were simply released and allowed into our country, never to be seen again. My administration has ended catch-and-release. If you come illegally, you will now be promptly removed from our country. Very importantly, we entered into historic cooperation agreements with the governments of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. As a result of our unprecedented efforts, illegal crossings are down 75 percent since May — dropping eight straight months in a row. And as the wall rapidly goes up, drug seizures rise, and border crossings are going down.”
The Trump administration has tried but has not ended catch-and-release, the policy of releasing asylum seekers and refugees — many of them women and children — into the country while they await a hearing in the clogged U.S. immigration court system. Immigrants continue to be released.
Southwest border apprehensions dropped 75 percent when measuring from May to December, but when looking at all of Trump’s presidency, the gains are almost negligible: 42,359 apprehensions in January 2017, and 40,620 in December 2019.
“In the Senate, we have confirmed a record number of 187 new federal judges.”
It’s not a record. Trump has a long way to go to have appointed the most federal judges. Reagan has the record, with 383, followed by Bill Clinton with 378 and then Obama with 329. Through Jan. 18, 187 judges nominated by Trump have been confirmed by the Senate. (The Trump campaign notes that Trump ranks second in terms of judges confirmed at this point in his presidency, after Jimmy Carter, and first in appeals court judges.)
“Forty million American families have an average $2,200 extra thanks to our child tax credit.”
This is an example of Trump using correct numbers, but he gives too much credit to himself and his Republican colleagues. The child tax credit has existed since 1997, and it has been expanded since then, including in the recent tax law. In 2016, under Obama, 35 million American families took the tax credit, with an average benefit of over $1,500 a year, according to the Treasury Department. So there’s only been a modest increase (in part because of inflation).
“Three years ago, the barbarians of ISIS held over 20,000 square miles of territory in Iraq and Syria. Today, the ISIS territorial caliphate has been 100 percent destroyed, and the founder and leader of ISIS — the bloodthirsty killer known as Al‑Baghdadi — is dead!”
The U.S. military warned, in a report issued the day Trump spoke, that the Islamic State remained a dangerous threat and that the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not degrade the group’s capabilities. “USCENTCOM told the DoD OIG [Office of the Inspector General] that following the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group’s capabilities in Syria remained the same,” the report said. “USCENTCOM said that ISIS remained cohesive, with an intact command and control structure, urban clandestine networks, and an insurgent presence in much of rural Syria.”
“Qasem Soleimani … directed the December assault and went on to assault U.S. forces in Iraq, and was actively planning new attacks.”
Other than Trump’s assertion, there is no publicly available evidence that Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani directed the December attacks or that any possible attack was imminent.

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Trump's unfair Middle East Plan Leaves Nothing to Negotiate

Trump’s Unfair Middle East Plan Leaves Nothing to Negotiate

An Imposed, Unrealistic Solution Will Not Hold

Trump and Netanyahu shake hands after Trump’s address in Jerusalem, May 2017Ronen Zvulun / Reuters
You’ve got to hand it to the Middle East peace team of U.S. President Donald Trump. It has proposed a comprehensive and creative resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And even though Trump is quick to decry the failed efforts of past administrations, his team actually drew on the concepts, the principles, and even the wording of previous plans. Past U.S. mediators, however, tried to establish a basis for agreement by bridging the disparate positions of the two sides. The Trump team simply resolved the issues by sleight of hand: it decided each of the final status issues—borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees, and mutual recognition—in Israel’s favor before the negotiations even begin.
For instance, U.S. negotiators have always paid particular attention to securing the border between Jordan and a future Palestinian state, lest that frontier become a gateway for armies or terrorists crossing into the West Bank and thence into Israel. During the administration of former President Barack Obama, a team of U.S. security experts, in consultation with their Israeli and Palestinian counterparts, developed a plan by which Palestinian security forces could gradually assume control of the border; over a period of many years, the Palestinian forces would have the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment and capabilities. 
From that plan, the Trump team borrowed the concept of establishing security criteria and the metrics for measuring Palestinian progress—but applied them instead to internal security within the Palestinian state, with Israel being the ultimate judge of Palestinian performance. It resolved the matter of border security, meanwhile, by simply giving the entire Jordan Valley to Israel. The Trump plan would thereby surround the Palestinian state with Israeli territory, severing its contiguity with Jordan and turning Jericho into a Palestinian enclave and the Palestinian state into a Bantustan. 
Similarly, previous negotiators struggled to reconcile the competing claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem, particularly in the Holy Basin that encompasses the Old City and the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish holy sites therein. In the past, the negotiators sought to dissolve the sovereignty issue in favor of joint governance for the Old City. The Trump team instead resolved the matter by granting Israel sovereignty forever over the entire area, including the Christian and Muslim Quarters and the al Aqsa mosque.
For the last 52 years, Jews have been able to visit the site known as the Temple Mount to Jews and Haram al-Sharif to Muslims, but because of religious sensitivities, successive Israeli governments allowed only Muslims to pray there. That became part of the status quo governing the administration of the holy sites. The Trump plan commits to maintaining this status quo—but also provides for Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, which would in fact be an inflammatory departure. 
As compensation for renouncing their claim to sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif, the third holiest site in Islam, the Palestinians are offered a tourist center north of Jerusalem and Israeli-controlled access from there to the Muslim and Christian holy sites. This is the sort of offer that Yasir Arafat turned down at Camp David in July 2000, telling President Bill Clinton that if he accepted, he would not wait for his people to kill him; he would rather kill himself.
The Trump plan discards other painstakingly negotiated formulas in favor of manifestly unfair and unbalanced ones. Since the Clinton administration, for example, the equitable basis of all U.S. proposals for Jerusalem has been the stipulation that the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem should come under Palestinian sovereignty and the Jewish suburbs should come under Israeli sovereignty. The Trump plan, however, puts almost all of East Jerusalem’s Arab suburbs under Israeli sovereignty, leaving to the Palestinians one Arab suburb and a refugee camp on the eastern side of the wall that Israel abandoned during the second intifada. On that sliver of East Jerusalem, the Palestinians are now told they can build their capital, severed by the wall from both the al Aqsa mosque and the 300,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem.
The Palestinians can reasonably ask: what, then, is left to negotiate?
As to settlements, past Israeli and Palestinian negotiators considered having Israel annex the main settlement blocs situated along the 1967 border between Israel and the West Bank, so long as the Palestinians received equivalent land from Israel to compensate. Under such an arrangement, 85 percent of the settlers on some 3 to 5 percent of West Bank land would be absorbed into Israel. The outlying settlements in the heart of the West Bank would be evacuated to allow for a contiguous Palestinian state. Trump’s peace team adopted the idea of land swaps—but the plan offers arid land on the Egyptian border to compensate for the incorporation of all the West Bank settlements into Israel, including the outlying ones. The result would be a Swiss cheese Palestinian state with no possibility of territorial contiguity. Instead, the Trump plan proposes “transportational” contiguity, through tunnels that would connect the islands of Palestinian sovereignty. Those tunnels, of course, would be under Israeli control.
Many well-meaning Israelis and Americans, and even some Gulf Arab leaders, agree with the New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, who argued recently that Palestinian “refusal today will almost inevitably lead to getting less tomorrow.” Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, after all, took the truncated Jewish state the United Nations offered in 1947 and built on it. That offer did not include even a sliver of Jerusalem for Israel’s capital; the whole city was to be under international supervision. The Palestinians, the argument goes, should adopt a similar approach: they should take the truncated Palestinian state they are now offered and bargain for better terms. Indeed, Jared Kushner, the Trump plan’s principal architect, has said that if the Palestinians don’t like aspects of the plan, they can argue for changes. 
But this argument overlooks the plan’s gross imbalance as a starting point for negotiations. And it ignores the fact that what little the Trump plan offers is highly conditional: in order to receive even this much, the Palestinian Authority first has to meet the standards of a Western democracy; then it has to take control of Gaza and disarm all the terrorist elements there, something which it has no means to do. And who gets to judge whether the Palestinian government has fulfilled these requirements? Israel.
Even worse, the Trump plan has been presented as a diktat. Trump’s team talks as though everything were already agreed between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and all that remains is for a U.S.-Israeli team—not an Israeli-Palestinian team—to demarcate the exact lines of the predetermined Trump map. That task, and the formation of a new Israeli government after the March 2 elections, are all that apparently stand in the way of Israel’s annexation of the Jordan Valley and all the settlements, regardless of whether there are any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Israel is owed such spoils, the Trump plan’s architects explain, in exchange for accepting the idea of a Palestinian state and relinquishing 30 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinians can reasonably ask: what, then, is left to negotiate?
For years, Israeli governments have argued against an imposed solution, and U.S. administrations have solemnly committed to avoiding one. Now the Trump team—in close consultation with Netanyahu and with no consultation at all with Palestinian officials—has cooked up a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it seems intent on imposing on the Palestinians. Little wonder that when the Palestinians look at the Trump plan, they are unwilling to sit at a negotiating table that is not only tilted dramatically toward Israel but on which all of the high cards have already been dealt to the other side.
Yet the Palestinians cannot beat something with nothing. Their rejection of the Trump plan, which seems inevitable given the terms on offer, will provide Netanyahu the justification to go ahead with the annexation Trump has blessed. Instead, the Palestinian leadership should bypass the Trump plan and declare its willingness to enter direct negotiations with a new Israeli government after the March 2 elections. It should do so on the previously agreed basis of UN Security Council resolutions that provide for a two-state solution and a trade of territory for peace. Palestinian leaders could also invoke the Arab League Initiative, which would have 22 Arab states normalize relations with Israel once the Palestinian deal is done. Such a move might shore up shaky Arab support and generate backing from the international community. And—who knows?—a Palestinian counteroffer of direct talks with Israel might just force Trump to abandon his plan and get behind a more balanced and realistic approach to resolving the conflict of the century.

Deal of the Century by Ali Tuygan (Rtd.Amb.)

“Deal of the Century”

February 2, 2020
Last week, I watched President Trump’s and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s White House remarks on television. I also read the transcript[i]. President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke for 47 minutes. During those 47 minutes there were 71 applause, most of them standing. There were no Palestinian leaders present. Even the Blue and White chairman Benny Gantz was not visible. It was all about President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu and their being family.
The whole thing was yet another intervention in Israeli domestic politics before the March 2 Israeli election by “Donald” in favor of “Bibi”, as they like to call each other to emphasize the special bond between them. Mr. Netanyahu mentioned President Truman as the first world leader to recognize the State of Israel after the declaration of independence in 1948 but called Mr. Trump “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House”.
Summing up the unveiling of the “deal of the century”, officially called “Peace to Prosperity”, the Jerusalem Post editorial of January 31 echoed Prime Minister Netanyahu:
“The “Deal of the Century” is the biggest diplomatic gift an American administration has ever given to the Jewish state since its founding.
“Even without reading its contents, one could see during the unveiling at the White House on Tuesday that this plan was orchestrated in tight cooperation with Israel. President Donald Trump’s gestures and comments during the announcement said it all: This is a pro-Israel plan.”[ii]
The Israelis may be pleased with the “deal of the century”. But they may prefer to reserve judgement on embracing President Trump as their greatest ever friend in the White House.
As I watched the unveiling of the “deal of the century”, like many others, I could not help remembering the ceremony held on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993 following the signing of the Oslo Accords with President Bill Clinton standing between PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the two adversaries shaking hands.
Yes, the Oslo Accords did not lead to lasting peace but the difference between the atmospherics of the two days, the two ceremonies should make everyone sad. These Accords had raised hopes at the time, whereas last Tuesday’s unveiling hardly stirred any international optimism.
“Peace to Prosperity” says:
“Solving this conflict will not solve all the other conflicts in the region. However, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict   will remove a pretext used to stoke emotion and justify radical behavior by bad actors and have a positive impact that   will increase stability, security and prosperity in the region.”
This is a regrettable disparaging of the potential regional impact of lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace since this will firstly deliver to strongest blow to the distorted ideology of the Islamic State and its likes and secondly, it will put behind decades of confrontation.
During the unveiling of the plan President Trump said, “the ISIS territorial caliphate — 100 percent — not 95 percent, not 99 or any other percent — 100 percent of their caliphate, ISIS, is destroyed.  And its savage leader, al-Baghdadi, is now dead.”
Yet, a UN report recently said  that Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), following its loss of territory, has begun to reassert itself in both Syrian and Iraq, mounting increasingly bold insurgent attacks, calling and planning for the breakout of ISIL fighters in detention facilities and exploiting weaknesses in the security environment of both countries. And, last Thursday an Iraqi military statement said joint military operations with the US-led coalition to counter the Islamic State group have resumed after a nearly three-week pause.
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is essentially about territory, the status of Jerusalem and refugees. Realistically speaking, the return of the refugees will never happen. As for the rest, David M. Halbfinger and Isabel Kershner of the New York Times wrote on January 29:
“President Trump’s Middle East plan deprives the Palestinians of nearly everything they had been fighting for: East Jerusalem as their national capital, the removal of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and territorial contiguity and control over their own borders and security that a sovereign state normally enjoys.
“While it was always presumed that such a state would be forged through talks with the Israelis, years of failure, a weak and divided Palestinian leadership, and an Arab world that has largely moved on have all emboldened Mr. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to try to impose a solution of their own.”[iii]
On Saturday, President Mahmoud Abbas said he was cutting all ties, including security coordination, with both Israel and the US. And, the Arab League rejected the Trump peace plan saying that it does not meet the minimum rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. The Arab League, however, is a divided and inconsequential body. Individual members policies do not always correspond to what is said collectively. Some Arab countries have been going through internal strife, civil war, external meddling nearly for a decade and it has remained a spectator.
In brief, the ebb and flow pattern of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue with the possibility of West Bank annexations looming. As for the four-year freeze regarding new settlements, this also seems to reflect Mr. Trump’s expectations for a second term in office. Whether it will be respected or not, only time will tell.
Mr. Trump’s peace plan says, “A main fault line in the Middle East today is between leaders who want to create economic opportunity and a better life   for their peoples, and those who manipulate religion and ideology in order to foment conflict and excuse their failures…”
Perhaps he should have named the leaders in the first category during the unveiling so that they too could get standing applause and the peoples of the region would realize how lucky they are.
—————————————————————————————