Israel ‘normalisation' takes backseat as Trump announces Saudi deals
Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump says that forging formal relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel would be a 'dream', but he wants the kingdom to do it on its 'own time'.
The White House on Tuesday made public a flurry of economic and defence pacts with Saudi Arabia involving hundreds of billions of dollars, but any mention of Israel was conspicuously absent from the announcements.
The so-called 'normalisation' drive between Saudi Arabia and Israel dominated his predecessor, Joe Biden's, approach to the region, but the current US president is shifting focus elsewhere, analysts say.
'The Trump administration has made it clear they are willing to move forward on key agreements with Saudi Arabia without the previous condition of Saudi-Israel normalisation,' said Anna Jacobs, a non-resident fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute, a think tank.
'This probably reflects growing frustration in the Trump administration with Israeli military action across the region, especially in Gaza.'
Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute, also said that Trump has realised that with the ongoing war in Gaza and Israel's refusal to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 'time is not right' for a Saudi Arabia-Israeli pact despite Biden's emphasis on brokering a deal.
'I think the White House has finally acknowledged that a normalisation agreement at this time is not possible,' Coates Ulrichsen told Al Jazeera.
During his first term, Trump managed to broker the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, which established formal relations with the US ally independently of the Palestinian issue.However, the agreements were unsuccessful in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as evidenced by the outbreak of the war in Gaza in October 2023.
But even before the war started, Israel had been intensifying its military raids against Palestinians and expanding illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, further dimming the prospects of a two-state solution to the conflict.
Despite the agreements' apparent shortcomings, Biden made adding Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords a focal point of his Middle East agenda, and US officials said they worked on securing a deal up until the final days of the administration, even as the war on Gaza was raging.
Biden has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that Hamas launched its October 7 attack against Israel in 2023 to thwart an agreement between the Saudis and Israelis.
Still, a day before he left office, Biden boasted that his Middle East policies created an opportunity for 'the future of normalisation and integration of Israel with all its Arab neighbours, including Saudi Arabia'.
US officials and media reports said that Biden's deal, which never materialised, would have brought a security pact between Riyadh and Washington and provided US help for Saudi Arabia to establish a civil nuclear programme in exchange for normalisation with Israel.
A major sticking point in that push has been the widely stated Saudi Arabian support for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions recognition of Israel on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has categorically rejected the 'land for peace' framework, pushing instead for deals with Arab countries that bypass Palestinians.
'This Israeli government won't even provide lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, making it pretty impossible for Saudi Arabia to seriously consider moving forward with normalisation,' said Jacobs from the Arab Gulf States Institute.
'The Trump administration seems to have understood that it's off the table, at least for now.'In Riyadh, Trump announced an agreement to deepen security cooperation with Saudi Arabia.
The $142bn deal will provide Saudi Arabia with 'state-of-the-art warfighting equipment and services' from US firms, the White House said.
It also includes 'extensive training and support to build the capacity of the Saudi armed forces, including enhancement of Saudi service academies and military medical services', it added.
While the weapons and training deals fall short of a NATO-like mutual defence pact, which may have been included as part of an accord with Israel, they take a bite from the US-backed carrots offered to the kingdom for normalisation, experts say.
'The announcements today do further deepen the links between Saudi and US security and defence interests,' Coates Ulrichsen said.
Trump's visit to the region comes as Israel has promised to not just continue, but expand, its devastating war on Gaza, which has killed more than 52,900 Palestinians, according to health authorities.
Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, noted that Riyadh has described Israeli atrocities in Gaza as a 'genocide'.
'The Saudis are not mincing their words; they are not holding back,' Elgindy told Al Jazeera. 'They can't now move toward normalisation with Israel after accusing Israel of genocide. That would just be ridiculous.'After his trip to Saudi Arabia, Trump will head to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as part of the first planned foreign trips of his presidency, since attending Pope Francis's funeral last month. Israel is not on the itinerary.
For Coates Ulrichsen and others, Trump's apparent snub of Israel reflects unease in the US-Israeli alliance.
'It may be a signal that the White House sees much more value in deepening commercial and strategic relationships with the Gulf states at the moment, given that Israel remains mired in conflict,' Coates Ulrichsen told Al Jazeera.
Tensions between the Trump administration and Netanyahu's government have become more apparent in recent weeks despite the US's military and diplomatic backing of Israel.
Trump confirmed talks with Iran over its nuclear programme during Netanyahu's visit to the White House, despite the Israeli leader's opposition to negotiations with Tehran.
Last week, the US president also declared a ceasefire with the Houthis. The deal did not demand an end to the Yemeni group's attacks against Israel.
As Trump spoke in Riyadh on Tuesday, the Houthis fired another missile at Israel – part of a campaign they say aims to pressure an end to the war on Gaza.
The Trump administration also worked with mediators in Qatar and Egypt to secure the release of US citizen Edan Alexander, who served in the Israeli military and was captured by Hamas during the October 7 attack on Israel. According to Israeli media reports, Israel was excluded from those talks.Elgindy from Georgetown University said the apparent tensions are more than a 'bump in the road', but their impact on the US-Israeli relationship remains to be seen.
'Trump is making clear in word and deed that US and Israeli interests are not one and the same,' he said. 'And that's very significant because Biden didn't do that.'
For now, Trump remains committed to US military aid to Israel even as it intensifies its bombardment and starvation campaign in Gaza.
And the US president has pushed on with his crackdown on critics of Israel at home, especially on college campuses.
Still, experts say that by skipping Israel during his Middle East trip and de-prioritising normalisation, Trump is pushing forward in pursuit of his own vision for the region.
On Tuesday, Trump lauded Gulf leaders whom he said are building a Middle East 'where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together – not bombing each other out of existence'.
That future seems at odds with what Israel appears to be seeking: asserting hegemony over the region with long-term bombing campaigns, including in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
'A very strong signal is being sent that a stable, prosperous Middle East – represented, in the administration's views, by the Gulf states – is a much more desirable outcome than maybe the Israeli view of the Middle East at the moment, which is one of seemingly escalating a forever conflict,' said Coates Ulrichsen.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
7 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Liberals, anti-Trump figures bash ABC for suspending Terry Moran over anti-Trump social media rant
Liberal pundits and anti-Trump figures slammed ABC News for suspending longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he ranted on social media about President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. "They can clutch their pearls and act mad but this is spot on from Moran," Tommy Vietor, a co-host of "Pod Save America," wrote, reacting to Moran's deleted social media post that referred to both men as "world-class hater[s]." Moran called out Trump and Miller on social media early Sunday morning and proceeded to delete the post. An ABC News spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement that Moran was suspended, saying, "The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards." "MAGA, I thought you all defended free speech and the First Amendment, right? Why are you so upset about Terry Moran's comments? Stop being such snowflakes, right? Stop looking for safe spaces. Man up," posted left-wing writer Wajahat Ali, who edits "The Left Hook" Substack. Joe Walsh, a former GOP congressman who joined the Democratic Party this year, said, "shame on you, @abcnews." "Way to NOT stand up for a free press," he added. In another post on X, Walsh called the suspension of Moran "utter b-------," and said, "You're the free press. You don't do what the authoritarian in the White House tells you to do. Thank you @TerryMoran for having the courage to speak the truth." "What Moran reported was demonstrable fact. Indisputable fact. Yet they suspend him. This is the advantage that Trump and his ilk have. They are so beyond the moral pale, so beyond normality, that it is considered impolite, impolitic, or intemperate to describe them as they are," Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway wrote. Medhi Hasan, a former MSNBC host who started his own publication, Zeteo, directed his criticism at the Trump officials who defended the president and Miller. "Snowflakes. Pretend free speech warriors. Getting journalists suspended and calling for their firing. Hypocrites," Hasan wrote. Hasan also posted on Bluesky that Moran's suspension was "'ironic given Moran went out of his way to not embarrass Trump over the president's delusion about the doctored MS13 photo, repeatedly saying 'let's agree to disagree' and 'let's move on' but they still got him suspended. You can't appease these people ever." Moran interviewed Trump about his first 100 days in office, during which Trump repeatedly called out Moran and ABC News. Trump accused Moran of "not being very nice" during an exchange about the deportation of illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia. "They're giving you the big break of a lifetime," Trump told Moran. "You're doing the interview, I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that's OK. I picked you, Terry, but you're not being very nice." Far-left former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann re-posted Moran's attacks on Miller and Trump, and called out Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, which owns ABC News. "Another coward named @RobertIger responded by letting ABC News suspend Terry indefinitely for telling the truth," Olbermann wrote. "I have copied Terry's words here and I encourage everybody, journalists especially, to do the same, or cut and paste what I've written, and put it out under your name." Others also called on their followers to share Moran's deleted post. Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, a liberal website, said Moran's suspension was a product of corporate journalism. "Independent journalism is when you can write what Terry Moran wrote without getting in trouble. Corporate journalism is when you can't," he wrote. ABC News did not immediately return a request for comment. Moran's suspension for airing his thoughts comes as public trust in the media continues to steadily erode. A Gallup survey last year showed a record-low 31 percent of Americans expressed at least a "fair amount" of trust in the media to accurately report the news. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Moran's post on X, Sunday, calling it "unhinged and unacceptable."
