I wonder how many Palestinians are familiar with the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze.
Detective: ‘Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?’ Holmes: ‘To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.’ Detective: ‘The dog did nothing in the night-time.’ Holmes: ‘That was the curious incident.’
Bear with me. After President Trump’s reckless announcement on Wednesday that the US now recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and that ― one day, some time in the far distant future ― it will move its embassy there), what was the curious incident?
Observe the reaction from the rulers of the the Arab world’s most powerful nations. Did they rise up in fury? Did they threaten to cut off relations with Washington and cancel all their arms contracts?
No, they did not. Like the dog in the night-time, they did (virtually) nothing. Of course, they went through the motions: President Sisi of Egypt warned against ‘complicating the situation in the region by introducing measures that would undermine chances for peace in the Middle East.’
King Salman of Saudi Arabia called the move ‘a flagrant provocation of Muslims, all over the world.’ But the country’s real ruler, the king’s son, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, remained silent. Given that he is now best buddies with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, his perfect imitation of the night-time dog should come as no surprise.
Not for the first time, the Palestinians have been left high and dry by their Arab neighbours. The New York Times reported a few days ago that when the embattled and enfeebled Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was summoned to Riyadh last month, he was presented by the Saudi crown prince with a proposed plan ‘that would be more tilted toward the Israelis than any ever embraced by the American government’.
The Saudis and Israelis, like Mr Trump, view Iran’s regional ambitions as far more relvant to their interests than the fate of the Palestinians. In the face of the Middle East’s three most militarily powerful nations, what hope is there now for poor Mr Abbas?
But the Arab world’s autocratic rulers, whose acquiescence in the US president’s foolhardy initiative does not at all reflect the mood of the people they supposedly represent, are not the only dogs that have failed to bark.
Behold the key words in Trump’s carefully scripted announcement: ‘I have determined that it is time to officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.’
Did you spot the two missing words, two more dogs that didn’t bark? According to Israel, Jerusalem is not merely its capital, it is its ‘eternal, undivided’ capital. There’s a big difference ― because, at least in theory, there is nothing in Mr Trump’s formulation that precludes the possibility of Jerusalem also, one day, becoming Palestine’s capital as well. In Israel’s formulation, there is.
So, a glimmer of hope? Maybe. You may also, if you are in the habit of looking for silver linings, take some comfort from the following passage of his speech: ‘We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved ... The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides.’
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of long-established US policy, I agree ― and in any case, I am already on record as having lost any confidence that the two-state solution remains a viable option. What makes a workable deal even less likely is that this supposed master of deal-making has done the one thing that no deal-maker should ever do: he has given one party to the dispute a hugely valuable prize (even if it is largely symbolic) without extracting anything in return.
Why should Israel even contemplate negotiating in good faith if the current occupant of the White House is happy to concede one of their most fundamental demands, free, gratis and for nothing?
The US under President Trump has now abandoned any pretence (and it has largely been a pretence for many years) that it can be an honest broker in the Israel-Palestine conflict ― it has also turned its back on international law, since under the terms of the original UN resolution that paved the way for the establishment of the Israeli state, Jerusalem was to be given neither to Israel nor to Palestine but was to be administered under a ‘special international regime’. (That is why no country ― not one ― has an embassy in Jerusalem.)
There has already been anger on the streets of Palestinian towns and cities, and there may well be more deaths on both sides of the conflict as a direct result of Mr Trump’s announcement. I wish I believed that those deaths might trouble his conscience, but perhaps no one has told him that a third of the people who live in Jerusalem happen to be Palestinians.
So why did he do it? First, because he said he would: ‘While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.’ That will go down well with his core supporters, including evangelical Christians for whom the Jews’ right to control Jerusalem is a bedrock belief.
Second, because no one could stop him. Unlike repealing Obamacare, or building a wall to keep out Mexicans, or banning immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, this was easy. Just make the speech, then sit back and enjoy the reaction.
Third, because he prides himself on being unlike any other president before him. Look again at those words: ‘They failed to deliver ... I am delivering.’ Never mind the consequences, just admire that jutting chin and puffed out chest.
And fourth, because it oh-so-helpfully diverts attention from a piece of news that he really, really does not want us to focus on: that Deutsche Bank has started handing over details of his financial dealings with them to Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor heading the inquiry into alleged Russian interference in last year’s presidential election.
Whenever you have difficulty working out why politicians do what they do, it’s a good idea to fall back on the first rule of investigative journalism: follow the money.