Greenblatt's resignation heavy blow to 'Deal of Century'

TEHRAN, (MNA) – As reported, Jason Greenblatt, the Trump administration’s special envoy for Middle East peace, tasked with working on the 'Deal of the Century' for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is to leave the post.

The news has strengthened the assumptions about the defeat of the American plan.

Greenblatt may stay in the role until the publication of the long-delayed plan, which is now due to come out some time after Israeli elections on 17 September, reports say.

He has been one of the main designers of the Deal of the Century, about who Trump wrote “Jason Greenblatt, the official in charge of President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan, is departing the White House,” on Thursday.

“After almost 3 years in my Administration, Jason Greenblatt will be leaving to pursue work in the private sector. Jason has been a loyal and great friend and fantastic lawyer,” the US President wrote in a series of posts on Twitter.

Fatah, formerly the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, has also reacted to the American official’s resignation. Calling it ‘admission of failure’ for the White House’s much-delayed Israeli-Palestinian peace plan.

Some political analysts believe that his resignation will be a heavy blow to the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, since he was hopeful to benefit some advantages from the implementation of the American plan.

The 'Deal of the Century' is an American plan in which Jerusalem and the occupied districts of the West Bank where Zionist settlements are built will be completely delivered to the occupying regime and the Palestinians will be abandoned from returning to their lands. The plan also includes preventing the Palestinians from their right to return to their homeland, which is recognized legal by UN Security Council Resolution 4.

For no doub,t Greenblatt's resignation is related to the failure of the 'Deal of the Century' and implementation of it because of the existing disputes about its sections which are fully in favor of the Zionist regime.

In fact, the plan was still born from the beginning and had not the capacity to be implemented despite the US efforts, supports and propaganda.

Weak participation of the deal’s parties besides Palestinian groups and movements attending the workshop held in Manama, Bahrain, on June 25–26, 2019 is another proof for the lack of the practicality and efficiency of the American plan.

Greenblatt's resignation could also be a result of disputes between the US government and Benjamin Netanyahu's actions before the Knesset election to re-attach part of the West Bank to the occupied territories to ensure his election victory.

The United States and its regional allies, especially Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, initially tried their best to  persuade Palestinians and some other countries, such as Jordan, which play an important role in 'Deal of Century', via making some promises to them or bribe them but could not succeed due to the large disagreements with the plan and its anti-Palestinian notions.

By the present time, Palestinian groups besides many Islamic countries, including Iran, have opposed the plan repeatedly stating that' the Deal of the Century' will never be implemented.

In any case, Greenblatt seems to be the first victim of this plan's inefficiency, and in near future will come the resignation of other US and Zionist officials. Although it cannot be said that the plan has been completely eliminated and destroyed but resignation of one of its most prominent engineers indicates the existence of internal disputes within the US government about it.

It seems that the plan will never be implemented.

The Trump peace plan, also known as the Deal of the century, is an American peace proposal intended to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The plan was authored by a team led by Senior Advisor to the President of the United States Jared Kushner.

The plan is divided into two parts, an economic portion and a political portion. On June 22, 2019, the Trump administration released the economic portion of the plan, titled "Peace to Prosperity", containing two pamphlets of 40 and 96 pages each that are filled with financial tables and economic projections. The political portion is yet to be released.

Development of the plan began in November 2017, led by Jared Kushner, chief negotiator Jason Greenblatt, deputy national security adviser Dina Powell, and ambassador David Friedman.

By Fatemeh Salehi

‘Deal of Century’: Removing Palestine from world’s map

* By Mohammad Ghaderi

TEHRAN - The “Deal of Century” was orchestrated by the United States and Israel in order to remove the Palestine from the geography of the world.

Several resolutions and agreements have been signed between Israel and Palestine since 1967 in the process of Peace Talks, so that solution of two states, one government, and even confederation have been included in these agreements. In this regard, each of former presidents of the United States presented a peace plan to solve the problem and this time, it was Trump’s turn. 

The family of Donald Trump and Jared Kushner formulated and compiled the ‘Deal of Century’ Plan according to the family agreement since Palestinian and Israeli sides have different imaginations of the Deal. In the process of formation of the ‘Deal of Century’, they [Trump and Kushner] considered the Palestinian issue as a personal and family issue. By calculating that Jared Kushner is Jewish and his wife is also Jewish and U.S. President Donald Trump is also interested in Israel. So, Palestinian issue can have a family solution. It is not important that the differences between Palestinians and Israelis are a difference in the width of history and in the extent of ideological differences. 

In formulation of the ‘Deal of Century’, both Trump and Kushner did not pay attention to this issue that resolving problem of Israel with the Islamic countries is not the problem that is confined or limited only to the United States or Israel. From the political point of view, the issue is not even comprehensible for them [Trump and Kushner] that, despite all international efforts and political initiatives taken in the recent decades, resolving this crisis has become more complicated every year. 

The Trump family should understand this issue that situation in Palestine is tied with the Resolution 242 of the United Nations inked in 1967, stipulating that Israel must withdraw from the Golan Heights, Jordan River, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. On the other hand, the resistance of Palestinian people, which began with the throwing of stone, has now been turned into resistance with the power of deterrence that owns pinpointing rockets and missiles. 

Even if the Palestinians relinquish their inalienable rights [that will not ignore it definitely], the future of Bait Al Muqaddas (Jerusalem), as the first Qibla of Muslims and the Ascendant of the Holy Prophet of Islam (S) as well as Palestinian citizenship within a ‘geographical area under Israeli mandate’ will turn the Palestinian problem from a territorial problem into an ideological and trans-regional problem. Such a situation would add to the desire Palestinians for more resistance and also would confront Israel with new trans-regional political and armed groups as well. 

Jared Kushner unveiled the plan of ‘Deal of Century’ for representatives of Arab and European countries in Manama, capital of Bahrain, on June 25, 2019. In this initiative plan, Kushner considered economic solution as ‘alternative’ of political solution for ending the conflict between the two parties [Palestine and Israel]. In the opening remarks of the ‘Deal of Century’, he clearly put the value of land and territory of Palestine and its identity at $52 billion. By insulting the Palestinians and their struggles, he [Kushner] called Palestinians as people who have lived without understanding what the peace means.

In the plan of ‘Deal of Century’, Kushner defines Palestine as land and territory which is confined to a geographical area without a nation, government, army and also conceptual boundaries. Moreover, in his defined project, Kushner said that Palestine is an area in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that are connected with each other through railway. This area is supposed to be managed and administered by multinational companies whose staff are from the people of Palestine under the strict supervision of the United States and Israel.  
In Kushner’s plan, people of Palestine have been supposed as ‘unable, unhealthy’ people and emphasized, “We need a healthy economy and healthy people for empowering them [Palestinian people].” 

The ‘government and accountability of the government towards people’ have been highlighted in formulation of the ‘Deal of Century’, while Palestinian land and territory and also Palestinian government have not been taken into consideration. In this Plan, it has only been emphasized that Palestine was established through foreign investment. In formulation of ‘Deal of Century’, Kushner has considered Palestinian land as a free trade zone than a state with clear-cut government, nation and identity. The “Deal of Century” is about turning the Palestinian nation and people into an Israeli-led development project. 

In Kushner’s plan of ‘Deal of Century’, share of Palestinian people in empowerment and reconstruction of Palestine has been considered ‘negligible and insignificant’. In this plan, share of Palestinian people to create equality and justice in the newly-established companies and lending facilities has been considered just $100 million out of $52 billion that is supposed to be put available to U.S. companies. 

Now, the “Deal of Century” was unveiled in Bahrain Conference with $52 billion investment of Trump’s family to resolve Palestinian problem. However, it should be considered that what achievements this plan would bring about for Palestine, Israel and other countries if the plan is succeeded. The “Deal of Century” will resolve the problem of Resolution 242 for Israel, allowing Tel Aviv, capital of Israel, to legalize its settlements with the geographical privileges it receives. 

Under the Plan, Israel can maintain its border security more than before. In addition, risk of outbreak of a civil war, from withdrawing the areas that are home to hundreds of thousands of Jews, will also be removed. 

From the United States point of view, recognizing Al Quds as capital of Israel and relocation of embassies of other countries to Jerusalem (Al Quds) is raised and it is not supposed that a state named ‘Palestine’ will be recognized as the capital of Al Quds. 

The United States believes that “Deal of Century” should create a strong barrier against Iran’s expansionism and must secure interests of U.S. and Israel in the region. 

Arab countries should pay $50 billion to U.S. and Israeli companies with regard to Kushner’s plans and prosperity of Palestine. 

In Manama Conference, Kushner emphasized, “After ceding their land and territory, Palestinians can export their traditional foods, which have unique tastes and flavors, along with their handicrafts to the world markets.”

After the plan of “Deal of Century’ was unveiled it was even criticized by the U.S. President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

In media circles and public opinion of the United States, this plan has also been nicknamed as “Waste of Time”. 

Although “Deal of Century” succeeded to convene representatives of Arab and Israeli countries in Warsaw and Manama conferences, these meetings have not so far produced positive results. 

* Author: Mohammad Ghaderi, Tehran Times editor in chief 

Kushner’s Threat to Palestine: An Interview with Norman Finkelstein

by COLTER LOUWERSE

Photograph Source: Max Goldberg/Iowa State Daily from USA – CC BY 2.0

Norman Finkelstein is a leading authority on the Israel-Palestine conflict. While most observers have proclaimed Jared Kushner’s ongoing ‘peace’ initiative to be dead in the water, Norman warns that it may pose a serious threat to the Palestinians. In part 1 of this interview, I spoke with him about what we can expect from the Kushner initiative going forward.

What is the end goal of the Kushner-led ‘peace’ process?

The Trump administration hasn’t demonstrated focus or consistency at the diplomatic level. But I don’t agree with all the talk that the Kushner plan is “dead on arrival”.

The prime mover behind the Kushner plan is neither Israel nor the US. It’s Saudi Arabia. Saudi covets an open alliance with the Israelis and the US. It fears the Iran axis. It’s a feudal despotism largely impotent on its own; it needs others to pull its chestnuts out of the fire. Witness the Saudi debacles in Yemen and Syria. On a more immediate level, there’s the Khashoggi affair—MBS (Muhammad Bin Salman) is desperate to be rehabilitated in Washington. If Saudi enters into an open alliance with Israel, even liberal members of Congress will forgive his “indiscretions.” So the Saudis harbor strong motives to push through the Kushner plan. The one and only obstacle to an open alliance with Israel is the Palestine Question. If they can resolve it, or appear to resolve it, then it’s clear sailing.

What do the Israelis get out of it? They’ve already gotten from Trump recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan as belonging to Israel. The Kushner plan’s political component will almost certainly include recognition of what’s called the “major settlement blocs” as belonging to Israel. That’s about 10 percent of the West Bank on the “Israeli” side of the wall. For now, Israel doesn’t want the rest of the territory because it doesn’t want all those Arabs. It will be said by Trump supporters, correctly, that the whole elite establishment in the US—liberal to conservative, Democrat to Republican—has always supported Israeli annexation of the settlement blocs.

However, recognition won’t be a huge victory for Netanyahu because the Trump regime is too eccentric. It’s possible that if Trump is defeated in 2020, the Democratic president will resume the status quo ante and pretend the Trump years never happened. Then we’d be back to Jerusalem, the Golan, and the settlement blocs having the same status as in prior US administrations.

What would be a huge victory for Netanyahu would be an open alliance with Saudi Arabia. It would spell the official end of the Arab League. One of the core unifying elements of the Arab League was opposition to Israel. The Gulf states will realign with Israel, alongside Egypt and Jordan. Israel’s biggest diplomatic victories in the Arab world were Camp David, 1978 (Egypt’s defection from the “Arab Front”), and Oslo, 1993 (the PLO’s de facto collaboration with the US and Israel). A Saudi-Gulf open realignment would be Israel’s third big diplomatic victory.

What does the United States stand to gain from this?

The US motive has actually not been disguised. You have to pay attention to the language; they call it the “Deal of the Century”. Trump, Jared and Ivanka are business people. They don’t really care about politics per se, except as a vehicle for personal enrichment. They just want to cut deals. Jared sees the Gulf as chock full of real estate deals. It could become his playground literally for life as MBS, Saudi’s ruler for life, would be indebted to Jared for life.

The Palestinians don’t have many options. In the case of Gaza, the leadership has to show something for all the suffering in the Great March of Return. The Saudis will be able to offer them, alongside desperately needed funds, a partial lifting of the blockade. Israel would probably go along with it.

The Palestinian leadership has only ever cared about squirreling away money in their private bank accounts and paying the P.A.’s employees. It’s always been a corrupt patronage system. (The likes of pathetic Saeb Erekat also enjoy the pretenses and pageantry of power.) There was a very calculated policy by the US over the past couple of years to bankrupt the PA in order to soften it for the “Deal of the Century”. The Palestinian Authority is now broke, and desperate. Abbas is just bargaining as he says “No, No, No”; he wants to see how much money he can wring out of Washington and Riyadh. PLO hack Hanan Ashrawi says that the Palestinians can’t be bought for a “fistful of dollars.” True enough; they demand two fistfuls.

None of what I’ve suggested is set in stone. Consider the precursors–Carter and Clinton. Carter’s tenacity and grasp of micro-detail during the Camp David talks in 1978 was terrifying. It was said of Clinton that he knew every street in Jerusalem by the end of the 2000 (abortive) negotiations. To seal a deal does require that kind of laser-like focus.

Is Trump or anyone around him capable of that focus? At some level Saudi-US dollars can’t on their own set all the pieces in place. You need people who are equipped to do the tough negotiating.

That’s the level where things might not fall into place. But at the level of generality, all this talk about “it’s dead” and “Kushner is an idiot”– well, he is an idiot but it’s beside the point because if you look at the balance of political forces and the converging political agendas of the main players, it’s possible.

If the Trump administration is successful will the international consensus on the two-state settlement erode?

It will erode: once the dollars start rolling in, the Palestinians will do whatever suits their bankrollers. But at some point a new generation will undoubtedly emerge that demands the dignity of equality before the law.

The two-state settlement will then be over. If there is a resolution along the Trump-Saudi-Israeli lines, at least one generation will have to pass before a new leadership arises with a new vision, which will probably be one state. I won’t be around to see it. John Brown didn’t live to see the abolition of slavery. I will have been one link in the chain, one rung on Jacob’s Ladder.

***

What can we expect to come out of the State of Palestine’s case against Israel at the ICC?

The ICC is a very corrupt place. The former chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has been steeped in personal (sexual assault), political, and financial corruption. The iniquity of the current chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, reaches back to her judicial role during the Gambian military junta. Of late, she has been fighting tooth and nail not to investigate Israeli criminality.

My guess is, initially, she feared being Goldstoned.^[1] She knew the Mossad would track down the 10,000 skeletons in her closet and she would end up like Richard Goldstone. So she had a strong personal motive to quash the complaints lodged against Israel in the ICC.

Then, an institutional motive emerged as US Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor Bolton publicly declared that if the ICC investigated the US or Israel, the Trump administration would destroy the ICC. They were very blunt about it. And they’ve already set about it. When Bensouda attempted to launch a preliminary examination of US crimes in Afghanistan, she was immediately stripped of her US visa. Every ICC member has a t-shirt that says, “I LOVE NEW YORK”. The US message was clear: “Investigate Israel and you’ll never see Times Square again.” It worked like a charm. The pre-trial chamber overruled Bensouda and dropped the case.

On the other hand, a civil war has erupted in the ICC. There are forces within it that have been pushing back as they demand that Bensouda investigate Israeli crimes.

There are two referrals before the ICC now. One relates to the “Flotilla Incident” (Mavi Marmara) in 2010, and the second is the State of Palestine complaint relating mostly to the illegal Israeli settlements, Operation Protective Edge (2014) and the Great March of Return (ongoing). Bensouda has spent the past six years trying to bury the Mavi Marmara case. She keeps declaring the case closed but forces in the ICC keep replying “No, you have to investigate Israel.”

The stakes are very high. If Bensouda closes both complaints without even launching an investigation, its transparent that she’s completely corrupt. But if she indicts on any complaint, the US will set about destroying the ICC. The book I’ve written demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Bensouda has been whitewashing Israel. It poses two choices to Bensouda: indict Israel or step down. There is no third option.

But even if the ICC chooses to indict there is no chance that any Israeli general is ever going to stand trial.

Absolutely.

So, many would say, What’s the point?

It’s like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion in 2004, which declared the wall Israel has been building in the West Bank illegal. It’s another weapon in the arsenal of the Palestinians in the battle for public opinion. It would place on the public record that the two leading judicial bodies in the world, the ICJ and ICC, have both found Israel guilty of egregious international crimes. This is a powerful weapon to persuade public opinion if and when a Palestinian mass movement emerges that is truly committed to fighting the occupation.

Notes

1. After a UN Fact-Finding Mission led by the esteemed South African judge Richard Goldstone concluded that the goal of Israel’s 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead had been to “punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population” in Gaza, Israel responded with a torrent of personal attacks until Goldstone (but not his coauthors) recanted the report, effectively destroying his career. ↑

Colter Louwerse PhD is a researcher in Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

Countering Christian Zionism In The Age Of Trump

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, left, shakes hands
with US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman at the
opening of the new US Embassy in Jerusalem  

by Mimi Kirk

The May 2018 ceremony marking the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem featured many of the usual suspects. US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Senior Advisor to President Donald Trump Jared Kushner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu all delivered remarks during the more than one-hour-long ceremony that touted the US-Israel relationship and, in Netanyahu’s words, embraced Jerusalem as “the eternal, undivided capital of Israel.”Trump’s embassy move was controversial—but the two speakers who opened and closed the ceremony were equally controversial. Two evangelical Christian megachurch pastors from Texas who advise Trump, Robert Jeffress and John Hagee, earnestly prayed and thanked God for making the state of Israel possible and Trump for having the courage to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people.

“Father, we are…grateful as we think about [the founding of the state of Israel in 1948], when you fulfilled the prophecies of the prophets from thousands of years ago and regathered your people in this promised land,” intoned Jeffress, while Hagee identified Jerusalem as the city “where Messiah will come and establish a kingdom that will never end.”

John Hagee delivering the benediction at opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem

As Christian Zionists—Hagee is the founder of the main US Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and Jeffress regularly preaches the ideology on Fox news—the two men’s remarks reflect their belief that the modern state of Israel is the result of biblical prophecy. This belief centers around the idea that 4,000 years ago God promised the land to the Jews, who will rule it until Jesus’ return to Jerusalem and the rapture. Not all will benefit from this end of times scenario: While Christians will be saved and “live forever with Christ in a new heaven and earth,” those adhering to other religions who do not convert to Christianity will be sent to hell.

Israel’s occupation and oppression of Palestinians—including those who are Christian—is either ignored or perceived as required to achieve the end result. In this vein, Christian Zionists consider Israel’s expansion into the West Bank via illegal settlements a positive development and even support Israeli expansion into Jordan’s East Bank.

Such a credo necessarily sees faiths outside of Christianity as false or, in the case of Judaism, as also in the service of Christianity. Jeffress, for example, once said that Judaism, Islam and Hinduism “lead people…to an eternity of separation from God in hell,” and Hagee suggested in a 1990s sermon that Hitler was part of God’s plan to get Jewish people “back to the land of Israel.” Yet when questioned about the decision to include such speakers in the ceremony’s lineup, White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said, “I honestly don’t know how that came to be.”

Israel’s Christian Support Base

Despite Shah’s circumvention, the Trump administration very purposefully chose Jeffress and Hagee for the occasion. The pastors—and their white evangelical followers, who comprise a significant portion of Trump’s base with 81 percent having voted for him in 2016—had lobbied the president hard to move the embassy. In an interview with the far-right site Breitbart, Hagee related that he had told Trump: “The moment that you [move the embassy], I believe that you will step into political immortality.” Moreover, the Palestinian Christian human rights lawyer Jonathan Kuttab argued in a Jewish Voice for Peace webinar that Trump’s embassy move was done to please his Christian Zionist base, rather than AIPAC or Netanyahu.

About a quarter of US adults identify as evangelical Christian, and 80 percent of them express the belief that the modern state of Israel and the “re-gathering of millions of Jewish people to Israel” are fulfilments of biblical prophecy that show the return of Jesus is drawing closer. Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, argues that Christian Zionism is now the “majority theology” among white US evangelicals.

That number of Christian Zionists adds up to tens of millions of voters, significant financial resources and a great deal of lobbying influence through organizations like Hagee’s CUFI—as the embassy move showed. Yet the US media and political analysts often approach the Israel lobby as if it were composed solely of Jewish supporters, whose numbers are in fact far smaller than Christian Zionists—AIPAC only boasts 100,000 members, for instance, compared to CUFI’s reported five million—and who are also deeply divided on US policy on Palestine-Israel.

The brouhaha and accusations of anti-Semitism that erupted in February 2019 after Congressperson Ilhan Omar (D-MN) pointed to AIPAC’s financial influence on US policy toward Israel demonstrate this fixation. Not only do other lobby groups, such as CUFI, wield as much or more influence as AIPAC (financial and otherwise), but AIPAC, as MJ Rosenberg wrote in The Nation, “is not synonymous with Jews.” Of its 100,000 members, he explained, “most are Jewish but…many are evangelical (and other) Christians.”

Such a focus on American Jewish support for Israel elides how US backing of Israel is at base driven by US geopolitical interests in the Middle East, with its longstanding desire to maintain control over the region’s energy resources and its pursuit of “the war on terror”—with Israel as its firm partner in both endeavors. But it also elides the significant influence of Christian Zionism, particularly at a time when White House leaders like Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are avowed evangelical Christians. Indeed, in 2017 Pence was the first sitting vice president or president to address CUFI.

At the same time, Christian Zionism may be an easier ideology to counter than Jewish Zionism. Activists argue that while Christian Zionism may be a broadly held belief, it is not deeply held. “For most people who espouse this theology, it’s not the center of their belief,” Jonathan Brenneman, a Christian Palestinian-American activist, told me. “When people are confronted with the reality of what is going on in Palestine, the theology often falls apart.”

Ideological Origins of Christian Zionism

While the specific tenets of today’s Christian Zionism emerged in the nineteenth century, the movement’s ideological roots go back centuries, to the era during which Christianity became part of the Roman Empire under Constantine in the third century AD, stretching to the Crusades and then European colonialism—all cases in which plunder was accomplished under the cover of Christian ideology, namely the idea of the righteousness of Christian domination over non-Christian land and people.

Several new Protestant sects in sixteenth-century Europe held proto-Zionist ideas. Brookings Institution Fellow Célia Belin has noted that these beliefs, stemming from close and inductive readings of the Bible emerging from the Reformation, renewed interest in end of times debates. “[They] led to a new understanding of the role of the Jewish people in Christian history, leading some to prophesize a return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land,” she wrote.

Iterations of these eschatological ideas spread to America with the Puritans, with the accompanying belief that the colonists escaping religious persecution in England were the new Jews and America the new Israel, promised to them by God. John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, proclaimed in 1630 in his famed “city on a hill” speech that “the Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as his own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways…We shall find that the God of Israel is among us.”

In such a belief system, the indigenous people of Turtle Island were considered against God’s plan and acting against God’s people. “They were considered disposable,” said Brenneman. “There’s a very clear line from that ideology to Christian Zionism.”

The mid-nineteenth century began to see this line realized through the influence of evangelist John Nelson Darby, who through missionary tours across North America popularized the end of times narrative and Jews’ role in it. In 1891, fellow preacher William Blackstone petitioned US President Benjamin Harrison to consider Jewish claims to Palestine “as their ancient home”—five years before Theodor Herzl’s call for a Jewish homeland. Subsequent influential evangelists, such as Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, preached how the first telltale sign of the world coming to an end would be Jews returning to the Holy Land. Scofield’s widely read 1909 annotated Bible proclaimed these tenets.

Gary Burge, an expert on Christian Zionism and a theology professor at Michigan’s Calvin Theological Seminary, pointed out in an interview how the horrors of World War I, the influenza epidemic of 1918, the stock market crash, and World War II then helped solidify end of times beliefs among Christians. “The average person felt like the world was falling apart,” Burge said, “and the founding of the state of Israel in 1948—and then the 1967 war—seemed to them to point directly to the fulfillment of the end of times.”

A Fusion of Religion and Politics

Christian Zionists—as well as evangelicals more broadly—tended to remain apolitical throughout much of the twentieth century. But the social upheaval and rights movements that emerged in the late 1960s spurred this demographic to attempt to stem progressive societal changes through political action, particularly after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

A ready-made constituency was therefore in place for televangelist Jerry Falwell’s 1979 Moral Majority platform, which opposed abortion, the equal rights amendment and gay rights, among other progressive issues, and supported increased defense spending, anti-communism and robust US support for Israel. Falwell and fellow Christian Zionist preachers like Pat Robertson of The 700 Club emphasized the idea that God will only support the United States if the United States supports Israel. “Robertson has described hurricanes and financial prosperity in the US as related to the US position on Israel,” said Burge, “and Falwell used to say that if America backs away from supporting Israel, God will no longer bless America.”

The 1980 election of evangelical-friendly Ronald Reagan and his close (though not always easy) relationship with Falwell and similar conservative Christian leaders solidified the link between the Moral Majority and the Republican Party, giving the movement a seat at the political table and transforming it into the “Christian Right.” The eight-year presidency of born-again Christian George W. Bush furthered the Christian Right’s influence in US politics and foreign policy. Moreover, Bush’s “war on terror” in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks complemented and abetted Israel’s war on its own “terrorists”—Palestinians.

Christian Zionism’s merging of religion and politics has been the driving force behind its more recent influence on US policy. While Trump does not purport to hold evangelical beliefs, he carefully caters to his white evangelical base, gaining their support through the US embassy move and support for Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights and the West Bank, as well as through the choice of Mike Pence as vice president.

In tandem with this mainstreaming, a small group of Christian Zionists is calling for a focus that is less about the end of times scenario in which Jews are sent to hell unless they convert, and more about urging Christians to be sympathetic and supportive of Jews because biblical theology requires that Jews possess the Holy Land. “What they’ve done is slip out the eschatology and lead with the theological promise,” Burge said.

This approach called the “New Christian Zionism” omits the messier details of the Christian Zionist/Jewish-Israeli pact, which requires that leaders like Netanyahu ignore the fate that Christian Zionists imagine for Jews for the sake of political gain. It may perhaps indicate an attempt to provide a more tempered, attractive ideology for young American evangelicals, who in recent years have been exhibiting more liberal views than their elders—including on the question of Israel.

A 2017 poll by Lifeway Research, for example, demonstrated the generational divide. Only nine percent of older respondents considered the “rebirth” of Israel in 1948 as an injustice to Palestinians, while 62 percent disagreed and 28 percent said they weren’t sure. Among younger evangelicals, nineteen percent said that Israel’s creation was an injustice to Palestinians, 34 percent disagreed, and almost half weren’t sure.

Such a trend may hold promise for Palestinians and their allies working to shift the Christian Zionist narrative and secure Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and beyond. Some activists also point to how Christian Zionism is a less entrenched ideology than that of Jewish Zionism, and how exposure to the Palestinian reality on the ground can convince Christian Zionists to shift their thinking.

Countering Christian Zionism

Jonathan Brenneman, the Christian Palestinian-American activist, worked as Israel/Palestine Partners in Peacemaking coordinator for the Mennonite Church. “Christian Zionism is so prevalent in the US that any work by Christians on Palestinian rights has to confront it,” he said. Brenneman believes that education is the best strategy to reach Christian Zionists.

“Christian Zionism is an extremist ideology, but it’s also incredibly broadly held and is part of a larger Christian package of belief,” he said. “Most people who hold it don’t realize they’re holding really hateful beliefs; it’s very much based on ignorance and insularity.” Brenneman adds that such beliefs are rarely challenged, particularly because the mainstream media plays into them by emphasizing, among other tropes, the idea that Israel is always in grave danger from the Palestinians or surrounding Arab states. The result: When Christian Zionists learn of Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians, their belief system is vulnerable to disruption.

Brenneman says the best route to education is for Christian Zionists to tour Palestine-Israel and hear from Palestinian Christians and Jews who challenge the dominant narrative. Groups such as Telos and Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) run tours that aim to trouble this narrative through meetings with a variety of Israelis and Palestinians; in both cases, groups meet with people ranging from Jewish settlers to business leaders to Palestinian activists.

Executive Director of CMEP Mae Elise Cannon also believes that education is the key to changing mindsets and that Christians are generally open to such change. While CMEP does not necessarily oppose Christian Zionist beliefs—the group is composed of nearly 30 church-based organizations with diverse theological framings, including evangelicalism—it works to counter the beliefs’ negative repercussions through the tours as well as speaking engagements in US churches and government advocacy.

“The vast majority of people in the American church want to honor God and are pursuing the goodness of the world,” Cannon told me. “They are open to their mind being changed, but their underlying concern is they think if they shift their political perspective, they won’t be faithful to theology.” Cannon says using the example of Israeli settlements is productive in this regard. “It’s straightforward to show people that they are not following the basic Christian tenet of ‘love thy neighbor’ if they are supporting those who build a settlement on Palestinian farmland that’s been in that family for decades or a century,” she said. “The current realities speak for themselves. We show them that they can honor God while advocating for Palestinian rights, too.”

Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA), a Christian organization seeking justice and peace in Palestine through advocacy and education, focuses on ensuring that Palestinian narratives are heard by American churches. Tarek Abuata, FOSNA’s executive director, stresses that Christian Zionist beliefs aren’t solely held by those who identify explicitly with Christian Zionism but are found throughout mainstream American churches.

“Christian Zionism is not just the John Hagee’s of the world, but is found in Protestant mainline churches, including those that have divested from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation,” he said. “It’s a more nuanced and diffused theology found at the level of hymns as well as in the pulpit.” This phenomenon is also part of what liberation theologian Marc H. Ellis calls the “ecumenical deal” between Christians and Jews, in which mainline Christians are silent on Israel’s abuse of Palestinians to repent for Christianity’s historic anti-Semitism.

With this in mind, FOSNA helps Palestinians tell their stories to a variety of audiences, from Episcopal bishops to Methodist congregations to evangelical groups, training them how to elucidate their narratives and present them in a public space. “We often find a defining event and distill it,” he told me. “For a 25-year-old Palestinian man from Gaza, it was the story of his friend being shot by Israeli soldiers as he checked the level of his water tank on the roof of his home.”

FOSNA also works to counter CUFI. “CUFI isn’t going to provide a space for Palestinians to tell their stories, so we have to confront them,” Abuata said. In July 2019, FOSNA worked with fellow progressive organizations to organize panels and protests in Washington, DC, during CUFI’s annual summit. “We want to present the alternative vision of inclusivity rather than exclusivity that a lot of CUFI adherents might not even be aware that they’re engaged in,” he said. “It’s confrontational, but always with the cognizance that reconciliation is possible when there’s an acknowledgment of Palestinian agency and humanity.”

Abuata says the Christian movement for Palestinian rights has grown significantly in the past decade, noting that 10 years ago he wouldn’t have been welcomed into 80 percent of the mainline Christian denominations and churches with which he now coordinates. This year also marks the 10-year anniversary of the publication of the Kairos document, a call by Palestinian Christians to Christians around the world to fight the Israeli occupation. While Christian Zionism has certainly internationalized in recent years, growing in popularity in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, Abuata says the movement countering Christian Zionism has as well. “The trend on the ground is a growing internationalization reflecting on globalized racism through Palestinian lenses,” he said.

Still, Abuata acknowledges the continued challenges. “There are fractures appearing in the Christian Zionist narrative, but there’s still a long way to go,” he said.

Mimi Kirk is managing director of Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network.

Jordan Following US Dictates on Iran to Get Brownie Points

By

 Ali Mousavi Khalkhali

Jordan King Abdullah II (right) and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (left)

Fearful of US National Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Jordan is acting against Iran to get brownie points.

The Arab countries are trying to reduce tensions in the region and have entered the phase of direct talks with Iran, and even a country like the United Arab Emirates that had adopted the policy of hostility has shifted its attitude and has entered the course of interaction. Meanwhile, Jordan is still sticking to another path and refuses to exercise interaction with Iran, although it is believed to be deeply upset at the US and Israel.

Jordan is a small country with very tough economic conditions that tries to overcome its economic crises with financial assistance from the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. However, its policy has met with little success so far. Jordan’s economy is suffering from two major problems, inflation and fuel — the two factors that have always put pressure on the Jordanian governments, have triggered occasional social or economic protests against the governments, and have brought them down. Economy is the Jordanian government’s Achilles’ heel. This has encouraged different countries, particularly the US, to pressurize Jordan’s government to fulfill their own interests.

Amman has so far stood idly by in the face of the US pressures, to the extent that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is in charge of the so-called “deal of the century” case, visit Amman, humiliate Jordanians, give orders, and force Jordan to follow their dictates. The Jordanian officials maintain that those three American officials are very tough and stern, and that they have no choice but to obey their orders, because disobedience will cause a lot of problems given the country’s fragile economy.

Jordan is dissatisfied with the deal of century and is well aware that the initiative will damage its interests and may even pose a serious threat to its territorial integrity, but is supporting the plan reluctantly. Jordan attended the Manama meeting on the deal of century only under pressure from the United States and approved the half-baked and peculiar American and Israeli plans.

Such passiveness and submission has made Jordan side with the US over Iran’s case. Informed sources reveal that Jordan has turned into a center for anti-Iranian activities, in a way that the hostile and anti-Revolutionary groups such as the Muhajedhin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) and PJAK are there, but the Jordanian government is not preventing any of those hostile measures. Since the very first day after the overthrow of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, many remaining members of Iraq’s Ba’ath Party fled to Jordan and are still active there. During the fall of Mosul, Jordan had become a think tank for the Ba’athist masterminds of ISIS. Even amid the Syrian crisis, Jordan was an operations room for the American and Saudi measures against Bashar al-Assad’s government. Several big hostile terrorist operations against Syria and Assad’s government have been orchestrated from inside Jordan, nearly all of which ended in failure. Even at present, the Ba’athists are in contact with the MKO members through Jordan, but the Amman government has given a muted response to such connections. Moreover, the MKO members make contacts with Israelis via Jordan’s soil, while the intelligence agency of Jordan prepares the ground for those contacts in some cases.

There are also reports that Jordan, under the US pressure, plans to create a think tank against Iran. One of the measures that Jordan has taken under this policy has been its attempt to reach out to Iraq with the purpose of keeping Iraq away from Iran. Americans have urged Jordan to satisfy Iraq’s economic demands as much as possible to help it reduce economic dependence on Iran. The US has put heavy pressures on both Amman and Baghdad to achieve that objective. In such a hostile approach, Israelis play a role, too.

Under pressure from the US, Jordan even rejects an envoy from Iran and refuses to do anything for normalization of ties with Tehran. Amman has adopted such an approach while Iran has not taken any measure against Jordan and has never taken a retaliatory action for the big venue Jordan has provided for the anti-Iranian elements.

Amman needs to realize that keeping up the hostile policies against Iran, even if adopted reluctantly, will be ultimately detrimental to itself.

With blind obedience, Amman is simply following orders from Bolton, Pompeo and Kushner, and has turned a blind eye to the fact that unquestioning obedience to American orders could finally backfire against Jordan itself. The public opinion and history have not still forgotten the Black Friday in Jordan, in which the Americans had a direct role and were acting against Amman, while they pretended to be a friend of the Jordanian government.

Will Kushner become the Achilles' heel of the Republicans?

By Mohammad Ghaderi

TEHRAN - It seems that democrats are going to break their silence about the foreign policy mistakes of Jared Kushner, the senior advisor to the American President Donald Trump who is also his father-in-law. 

Kushner’s terrible mistakes in handing some of U.S. foreign policy issues is probably one of the main criticisms that democrats will address at Trump’s administration, especially if people like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get to the final round of U.S. presidential elections. 

In fact, one of the main problems of Rex Tillerson, former U.S. Secretary of State with Trump was over Kushner’s interference in the country’s foreign policy; to the point that Tillerson was not even aware of some of meetings between Kushner and Saudi Arabia or Zionist officials.  

By the way, the story doesn’t end here! Kushner’s footprint can even be traced back to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist who was an outspoken critic of Saudi Arabia’s regime. If this subject will finds its way into the presidential elections, Trump will be in very big trouble. 

Recently, Washington Post has requested Democrats of the congress (both members of the Senate and the House of Representatives) to investigate about the relationship between Kushner and Mohammad Bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

According to Washington Post and New York Times, Kushner and Bin Salman had had a long, secret relationship that goes before the murder of Khashoggi. 

A relationship that led to very friendly relationships and following deals between the two sides. Some experts believe that Bin Salman had told Kushner that Saudi is planning to murder Jamal Khashoggi. 

Anyhow, leaking any information about Kushner’s involvement in the murder of Khashoggi has always been a serious red line for Trump’s administration. 

Undoubtedly in near future, more secret files and information will be accumulated and the media will expose many new security and political aspects of the relations between Bin Salman and Kushner. 

This information will be very useful to democrats for attacking Trump’s foreign policy in regard to Saudi Arabia. Many criticisms will also be addressed to Trump for giving his son-in-law the freedom to seriously meddle in the country’s foreign policies. In this case, Trump cannot possibly excuse himself. 

Mohammad Bin Salman’s Waning Influence

Mohammad bin Salman (U.S. State Department via Wikimedia Commons)

by Emile Nakhleh

The United Arab Emirates’ recent decision to withdraw from the Yemen war has left Saudi Crown Prince and de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) the sole key driver of that disastrous conflict. MbS’s friend, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince and de facto UAE leader Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ), has left him to pick up the pieces. In the aftermath of MbZ’s action, MbS’s star seems to be dimming and his influence on the international scene is waning.

Frequent attempts by the United States Congress to halt American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and to hold MbS accountable for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi have severely tarnished the Saudi leader’s reputation and standing. Although Congress has not been able to overcome President Trump’s veto and actually impede those arms deals, symbolic congressional action has long-term negative implications for MbS. Traditional American bi-partisan support for Saudi Arabia, which goes back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has been reduced, because of MbS’s hubris and repression, to a personal relationship between the the Saudi autocrat and the current U.S. president and his son-in-law. 

The traditional bi-partisan support has all but faded, leaving the Saudi crown prince dependent on the goodwill and quid-pro-quo support of the Trump administration. MbS’s actions have, in effect, undermined long-term Saudi interests and whatever goodwill the kingdom used to have with the U.S. public. Once a new administration comes to Washington, demands to hold MbS accountable for his actions in Yemen and for Khashoggi’s gruesome murder will again resurface. The failure to override Trump’s veto aside, several senators have expressed negative views of the Saudi leader. The millions of dollars that MbS has spent in Washington to burnish his image have not served him well.

Israel-Palestine

The failure of Jared Kushner’s Israel-Palestine “Deal of the Century” plan at a Bahrain workshop in late June was another blow to the MbS brand. Kushner and MbS had hoped they would be able to persuade Arab leaders to attend the Bahrain event and hail Kushner’s economic plan on Palestine. But the leaders of Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and several other countries refused to sign on to the initiative. They argued that the economic portion of an Israel-Palestine peace deal must go hand in hand with a political component along the path of a two-state solution. As I have written previously on this blog, the Bahrain event fizzled and was reduced to a photo-op that failed to gain traction. MbS must have been stung by his inability to deliver Arab support to his friends in the White House.

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wins next month’s national election and is able to form a government, he will be expected to cater to the extreme Israeli right. Instead of a deal with the Palestinians along the lines of Kushner’s ill-fated economic formula, Israel’s ultra-right politics would be consumed by talk about annexation of the occupied territories and a population transfer of Palestinians out of Israel. Despite his camaraderie with Kushner, MbS’s Arab credentials will be sullied. It’s ironic that the three-decade old Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for full Arab recognition of Israel in return for terminating the Israeli occupation on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, was initiated by another Saudi crown prince, MbS’s uncle Abdullah, and continues to be supported by his own father, King Salman. His special relationship with Kushner will not help him salvage his self-perceived image as a seminal Arab leader and his covert relations with Israeli intelligence and political leaders will not help him deliver Palestinian support.

If MbS truly believes in improving the lives of Palestinians, why doesn’t he join Qatar in funding economic development in the West Bank and Gaza and prove to the Palestinians that he is committed to their wellbeing? He could also initiate serious talks with the Israelis and Palestinians about the future of the two peoples “between the River and the Sea.” Otherwise, history will view him, like many other Arab leaders before him, as having fought the Palestinian cause to the last Palestinian.

Iran

The potential for restarting talks with Iran—through diplomatic efforts involving Oman and possibly the UAE—is another blow to MbS’s regional ambitions and hubris. The recent statement by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that US forces will begin withdrawing from Afghanistan before next year’s elections could be a message to MbS about Iran. Although it’s easy to disagree with Trump on many foreign policy issues, one gets the impression from Pompeo’s announcement that Trump is not gung-ho about another war in the Middle East or a military confrontation with Iran. Tough talk toward Iran doesn’t mean that war is imminent.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that an Emirati delegation went to Iran to discuss maritime security in that part of the Persian Gulf. The UAE, especially Dubai, is keen on keeping commercial shipping routes secure and on convincing international trade partners that it is safe to conduct commerce with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

Of course, peacefully resolving regional political tensions with Iran is the best guarantee for safe commerce in the Persian Gulf. Dubai, the most commercially driven emirate within the UAE, has traded with Iran for decades. Dubai also has a significant Shia minority and a relatively large number of successful businessmen of Iranian origins. It also has a history of prioritizing business above all. During the heyday of the Arab boycott of Israel, when blacklisted items like Coca-Cola and Ford cars could not be traded in the Arab world because of the boycott, one could always find them at the Dubai port. Mohammed bin Zayed’s animus toward Iran notwithstanding, in the modern history of Dubai commerce always trumps politics.

If the Wall Street Journal report is accurate, perhaps this is the message that the UAE delegation is taking to Tehran. Keeping the complexity and interconnectivity of regional issues in mind, it’s possible to imagine that the UAE peace delegation would expand its maritime security agenda to include Yemen, the nuclear deal, sanctions, and other thorny issues. Such talks could become more comprehensive if Oman and Kuwait join them. If the talks result in some sort of quiet rapprochement between Tehran and Washington, they could be the prelude to a new deal in which nuclear discussions would be a major component. If the Trump administration supports de-escalation and continues to give sanction waivers to major Iranian trade partners, it should become clear to MbS that Trump is not seeking a war with Iran.

If Washington and Tehran begin a serious conversation about the nuclear deal and the sanctions, then MbS’s regional wars and hostile machinations toward Iran and Shia Islam would have failed. His isolation would continue, and history would judge him as yet another failing corrupt, repressive Arab autocrat. His grand design for the region would be no more than a chimera, and his money-powered ambition to be a kingmaker on the world scene would evaporate.

Repression

In recent months, many U.S. senators have publicly admonished MbS for his repressive human rights record. The growing number of dissidents being executed in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain—where the Saudis have tremendous sway—has tarnished MbS’s reputation and standing. These executions are primarily sectarian in nature, directed against Shia citizens of both countries, and are generally based on illegal arrests, torture, coerced confessions, and sham trials. The Bahraini regime relies on Saudi military support as a tool in repressing their Shia majority.

With the recent announcement that U.S. troops are being sent back to Saudi Arabia, MbS will begin to feel the heat from the kingdom’s Wahhabi-Salafi religious flank. The religious opposition to the presence of “infidel” troops in the “Land of the Two Holy Mosques” in 1991 fueled Osama bin Laden’s terror campaign against the Saudi regime and the United States.

After the U.S.-led international coalition evicted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 and U.S. troops stayed on in Saudi Arabia, religious activists decried the presence of these troops on the basis of a hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. Regardless of the authenticity of this hadith, radical Wahhabis believe that Muhammad said on his deathbed that only one religion shall exist in Arabia. Non-Muslim “infidel” troops, according to this view, should be expelled from the kingdom. In the early 1990s, this became the rallying cry for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. This radical mantra could re-emerge as a terrible nightmare for MbS around which his opponents would coalesce.

In the aftermath of the UAE withdrawal from Yemen, MbS will be forced to re-examine the grand design he devised for himself and for the region. The design, which has been fueled by his economic largesse and perceived support from the Trump White House, is fading. Will MbS internalize the ensuing failure and act on it before it’s too late?

EMILE NAKHLEH

Dr. Emile Nakhleh was a Senior Intelligence Service officer and Director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the Central Intelligence Agency. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Research Professor and Director of the Global and National Security Policy Institute at the University of New Mexico, and the author of A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations with the Muslim World and Bahrain: Political Development in a Modernizing State. He has written extensively on Middle East politics, political Islam, radical Sunni ideologies, and terrorism. His recent writings on terrorism and contemporary regional politics are posted on LobeLog.com (https://lobelog.com/author/emile-nakhleh/). Dr. Nakhleh received his BA from St. John’s University (MN), the MA from Georgetown University, and the Ph.D. from the American University. He and his wife live in Albuquerque, New Mexico.