When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
eyes on the U.S.

Donald Trump And Jerusalem: It's Complicated

Is the American in good faith? Why now? What's next? Questions pile up in the wake of a decision that reverses 70 years of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East.

Burning American and Israeli flags in Gaza on Dec. 6
Burning American and Israeli flags in Gaza on Dec. 6
Daniel Gordis

JERUSALEM — Calling it a "recognition of reality" and "the right thing to do," President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that the U.S. was recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the American Embassy will be moved from Tel Aviv to the contested city.

The announcement leaves many questions, two of which are primary. The first is whether violence will ensue. The Palestinians and Turks are making threats, and Israel's security establishment is said to be on alert. But many Israelis are dismissing the dangers of what they call "Trumpocalypse." Unlike hypothetical steps, such as assigning the Palestinians a smaller state than they demand or ending U.S. support for a two-state solution, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital changes nothing on the ground. Many Israelis and even Palestinians thus doubt that, grandstanding aside, the Palestinians would risk much in response to a statement merely acknowledges what the world has long known to be true.

Trump needs to buy the allegiance of both sides.

The other major question is, "Why now?" Theories abound, of course, but the most obvious explanation is that Trump is seeking both a diversion from his growing problems at home and a bone to throw to his evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jewish base before his support there erodes. Trump's core supporters will likely stick by him through thick and thin, but there have to be some religious voters who find the president's open endorsement of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore — widely believed to have forced underage women into sexual encounters — distasteful to say the least. The Russia investigation looms, as do increasing questions about whether Trump, his family or his innermost circle may be legally vulnerable. It hasn't been a good period for the president; if Trump was looking for a diversion, he seems to have landed on an effective one.

There is one much less cynical, although unlikely, possibility that deserves mention. Trump has long said he will forge a deal between Israelis and Palestinians, and rumors on the street are that the "key principles' of his team's agreement are emerging. Accounts vary. The Palestinians would get a state, though the 1967 lines would not be its borders. According to some, the territory they get would not be contiguous. That would amount to substantially less than the Palestinians demand and far more than Israel's right flank intends to give them. If the administration is serious about such a deal, Trump needs to buy the allegiance of both sides.

"Death To America" — Dec. 7 front page of Lebanon-based daily Al Akhbar

The capital announcement is a prize that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (weakened by corruption scandals and in no position to push back) can use to assuage his right flank. At the same time, Trump may have told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who is 82 and running out of time) that no one will object if the Palestinians protest or burn flags, but serious violence will not be tolerated. If Abbas wants his state, he may have heard, he had better make sure to keep the response to Trump's announcement muted.

Netanyahu, in return, may have been warned that in return for his prize, he will be expected to deliver support for the plan Trump's team plans to proffer. If anyone can deliver the Israeli right, it is Netanyahu, likely the most skilled political manipulator the country has had as prime minister. With his political life possibly nearing its end and with little to show for his years in office, Netanyahu would like a deal like this to ensure his place in history.

Such capitulation serves no one.

How likely is this scenario? It's hard to say. A careful plan in which the Trump moves slowly and stays on script would hardly be characteristic of his modus operandi so far. But it's not entirely out of the question.

Trump, not surprisingly, is taking heat from all corners, including Palestinians, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, UK Prime Minister Theresa May, Christian leaders in Israel and even the liberal American Jewish community. Yet even if he was motivated primarily by his own selfish needs, Trump is right — he did the right thing.

For decades, the Western world has allowed fear of Palestinian terrorism (or Palestinians backing out of negotiations) to silence claims that everyone knows to be true. Such capitulation serves no one. It doesn't serve the West, for it renders even the U.S. impotent in the face of Palestinian threat. It doesn't help Israel, which wants the world to acknowledge that its capital being near the seat of King David's kingdom and the location of the two Temples symbolizes with utter clarity that the Jews have returned home. And it doesn't serve the Palestinians, who through the use of threat, have immobilized the West and put off the serious deliberations they will have to undertake if they are ever to get the state they want.

Whether the president has the focus, skill and interest in making this move the beginning of a positive and far-reaching process, though, remains to be seen.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Ideas

The Unifying Power Of Art In A World Divided By Religion And Morality

Political battle lines are becoming increasingly entrenched, and opposing views are being pushed towards ever greater extremes. Language has become a battlefield. If morality pushes us apart, and religion does not help in the process, we may find a solution in our sense of humanity, writes German psychiatrist Manfred Lütz in Die Welt.

The Unifying Power Of Art In A World Divided By Religion And Morality

Eugène Delacroix - La liberté guidant le peuple (1830). Commemorates the French Revolution of 1830, also known as the July Revolution.

Manfred Lütz

-Essay-

BERLIN — In the Middle Ages, people didn’t read texts about the meaning of life. Most of them couldn’t read at all, and they saw the meaning of life in the images in their churches. Academics have recently started speaking about the “iconic turn”, the return of images, and it is true that the Instagram generation prefers to communicate visually. Could pictures offer a way for our deeply divided society to come together once again?

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

Both in terms of foreign and domestic policy, political views are becoming increasingly entrenched, and on both sides of the debate, opposing views are being pushed towards ever greater extremes. In the world of today, many people are cut off from any contact with those who think differently, living in echo chambers, surrounded by people who confirm their worldview. When those who disagree with their position condemn them from a moral perspective, this only serves to vitalize the group under attack.

The public pillorying that dominates social media can be a cause of great anxiety for individuals. But for those who feel they are part of a community, their fear often transforms into an aggressive form of self-defense. The topic itself isn’t as important as the sense of being attacked.

That is a possible psychological explanation for a strange phenomenon, whereby attacks on groups such as the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and some of their individual members have strengthened the sense of community within these groups and brought together a surprising mix of people, from radical free marketeers to nationalists, conspiracy theorists, pro-lifers, COVID deniers, right-wing extremists, conservative Christians and racists.

They are united by a single experience, that of being excluded. Conversations within these groups are reminiscent of chats around a pub table: the more harshly someone criticizes “those in power”, “the lefties”, “right-wingers” or even, “the others”, the more likes they get.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest