By Roie YellinekJune 13, 2017

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 496, June 13, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The German Chancellor’s daily routine has been attracting wide attention of late. Angela Merkel met recently with US President Donald Trump, followed by meetings with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang. Merkel expressed some of her colleagues’ thoughts after meeting Trump by saying, “Europe can no longer completely rely on its longstanding US alliance”. The timing of the Chinese visit, shortly after Trump’s visit, was not coincidental. China has a vision of joining forces with Europe to counterbalance the US, and President Trump’s reception in Europe made this vision more plausible.

US President Donald Trump’s visit to EU headquarters in Brussels on May 24-25, 2017 caused major discomfort among members of the Union. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the strongest leader in the EU, spoke for several of her colleagues when she said, “Europe can no longer completely rely on its longstanding US alliance.”

Merkel’s words caused a firestorm. Until recently, the strength of the transatlantic alliance had been largely taken for granted. Trump’s declaration that the US will not endorse the Paris climate treaty, signed in 2015, unless changes are made further destabilized US relations with Europe.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Germany a few days after Trump’s departure. (Modi’s visit was planned prior to Trump’s, so it should not be viewed as having been coordinated to strengthen Indian relations at the expense of US relations.) Modi and Merkel discussed several geopolitical issues, but their main focus was on economics and cooperation.

The tightening of relations between these two powers makes sense. Economic relations between India, the second-largest country in the world, and Germany, the strongest economy in Europe, are very limited. Both countries could benefit from a stronger relationship. After the visit, Merkel’s spokesperson announced that “the Indian prime minister is a partner who can be counted on” – language that might be interpreted as containing a pointed reference to the less satisfactory meeting with Trump.

The Chinese visit, which began the next day and lasted for two days (May 30-31), was one of a series of meetings that have been held annually by the two countries’ leaders since 2004. China has vast economic relations with Europe, and with Germany in particular – about a third of EU exports to China come from Germany. It appears that the timing of this visit, shortly after that of Trump, was not coincidental. In the meeting between Li and Merkel, they discussed the crisis in North Korea and the tightening of relations between China and Germany. This seems particularly important to the Chinese side, as both President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Li have visited Germany recently.

After his visit to Germany, Li attended the 12th China-Europe business summit, at which he met with President of the European Council Donald Tusk and President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker.

This meeting frenzy might represent a statement of intent regarding possible changes in the alliance structure of China, the US, and Europe.

China hopes to join forces with Europe as a means of counterbalancing the US. The overall reception given to President Trump during his visit, as well as to his decision regarding the Paris Climate Agreement (which he explains was intended to create jobs for Americans), brought this vision closer to fruition. The Chinese leadership, which aspires to show more dominance in the international arena by fighting climate change and air pollution (even though China is surely one of the biggest contributors to such pollution), saw an opportunity to gain international support and influence. Hence the Chinese prime minister’s visit to Germany to discuss tightening relations.

The main ways China can strengthen relations with Europe while indirectly weakening the old transatlantic alliance are: 1) ratification of the international climate agreement by China’s leaders; and 2) wide-ranging trade agreements and the Chinese Belt & Road initiative.

The Middle Eastern countries that geographically connect China and Europe must consider the consequences of these changes on their status in the new world order. It is very possible that this geographic connection can boost the region’s importance. The Belt & Road initiative, which will pass through the area, will contribute to the interests of the countries along the route as well as to those of China.

But will this be translated into a continued Chinese presence, or into intervention in local conflicts? It is hard, at this point, to imagine the Chinese taking action (rather than simply making declarations) outside eastern Asia. Moreover, is a breakthrough in the war in Syria possible if China and Europe joined forces?

Europe’s position on this is complicated. Its role in the region dates back hundreds of years and cannot be expected to change quickly. The fighting in Syria has foundations in the colonial era and decisions that took place at that time regarding national boundaries. This is not something in which the Chinese will eagerly interfere.

Israel, whose main ally is the country threatened most by enhanced China-Europe relations, must tread lightly. Israel can try to be a mediator of sorts between the three sides. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently met with the American and Chinese presidents and who also keeps an open and friendly channel with Germany’s chancellor, can position himself at the highest levels of the international political arena. Success at this sort of mediation, or even a good, honest attempt, can improve all three sides’ attitudes towards Israel, both today and in the foreseeable future.

View PDF

Roie Yellinek is a doctoral student in the department of Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

European Union officials are unwilling to make concessions following Britain’s messy elections, upping the pressure on Theresa May to change her Brexit stance.

Brussels most certainly won’t come to the rescue of Theresa May. As Britain’s prime minister is fighting for her political survival following chaotic election results, leading EU officials are staunchly opposing any adjustments to talks over Britain’s departure from the bloc.

“I don’t see how we could now accommodate the Brits in the upcoming negotiations,” Elmar Brok, a German conservative and chairman of the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, told Handelsblatt. It would “make little sense to depart from our own positions due to pity,” Mr. Brok said.

The remaining 27 EU nations insist on sorting out Brexit terms before negotiating any future trade relations, a situation Ms. May wants to avoid at all costs. She insists on negotiating issues in parallel, in hopes of currying favor with her conservative voters back home, who expect Britain to come out on top following the divorce talks. Following Thursday’s election debacle, voices across Britain, and even within the EU, have called on Brussels to make concessions.

Brexit talks are set to begin officially next week, but both sides first have to agree on organizational details, such as the structure of talks and their interval. Oliver Robbins, Ms. May’s leading civil servant in charge of Brexit negotiations, traveled to Brussels on Monday to meet Europe’s Brexit chief negotiator, Michel Barnier. Details of the talks have not become public as of yet.

Back at home in London, pressure is growing on Ms. May to deviate from her harsh stance on Brexit. The prime minister, who initially urged for Britain to remain part of the union, is now pushing for the country to exit the European single market and its tariff union to introduce tougher immigration controls. And nothing has changed about that stance following the elections, British Brexit Minister David Davis told reporters earlier this week.

“I can’t imagine that Theresa May will be able to hold on as prime minister.”

But news agency Bloomberg reported that some government members are opposing Ms. May’s line, citing sources who say the prime minister has been weakened so severely that she won’t be able to push through her Brexit strategy. The fault lines within Ms. May’s Conservatives are starting to show and the prime minister hopes to smother the rebellion by appointing some of her fiercest internal critics to influential positions. One of them is Michael Gove, who ran against Ms. May in 2016 when the Tories were looking for a new party leader. As part of the plan, Mr. Gove is set to be Britain’s new environment minister.

Brexit minister Davis tried hard to shore up support for Ms. May on Monday, playing down party-internal disputes and calling speculations over a potential successor for the prime minister exaggerated and egocentric. Graham Brady, an influential Tory politician, agreed, adding that there were no calls for new elections or the appointment of a new party leader.

But officials in Brussels are doubtful that the battered prime minister will weather her party’s power struggle. “I can’t imagine that Theresa May will be able to hold on as prime minister,” Mr. Brok said. If Britain were willing to change some of its main positions, however, the EU would agree to talk about the country’s participation in Europe’s single market, the German politician added.

“But obviously the same rules as for everyone else would apply in that case,” Mr. Brok said, voicing a stance in line with that of the German government.

Till Hoppe reports on politics for Handelsblatt, with a focus on defense, domestic policy and cyber issues. Katharina Slodczyk is Handelsblatt’s London correspondent. To contact the authors: [email protected],[email protected]

https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/no-pity-for-the-prime-minister-780409?ref=MTI5ODU1

In the eyes of many Arabs and Muslims, Trump is no longer the strong leader they feared a few months ago. Rather, he has proven to them that he too is susceptible to blackmail and intimidation. And when Trump caves, US credibility suffers. Had Trump gone ahead and fulfilled his promise to move the embassy, he would have earned the respect of many Arabs and Muslims, who would have looked to him as a proper leader.

A further point ought to be of extreme interest to the US: When the Palestinians and Arabs talk about the possibility that such a move would “harm” US interests in the region and “trigger violence and bloodshed,” they are actually threatening to launch terror attacks against American nationals and interests. That is why Trump’s recent decision not to move the embassy to Jerusalem is being understood in the Arab world as surrender to terrorism.

Consider what happened when Trump recently ordered a missile attack on Syria. Many Arabs and Muslims took to social media to heap praise on Trump for displaying courage. If and when Trump honors his promises, he will earn even more respect in the Arab and Islamic countries.

US President Donald J. Trump’s waiver delaying the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem accomplishes two things.

First, it disappoints many Israelis for failing to fulfill his pre-election promise. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it has sent precisely the wrong message to the Palestinians. What the Palestinians and other Arabs heard in this message is that the US president folds under pressure and threats.

This message of weakness and retreat harms not only Trump’s credibility, but also that of the US by making it appear a country that caves under threats of violence.

In general, it is Trump’s presentation of power that garners respect among many Palestinians and Arabs. The Arabs admire and respect such figures because they have been ruled for decades by ruthless tyrants and dictators such as Saddam Hussein. But the Arabs also respect leaders who keep their promises, even if they disagree with and oppose those promises.

Trump’s decision to delay the relocation of the US embassy came after repeated threats by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and some Arabs that such a move would “plunge the entire region into violence and bloodshed.” These threats began during Trump’s election campaign and escalated after he entered the White House.
President Donald Trump’s decision to delay the relocation of the US embassy in Israel (pictured) from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem came after repeated threats by the Palestinian Authority that such a move would “plunge the entire region into violence and bloodshed.” (Image source: Krokodyl/Wikimedia Commons)
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his cohorts in Ramallah spearheaded the campaign of threats and intimidation. They even went as far as threatening to revoke their recognition of Israel’s right to exist if Trump dared to fulfill his promise.

Last January, Abbas was quoted as saying that the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem would prompt the Palestinians to withdraw their recognition of Israel.

“I wrote a letter to President Trump urging him to refrain from such a move. I made it clear to him that such a move would not only deprive the US of playing any legitimate role in solving the conflict, but would also destroy the two-state solution.”

Abbas’s mufti, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein, warned Trump that transferring the embassy to Jerusalem would be seen as an “aggression not only against the Palestinians, but against all Arabs and Muslims as well.” PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat joined the chorus of threats by warning Trump that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would “plunge the Middle East into violence and chaos.”

The Palestinian threats were accompanied by threats from some Arab governments and Islamic clerics. They too warned Trump that the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem would trigger a wave of violence and jeopardize US interests in the Middle East. The former mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Jum’ah, said that moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would “constitute a grave escalation and threaten US interests in the region.” Another leading Egyptian Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ibahim Reda, warned that such a move would “trigger a wave of tensions in the region and constitute an aggression against Arabs and Muslims.”

Such threats on the part of Palestinians are nothing new. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues issue similar “warnings” whenever they do not get what they want. This is one of their favored tactics against Israel.

For example, the Palestinians used to warn that Israel’s construction of the security barrier in the West Bank would result in violence and anarchy. In reality, however, the security barrier has led to exactly opposite; it has halted suicide bombings against Israel, and saved the lives not only of Jews, but also Arabs who were killed in the wave of terrorism waged by the Palestinians during the Second Intifada.

“Palestinians warn” is one of the most popular results on Google Search.

More recently, for example, the Palestinians “warned” Israel against introducing a new curriculum for Arab schools in Jerusalem by claiming this would lead to the “Judaization” and “Israelization” of Jerusalem.

Last month, the Palestinians came out with another “warning” — this time, that if Israel does not comply with the demands of Palestinian prisoners who went on hunger strike, there would be a “new intifada.”

After 40 days of the hunger strike, the prisoners backtracked and ended their fast — although most of their demands were not met by Israel.

All this is added to the daily threats Abbas and many Palestinians have been making for the past two years regarding visits by Jews to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Hardly a day passes without another threat being issued by the Palestinians about these visits.

The Palestinians work hard to convince the world that routine and peaceful tours of Jewish groups and individuals to the Temple Mount are part of an Israeli “conspiracy” to destroy the Aqsa Mosque and “defile” Islamic religious sites. They have also been warning that the visits would trigger a “religious war” between Jews and Muslims and lead to a “big explosion” and an “earthquake” in the Middle East.

True, the Palestinian incitement over the Temple Mount visits has resulted in a wave of knife and car ramming attacks against Israelis, but no “religious war” has erupted and the Arab and Islamic countries do not seem overly concerned about Jewish visits to the Temple Mount.

These visits, by the way, have been taking place since 1967. The visits were suspended temporarily during the Second Intifada for security reasons, and were resumed about two years ago. It is also worth noting that Christian tourists also continue to tour the holy site — something that does not seem to bother Abbas and his PA friends.

Israel, for its part, has learned to live with the incessant Palestinian threats and warnings. But the international community continues to take these threats seriously, ignoring the fact that by doing so they are constantly sending the wrong message to the Palestinians. Surrendering to threats of violence only emboldens the extremists and paves the way for more violence and bloodshed.

How moving the US embassy to Jerusalem “destroys” the so-called two-state solution is rather a mystery.

If and when the US embassy is moved from Tel Aviv, it will be set up in the western part of the city and not in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians are demanding as their future capital. Only one thing can be inferred from this — that the Palestinians also see the western part of Jerusalem too as part of their future capital.

The Palestinian and Arab threats of violence and chaos in the region sound laughable given the current state of affairs in many Arab countries, including Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Libya, where Muslims have been slaughtering each other — and Christians — for the past six years.

The turmoil in the Arab world — including the recent tensions surrounding Qatar — is completely unrelated to US policies in particular, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general. Despite the myopia of Arab leaders and Islamic clerics, blood is already spilled at a rather alarming rate in the Arab countries.

The killings in Syria, Iraq and Libya will continue, regardless of whether Trump moves the US embassy to Jerusalem or not.

A further point ought to be of extreme interest to the US: When the Palestinians and Arabs talk about the possibility that such a move would “harm” US interests in the region and “trigger violence and bloodshed,” they are actually threatening to launch terror attacks against American nationals and interests.

That is why Trump’s recent decision not to move the embassy to Jerusalem is being understood in the Arab world as a surrender to terrorism.

From the Arab world’s point of view, it shows the US as cowing under the threat of violence.

Does anyone seriously believe that the leaders of the Arab and Islamic countries really care whether the embassy is located in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv? Don’t these leaders have enough to worry about, such as the Iranian threat to undermine the stability of their regimes and the threat of Islamic terrorism?

Does anyone seriously believe that the Arab and Muslim masses, who have to deal with massive unemployment, dictatorships and terrorism, really care whether the US embassy moves from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

The Palestinians were hoping that the Arab and Muslim masses would erupt over the Jewish visits to the Temple Mount, but most Arabs and Muslims remain indifferent. In fact, the Arabs and Muslims do not really care about the Palestinians; they have long turned their backs on their Palestinian brothers, who are today almost entirely dependent on American and European funding.

Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will not lead to more anarchy. Christians in Egypt and Iraq are not being killed because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Syrians are not being systematically slaughtered because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Islamic State terror group is not butchering innocent civilians in the Arab world and some Western countries because it is upset with Jewish visits to the Temple Mount or settlement construction.

Palestinians and Arabs heaved a sigh of relief upon learning of Trump’s decision to delay the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem. They are now rubbing their hands in satisfaction and saying to themselves that threats of violence work because even someone like Trump will succumb.

In the eyes of many Arabs and Muslims, Trump is no longer the strong leader they feared a few months ago. Rather, he has proven to them that he too is susceptible to blackmail and intimidation. And when Trump caves, US credibility suffers. Had Trump gone ahead and fulfilled his promise to move the embassy, he would have earned the respect of many Arabs and Muslims, who would have looked to him as a proper leader.

Consider what happened when Trump recently ordered a missile attack on Syria, in response to the regime’s continued killing of innocent civilians, including the use of poison gas. Many Arabs and Muslims took to social media to heap praise on Trump for displaying courage. If and when Trump honors his promises, he will earn even more respect in the Arab and Islamic countries.
by Bassam Tawil

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.