Watching Trump from afar, Israel fears being left out of a new Middle East it helped create
For decades, Israel has leveraged its special relationship with the United States to serve as a gatekeeper to Washington. From the Camp David Treaty with Egypt to the Abraham Accords brokered by Trump in his first term, Arab states seeking U.S. favor usually had to first make nice with Israel. And rarely did their interests prevail if they clashed with Israel's.
But on Wednesday, to Israel's dismay, Saudi Arabia and Turkey brokered a historic meeting between Trump and Syria's new president, and Trump portrayed his decision to lift sanctions on Damascus as a favor to his host, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Israel, which still views Syria as a security threat and had urged Trump to keep the sanctions in place, was ignored, as it apparently was on a number of recent U.S. initiatives in the region, from the ongoing talks with Iran to the ceasefire with Yemen's Houthi rebels. Asked Friday if he knew Israel opposes U.S. recognition of Syria's new government, Trump replied: 'I don't know, I didn't ask them about that.'
'This week there was a party in the Middle East — a grand ball full of colorful costumes, money and gold changing hands — and we found ourselves playing the role of Cinderella before the transformation,' columnist Sima Kadmon wrote in Israel's Yediot Ahronot daily.
'The fairy godmother we thought we had flew off to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.'
Israel sidelined
Trump skipped Israel on his first major foreign tour, which instead took him to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Israel was also left out of a deal with Hamas to free an American hostage from Gaza, where Israel is trying to destroy the militant group. Trump reached a separate truce with Yemen's Houthi rebels that has allowed them to train their fire on Israel, and is holding talks with Iran on its nuclear program that could bring about another deal that Israel rejects.
There have been no open clashes between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, both of whom say relations have never been better. Trump has yet to scold Israel, at least in public, as former President Joe Biden occasionally did, over civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip.
But compared to Trump's first term, when he upended decades of U.S. foreign policy to lend unprecedented support to Israel, something has changed.
A focus on quick wins
This time around, Trump seems to be hunting for quick wins — big investment deals to boost the American economy and diplomatic agreements like the India-Pakistan ceasefire and the release of hostages.
In that respect, Netanyahu has little to offer.
Israel's 19-month military campaign in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and reduced entire towns to rubble but has yet to achieve either of Netanyahu's war aims — the defeat of Hamas and the return of all the hostages taken in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that ignited the war.
Netanyahu has refused to end the war in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages, or to accept a pathway to Palestinian statehood — key Saudi demands for the kind of historic normalization accord that Trump has long sought.
'Trump has given Israel many opportunities, and ammunition prohibited by the Biden administration, to end the war in Gaza. This is what Trump wants," said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on U.S.-Israeli relations at Israel's Bar-Ilan and Reichman universities. Instead, the war is intensifying.
'Netanyahu is coming closer to the status of a loser in Trump's eyes," Gilboa said.
Trump denies rift and few expect pressure over Gaza
Trump has downplayed any rift, telling reporters on the tour that his relationships with regional leaders are 'good for Israel.'
The irony is that Israel is being excluded from a regional realignment that it largely created, by inflicting punishing losses on Iran and its allies after the Oct. 7 attack. Its thrashing of Hezbollah in Lebanon hastened the downfall of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Iran may be more open to concessions on its nuclear program after a wave of Israeli retaliatory strikes last year.
Michael Oren, a historian and former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said there is at least one precedent for Trump's approach.
'It's going to drive the people in Washington crazy, but it most closely resembles the Obama administration," he said.
On Barack Obama's first visit as president to the Middle East, he too skipped Israel. Oren, a critic of that administration who was Israel's envoy to the U.S. at the time, said Obama repeatedly violated an unspoken rule of U.S.-Israeli relations — that there be no surprises. That led to public spats with Netanyahu, especially around the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal.
Few expect a repeat under Trump — or that he will publicly press Israel to wind down the war in Gaza, despite the humanitarian catastrophe unleashed by its war and blockade.
Trump has said the days of the United States giving 'lectures' to Middle Eastern countries are over — that decades of American intervention have done more harm than good.
And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the last place any American president would look for a quick win.
'He's not looking for a fight with Israel,' Oren said. 'He wants to end the war, but the war can end in different ways.'
___
Follow AP's war coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom is ready to redraw California's maps. Here's an overview of where we stand
In less than three months, California voters may be tasked with determining whether the state moves forward with a mid-decade redistricting, a move proponents say is combating Texas Republican lawmakers' efforts to secure more party seats in the 2026 midterms as the nation teeters on a gerrymander war. Gov. Gavin Newsom reiterated his plans in a letter to President Donald Trump on Monday, Aug. 11, in which he requested that the president call on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the leaders of other red states to cease their efforts. 'If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,' Newsom said. 'But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same.' The letter comes the same week state Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he anticipated the proposed maps would be released after lawmakers were pressed about when the public would see them. 'Once these maps are released, voters will have the opportunity to digest these maps, review them for weeks and months leading to this election,' Rivas said during a press conference on Aug. 8. For weeks, Newsom and California Democratic lawmakers have been floating plans for a mid-decade redistricting. It's in response to Trump and White House officials who've urged Texas Republican leaders to redraw voting maps to gain five new Republican-friendly seats to the U.S. House of Representatives, USA TODAY reported. In California, congressional district maps are drawn by the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission — not legislators — which was created when voters passed the Voters First Act in 2008. Here's the latest on redistricting efforts in California, based on Newsom and other lawmakers' recent public comments, and what to know moving forward. What is Newsom proposing? Here's what you should know Newsom and California lawmakers plan to call for a special election in the first week of November, in which voters will determine whether California will move forward with redistricting — a move that would pick up five Democratic seats. Lawmakers have until Aug. 22 to get this measure on the ballot, Newsom said during a press conference on Aug. 8. The assembly and state senate have adjourned until Aug. 18. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat whose district includes San Benito County and parts of other central coast counties, said that leaders found that they could create a map for California that 'eliminated five Republican districts' yet 'was true to the Voting Rights Act' following Texas's efforts during the Aug. 8 press conference. The California governor has previously described the proposal being advanced with the legislature as having a 'trigger.' If Texas moves forward with its mid-decade redistricting, then California would act. Recently, many Democratic Texas representatives have left the state to stall redistricting efforts. 'We tried to play by a higher set of standards and rules with our independent redistricting, and we believe in that, and we are not talking about eliminating that commission,' Newsom said on Aug. 8. 'We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what's happening in Texas and we will nullify what happens in Texas. We will pick up five seats with the consent of the people.' Newsom has described the mid-decade redistricting as occurring 'just for congressional maps in '26, '28 and '30.' California has 52 congressional districts, nine of which are currently represented by Republican congressmen: Doug LaMalfa, 1st Congressional District of California Kevin Kiley, 3rd Congressional District of California Tom McClintock, 5th Congressional District of California Vince Fong, 20th Congressional District of California David Valadao, 22nd Congressional District of California Jay Obernolte, 23rd Congressional District of California Young Kim, 40th Congressional District of California Ken Calvert, 41st Congressional District of California Darrell Issa, 48th Congressional District of California These lawmakers said in a joint statement in late July that they'd 'fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections.' 'The Commission received feedback from tens of thousands of Californians as to their communities of interest, which shaped the current set of congressional districts,' they said. 'Districts that represent the local communities that they live in, rather than the whims of one political party. A partisan political gerrymander is NOT what the voters of California want, as they clearly stated when they passed the VOTERS FIRST Act and participated in the Citizens Redistricting Commission process.' Who does redistricting in California? The California Citizens Redistricting Commission, comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four people not affiliated with either party, redraws the boundaries of the state's congressional, state senate, state assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. The redrawing of districts comes after every decennial U.S. Census so that the districts 'correctly reflect the state's population,' according to the commission. With the commission created through the Voters First Act, redistricting was removed from legislators' hands. When asked to comment on lawmakers' plans to redistrict and whether they'd pursue any efforts to defend the current congressional maps, the commission said in an email to the Desert Sun that it 'has no response at this time.' Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College and a California Citizens Redistricting Commission commissioner, told the Desert Sun that among what sets the commission apart is 'the extreme transparency that we use.' Sadhwani described the ways in which maps could be drawn, whether it be a single person behind the scenes or writing code for a computer to draw lines based on a set of criteria. 'We collected nearly 40,000 pieces of public testimony from across the state in which people called in to share with us where their community lies, what ties their communities together and the rationale for why their community ought to be in a district together,' Sadhwani said, explaining that is the basis of their line drawing. But whether a successful mid-decade redistricting sets up a future in which the commission could be weakened by lawmakers— or even more drastically, dismantled — Sadhwani said: 'I think that would come down to how the ballot measure is written. My understanding is what Gov. Newsom has been proposing is that this would be a one-time immediate action and would keep the commission process for 2031.' Sadhwani added, 'If we can take the governor at his word, then it would not diminish the power of the commission in general; it would just be a one-time stepping out of the process.' When would we vote on redistricting in California? Special election may be called Newsom said on Aug. 4 that the goal is to get this proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot, which coincides with other municipal elections. 'Counties have 30 days after Election Day to certify their election results,' the California Secretary of State's Office press team said in an email to the Desert Sun. 'The Secretary of State will certify the official Statement of Vote 38 days after the election.' By the end of this year, Californians will generally know whether the 2026 midterms will be shaped by new maps or not. But in the weeks leading up to a possible special election, county officials will be obtaining places for voting to occur, as well as to count the votes, said Jim Patrick, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State, in an email. 'They'll hire and train staff to work before, during, and after the election,' Patrick said. 'And they'll make sure they have the materials (primarily envelopes and ballots) they need to run an election.' Shaun Bowler, a professor of political science at UC Riverside, said in an email to the Desert Sun that 'pretty much any map of seats' is subject to legal challenge. 'This will be no different,' he said. This effort is unusual because it's a response to events happening in other states, Bowler said. Rather than it being a step to counter GOP efforts in California, it's an attempt to offset what lawmakers are trying in Texas, the UC Riverside professor said. He shared what he thought were wider implications for Congress. Should redistricting in Texas ultimately help keep Republican control of Congress, then anything they pass is 'going to be suspect and open to criticism and complaint' because it wouldn't reflect the will of voters, Bowler said. When asked whether leaders have a backup plan should people vote against this effort, Newsom said voters will approve it. 'I think the voters understand what's at stake,' he said. Paris Barraza is a trending reporter covering California news at The Desert Sun. Reach her at pbarraza@ This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: California redistricting: Here's Newsom's plan and what happens next Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Severe consequences': Trump warns Putin ahead of Alaska summit
President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if he determines during Friday's summit with Vladimir Putin that the Russian leader is still not serious about ending the war with Ukraine. Trump, who did not specify what those consequences might be, has been reluctant to increase economic sanctions or tariffs on Russia despite his mounting frustration with Putin's intensifying attacks on Ukrainian cities, civilians and indifference to peace talks. Lowering expectations that the sit-down with Putin in Alaska would yield a breakthrough, Trump said that he's hopeful this initial meeting could lead to another that includes Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and, potentially, Trump. 'First, I'll find out where we are,' Trump said. 'If the first [meeting] goes okay, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately.' But, the president cautioned, he won't pursue a trilateral meeting if he doesn't think Putin is acting in good faith. 'There may be no second meeting because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we are not going to have a second meeting,' Trump said. Trump's comments came during an appearance at the Kennedy Center and shortly after an hour-long call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, in preparation for Friday's summit. Trump described the call as 'very good,' and several European leaders were quick to issue statements about the call Wednesday morning to underscore their alignment. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Trump 'largely shares' Europe's position on peace talks, and French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Trump is indeed pushing for a ceasefire, a top priority for Zelenskyy and NATO. Putin's stubborn refusal to entertain Trump's diplomatic entreaties so far has pushed the president into closer alignment with NATO allies and even Zelenskyy, who he dressed down in the Oval Office less than six months ago. Friday's sit-down with Putin, who many analysts believe is likely to try to repair his personal relationship with Trump in a private meeting while convincing him that Ukraine shares the blame for the prolonged conflict, will put the president's shifting convictions to a serious test. Even as he sought to put the onus on Putin to demonstrate new seriousness about ending the war, Trump downplayed expectations about his own ability to persuade the Russian president to do so. When asked whether he could convince Putin to 'stop targeting civilians in Ukraine,' he demurred. 'I guess the answer to that is probably no,' Trump said.
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Demands Thorough Review of Smithsonian Museums so All Exhibits Match Trump's Interpretation of U.S. History
The Trump administration has ordered eight Smithsonian museums to make its exhibits more "unifying" before the nation celebrates its 250th birthday in Washington next yearNEED TO KNOW Donald Trump's White House sent a letter to the Smithsonian this week, directing the institution to ensure its museums align with the president's vision, according to The Wall Street Journal Eight Smithsonian museums have been directed to thoroughly review and update their exhibitions, internal communications, featured artists and more The directive comes with a deadline, as the Trump administration readies its plans for America's 250th anniversary next yearThe White House continued its cultural crackdown on the Smithsonian this week, pressuring the institution to review its exhibits and operations and align them with President Donald Trump's view of American history. On Tuesday, Aug. 12, The Wall Street Journal reported on a letter that was sent by three top White House officials to Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch. According to the outlet, the letter followed up on the directive laid out in Trump's March 27 executive order, titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," which targeted the Smithsonian museums by name. The executive order read, in part, "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology. This shift has promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive." The new White House letter offers specifics on how the Smithsonian can achieve "alignment" with the president's vision. Following a thorough review of exhibitions, internal communications, visitor surveys, featured artists, outside partners and more, the museums are then instructed to make updates that replace "divisive or ideologically driven" language with "unifying, historically accurate" content. The directive comes with a deadline, as the Trump administration readies its plans for America's 250th anniversary celebration in Washington next year. The Smithsonian is expected to submit extensive documentation of its review within 30 days before starting to make the expected changes. 'This is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions,' said White House senior associate Lindsay Halligan, one of the officials who signed the letter, in a statement. 'The Smithsonian museums and exhibits should be accurate, patriotic, and enlightening—ensuring they remain places of learning, wonder, and national pride for generations to come.' The Smithsonian was diplomatic in its reply to the White House letter, saying, 'The Smithsonian's work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history. We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents.' However, The Wall Street Journal spoke with historians who fear that the president's vendetta against so-called "diversity, equity and inclusion" initiatives may have a negative impact on the Smithsonian's ability to give a comprehensive look at U.S. history. 'The Smithsonian museums have never reflected one person's view, or even one administration's view,' Harvard history professor Tiya Miles told the outlet. 'They have reflected the composite research, analysis, discussion, findings of many different people, scholars and researchers.' Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, agreed, telling WSJ, 'If those things are taken out of the hands of historians, the public stands to lose a great deal in having reliable and engaging content that tells a whole and complex story of the American past." Following his March executive order, Trump's White House has already been accused of trying to rewrite history at the Smithsonian. On July 31, The Washington Post reported on a recent change to an exhibit at the National Museum of American History titled "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden." A section of the display is dedicated to U.S. presidents who have faced impeachment, and includes information about Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. (While Jackson and Clinton were successfully impeached, Nixon resigned the presidency before getting to that point.) Since September 2021, the exhibit had featured a temporary label about Trump's historic two impeachments, along with a notice for visitors that read: 'Case under redesign (history happens).' However, the Post reported that the label was removed in July "as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director." Without no mention of Trump, the exhibit has now reverted back to suggesting that 'only three presidents have seriously faced removal,' despite that Trump has more experience with impeachment than any other president. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. A Smithsonian spokesperson told the Post at the time that the Trump label was merely intended to be "a short-term addition to address current events." 'In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition needed to be addressed,' the spokesperson said in a statement. The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.' Read the original article on People
