U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement in West Virginia earlier this week – that Israel would have to pay a "higher price" in negotiations with the Palestinians because of the U.S.'s official recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital – sparked a public firestorm and raised real concern in Israel that the current American administration's policy on the peace process had taken an alarming turn. But at second glance, it all appears to have been a tempest in a teacup.
It's not just that the president has already said in the past that peace talks would include Israeli concessions, but also that his latest remarks are a clear expression of his basic view of how negotiations should be handled, regardless of how they fit into the broader regional context.
The way the White House sees it, progress toward a peace deal is supposed to be based on a series of good faith steps by both sides, or by a third-party power that is be willing to hand out carrots and provide the encouragement needed for a breakthrough. This is what will pave the road for the "ultimate deal" on the Israeli-Palestinian issue that the 45th president is determined to achieve.
Given this, it's obvious that what is being discussed is a continuation of, not payment for, American diplomatic moves. Not only that, Trump's remarks also included a clear and unequivocal confirmation of his longstanding position that Jerusalem is "off the table." Therefore, we can conclude – especially given firm statements of support from "all the president's men" in Israel – that what we are seeing here is nothing more than conciliatory rhetoric meant for the Palestinian Authority, rather than a far-reaching strategic gambit.
This rhetoric is designed to soften up the PA and convince the Palestinians that it would be worth their while to return to the negotiating table. It's possible that the rhetoric also reflects Trump's belief that the moderate Sunni camp is supportive and willing to offer the Palestinians a package of economic incentives if it gives up its recalcitrant path.
The attempt to link the peace process to recent developments within the U.S. and argue that these remarks are an attempt to draw fire away from the political and legal mess a home, is fundamentally absurd. But even if Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen did in fact do his bidding and pay hush money to two women with whom the then-Republican candidate had sexual encounter, that doesn't mean that the president's political career is hanging by a thread. Like Paul Manafort, the president's former campaign director, who was convicted this week for a string of tax crimes, Cohen's reliability is doubtful.
In the end, the impeachment of President Trump based on Cohen's criminal actions appears to be far fetched – regardless of the current or future makeup of Congress. It really is a fuss over nothing.
