That’s the ‘fire in a crowded theatre’ argument. Trump has done something that everyone knows is going to result in violence. He was warned by his advisors it was going to result in violence. He did it anyway. To pretend he bears no responsibility at all for the eminently predictable consequences is ridiculous. Incitement to riot is a crime for a reason, even when the ‘inciter’ doesn’t commit violence themselves…
Also - ‘always have and always will?’ That’s pretty seriously extreme, and it’s tarring a very large number of people with the same brush based on the actions of a minority among them. One could just as easily (and just as accurately) argue that Israel ‘always have and always will’ commit ethnic cleansing by demolishing palestinian residences and expel the people living there to build Jewish settlements. Or that Israeli soldiers ‘always have and always will’ display casual disregard for killing palestinian civilians and will be let off by Israeli courts for it. Because that stuff happens just as often and routinely as hamas etc murdering Israelis. And that’s not even counting stuff like the economic warfare waged against palestinians these days. It’s really, really, really hard to argue these days that Palestinians living in the Israeli-run territories live in anything other than an Apartheid state.
That’s the long-term dilemma for Israel. The fig-leaf of the ‘peace process’ (which has been dead in every meaningful sense since Netanyahu took power) has so far allowed them to treat the occupied territories in a ‘heads-i-win-tails-you-lose’ kinda way. Israel gets to run the place and use its resources but deny people living there the rights of being an Israeli citizen. Jerusalem is part of that. What trump’s recognition does is say ‘how it is is how it will stay’. Which is admittedly ONE way of resolving the problem, but Israel probably should think about whether it really WANTS a one-state solution. The fake-stalemate that exists now is probably the best balance they’re going to get. Because if Israel just stops pretending and annexes the occupied terrorities, then suddenly there a load of Palestinians living in what Israel itself claims is official Israeli territory, and they’ll outnumber the Jews and they’ll want to vote (and they’ll have a right to)
Which is where Jerusalem comes into it again. Jerusalem as capital is Trump taking the first step along the road to saying ‘look, you can keep the lot of it’, which is what Netanyahu has wanted since forever. But Trump won’t be president forever, and Netanyahu probably should be careful what he wishes for. If he gets drunk on Trump’s backing and upsets the status quo, and ties the interests of Israel tightly to the fortunes of Trump and his brand of republicanism, what happens to US Israeli policy when/if a Dem takes office who sees Israel as a dedicated ally of their domestic political enemies?
Israel needs AMERICA. It can’t afford to alienate the democratic side of US politics even if it means becoming the bestest bestest friends of the republican side. Cos the worm always turns.
I’ve said before that I don’t think there will be a long-term non-violent solution to the israel-palestine conflict. Maybe 20 years ago there could have been, but not now. The negotiators, the moderates on both sides have been murdered or betrayed or left powerless and there’s only extremists left - and that’s because extremists will do stuff to gain power that moderates will refuse to, because they’re extremists. The best that could have been oped for would have been a berlin-wall type situation and a long slow cold war with continual guerilla attacks and reprisals. Maybe after 50 more years of that one side and/or the other would have changed sufficiently that a negotiated peace might be possible. It worked in Northern Ireland after all. Let the kettle simmer down. Unfurtunately, Trump’s intervention here (as token as it might be, in concrete terms) is just putting more fuel on the fire.