The Unpredictability and Sanity of President Donald Trump

Now that Donald Trump is the new president of the United States, many voters in the US and people all over the world are beginning to question the sanity and unpredictability of the new president. There have been a large number of articles on the net written by psychologists of all specialties on President Donald Trump’s sanity.

Naturally those who support Trump blindly in the desperate hope of radical change in the US from the previous Obama Administration were jubilant at his winning the presidential election. Many Trump supporters are accusing the media of a witch-hunt and the left inclined voters of mass hysteria against him. They view Trump as almost a godsend for the people of the US. He has made many promises of making America great once again after the “foreign countries have bled America dry” because of billions of dollars spent on help to foreign countries by the previous administration. Trump, in his inauguration speech, has stated that this aid will stop. The big question is: Will this sweeping statement apply to the billions of dollars aid that the previous administration has given to Israel’s security? Will Israel be exempted from Trump’s blanket statement on US foreign aid? There are no answers to these questions, especially from a president that is very unpredictable and of questionable sanity.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday that put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria and six other countries.1 

These seven countries are listed under section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) of the U.S. code, and it is this code that Trump's executive order cited while banning citizens of those nations. 2

Who would have thought that President Trump would override the Constitution in his desire to sign an order to close all airports to entry of Muslim citizens of the US on their return from oversea, including their families and travelers who have visas and are legally entitled to entry into the US? The acting Attorney General of the US, Sally Bates, was fired for speaking out against Trump’s travel ban and not because of the change from previous Obama Administration to the present Trump Administration. Trump pundits will say that she was relieved of her post because of change in the administration from Obama to Trump. This is not the case here. She questioned the legality of the Executive Order signed by Trump. It is obvious that if you question Trump’s Executive Orders, whether you are a Trump appointee or not you will be on the firing line. Below is her letter to the Justice Department Attorneys on Trump’s Travel Ban:

“On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”

President Donald Trump proudly showing his signature to the executive order -the Travel Ban

The travel ban has caused much pain and difficulty for innocent Muslim travelers (many of whom are US Citizens and many non-citizens have legal visas for entry into the US) and their families at airports all over the US. The excuse - they compromise US security by being Muslims who happen to be born in the 7 Muslim States that have been blacklisted by Trump as security threats. The US has every right to screen people from countries that are a terror threat to the US before granting them visas of entry. However, once they have been screened and granted visas, it is unacceptable morally to refuse them entry on the grounds of their religious denomination. This applies to refugees as well.

Between 1975 and 2015, foreign nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen killed exactly zero Americans on U.S. soil, according to an analysis of terror attacks by the Cato Institute.   

Moreover, a report released this week shows that Muslim Americans with family backgrounds in those seven countries have killed no Americans over the last 15 years.

Twenty-three percent of the Muslim Americans involved with violent extremist plots since Sept. 11, 2001, had family backgrounds in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen, according to a Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security report released this week. None of those plots resulted in American deaths.

Similarly, none of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11 were from any of those seven countries. 

What about Mexico and the security wall that Trump wishes to build with Mexican money to keep Mexicans out?

The president of Mexico has canceled a state visit to Washington, and prominent Mexican leaders say that Trump's border wall plans “could take us to a war — not a trade war.”3 

Can you imagine what would happen if Israel built a security fence using Palestinian Tax money for that purpose? Even Israel never stooped to that low level. The cherry on the Mexican cake is PM Bibi Netanyahu’s tweet supporting Trump’s decision on the wall. Mexico’s Foreign Minister called in Israel’s Ambassador for a dressing down over the matter.    

PM Netanyahu should not have sent the tweet on this matter It was unnecessary and in very bad taste.

It appears that the Government Coalition in Israel is ecstatic over President Trump. The fact that he appears sympathetic to the right wing settler enterprise in the occupied territories and his declaration of moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem is lovely music to the present Israeli leadership. They expect a carte blanche from the Trump Administration to do what they like in the territories. Even the new incoming US Ambassador, David Friedman, is on record as supporting the settler movement by donations in his own private capacity. What the Israeli leadership does not seem to take into consideration is the unpredictability of President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump must be treated with suspicion by Israel as he is not what he seems to be. There are many faces to Trump. A healthy, discreet distance between the Israeli Government and the Trump Administration will be a positive direction. His macabre relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia is also ominous. He will be ruling America as if it is his own business enterprise. 

1.  30 Jan. 2017, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/donald-trumps-ban-refugees-us-president-insists-policy-not-against/. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.

2. 30 Jan. 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.

3.30 Jan. 2017, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/3-ways-to-get-rid-of-president-trump-before-2020-impeach-25th-amendment-coup/. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.

.

Related articles

• Actors' acceptance speeches at SAG awards turn into protest against Trump Muslim ban
• 15 of the best cartoons shared after Donald Trump's travel ban
• Trump poised to ink executive orders to curb refugees, immigration from Muslim states
• Airbnb offers free housing to people stranded by immigration order
• Tech reacts to Trump's immigration ban
• Immigrants From Trump Muslim Ban Countries Haven't Sent Murderous Terrorists To America

The Trump Election and its Manifestations

Donald Trump enters the Oscar De LA Renta Fashion Show, New York. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Election of Donald Trump has sent shock waves throughout the US and the world. The Democrats are still licking their wounds of defeat and will have to do a lot of rethinking in order to regain power in the future elections. Their choice of Hillary Clinton as a candidate was flawed from the start. She had made many mistakes in the past and Donald Trump fought an aggressive campaign against her that was cruel and it worked. During the campaign he even appealed to Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. Many US voters had enough of the way President Obama had handled the international Islamist terror issues as well as the the Islamist terror attacks in the US.

There are so many stories in the press about the Trump-Putin connection and the Russian cyber attacks on the US to ensure that Trump would be elected. Even “The Guardian” had reported that Russia had interfered to help Trump win the elections. Still there is no smoke without a fire and these reports may have some credibility. If this is the case, the future for democracy in the US will be compromised. Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agencies' hacking of the U.S.presidential election and turned it from a general attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to help Donald Trump, three U.S. officials said on Thursday.

With intelligence officials convinced that Russian spook-turned-president Vladimir Putin personally directed cyber-attacksaimed at interfering with the U.S. election, President-elect Donald Trumpcontinues to downplay and dismiss growing hacking concerns as politicallymotivated.

Republican Donald Trump prevailed in U.S.Electoral College voting on Monday to officially win election as the next president,easily dashing a long-shot push by a small movement of detractors to try to block him from gaining the White House.

Trump is a well respected ally of Putin. Both are well respected allies of Netanyahu. Putin is an ally of Iran as well as Bashar al Assad of Syria that Putin is propping up. Both are responsible for the massive Holocaust in Aleppo, where over 400 000 men, women and children have been slaughtered in cold blood and their city destroyed thanks to Putin and Assad. Iran wishes to destroy Israel with Putin's armaments. There is also a strong possibility that Trump will ease or even remove US sanctions against Russia.

Another rather interesting phenomenon, post election-wise, is the bizarre unity between neo-Nazi groups and the alt-right that have supported Trump’s election for president. Even Israel’s Netanyahu Government Coalition has joined this strange group of bedfellows in supporting Trump. It is an unwanted paradox that the Israeli Government in its support of the US Ambassador-elect for Israel, David Friedman, who is very supportive of the Israeli settlement enterprise, and accuses J Street of being worse than “kapos”. The euphoria of the Trump election has surpassed all logic. Those who do not feel well disposed towards supporting Trump are ostracized and viewed as traitors against Israel. What about the American neo-Nazis, who also supported Trump?  

No matter which way one looks at it, the Two State Solution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict is not going to occur. It never occurred under previous American presidents and it will certainly not occur under the Trump presidency. Trump has been blunt about his opposition to the Two-State Solution and has made no bones about it. The incoming US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has a record of supporting the settlement policies of the Netanyahu Government and he and Trump have pledged support for moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. It remains to be seen if this pledge will become a reality, despite the threats of the eternal Palestinian negotiator with Israel, Saeb Erakat. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is not against this move. After all it was the US Congress that passed this law.

President-Elect Donald Trump is definitely going to raise many eyebrows in his attitude towards Israel.  He will be a very different kind of president to any president that the US has ever had. We have to wait and see what team of advisors he will appoint and whether they will adopt a policy of pragmatism towards the conflict. The Palestinian leaders will not succumb to any form of peace negotiations as in the past so nothing will really change in their hate rhetoric towards Israel whether the American Embassy moves to Jerusalem or not.

President-elect Donald Trump is very unpredictable. We have no idea as to how he will handle the presidency and if he will override his advisers. One thing for sure, we will remain in the dark for a while as far as US foreign policy towards the Middle East and Israel is concerned and whether he will keep his pledges to his voters. It seems that Israel will have almost free reign in establishing new settlements in the occupied West Bank if we take Donald Trump's election campaign pledges at face value. 

No one knows for sure whether President-elect Trump will in fact enact many of the sweeping changes to immigration policy, cyber security and environmental protection laws that he promised during the campaign — but his cabinet selections so far are not doing much to disabuse people of that notion. There is also nepotism in his selection of advisers. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said that his son-in-law Jared Kushner could help make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Speaking to the New York Times in New York, Trump said he "would love to be the one who made peace with Israel and the Palestinians," adding that it would be a "great achievement," according to a reporter's tweets.

Trump requested top secret security clearance for Kushner, according to an NBC News report. The request for clearance was unprecedented and would allow Kushner to sit in on Trump's presidential daily brief, despite not being an official member of the White House staff. What criteria does Jared Kushner have for helping to get the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians back on track apart from being Trump’s son-in-law?

As US President-electDonald Trump makes his transition to the White House, we look at the family members and associates who are part of the team and could have key roles indecision-making during his presidency.

It is very difficult to jump to conclusions as to what kind of president Trump will be. If we view his presidential campaign and his pledges, we have much to be concerned. 

Related articles

• Trudeau, Obama among Western leaders condemning Russia's role in Aleppo's 'humanitarian disaster'
• Putin: Trump and I are in agreement - US-Russia relations 'must be straightened out'
• Open season on human rights?
• 'We need friends': Putin made it clear he wants to work with Trump in his annual state of the nation address

Is it Moral to Oppose the Occupation?

A military checkpoint along the route of the forthcoming West Bank Barrier (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Is it moral to oppose the occupation? Yes! Is it practical? No!

The morality of ending the occupation is an unanimous “yes” which echoes from the world community. The raising of eyebrows on saying “no” to the practicality of ending the occupation is almost like a two-edged sword aiming at Israel’s heart.

Occupation of another people by a nation for the purpose of land grabs does not deserve support and is morally indefensible. It is colonizing another nation that have a right to be independent and elect the government they wish by democratic and transparent elections. Of course reasonable democrats agree with this and rightly so.

Does this apply to Israel? Of course it does, but there is one massive problem that prevents this from being achieved. I have written many articles on Israel’s establishment in 1948 not being recognized by its Arab neighbors. Israel’s establishment had been legalized by the UN on 29 November 1947 after the majority of member states had voted for partition. Within days of Israel’s establishment on 14 May 1948, wars were waged against Israel for the purpose of annihilating her.

There was never any desire by the Arab States to make peace with Israel and this of course includes the Palestinians. This was 20 years prior to the June 1967 War which Israel had won, resulting in occupying the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights. Prior to that there were no “occupied territories” and there were still attempts to declare war on Israel for the sole purpose of its annhilation, and “driving the Jews into the sea”. It is obvious to any objective observer that it is not the occupation that is the problem but Israel’s existence. The occupation of territory is a result of a war foisted onto Israel by Egypt in June !967 in order to destroy her. The capture of territory was a result of that war that Israel did not initiate or want. In this case the occupation may be viewed as fait accompli  because of that war. If Israel had lost there would have been mass genocide and “ethnic cleansing” of Jews living in Israel.

Israel’s greatest error was establishing settlements in the territories occupied, and populating it with many right wing, religious zealots amongst a hostile Palestinian population, rather than declaring the territories a closed military zone with a status still to be negotiated in a peace settlement that would guarantee its return to the Palestinians prior to the war. This in itself created tremendous friction between Israelis and Palestinians and complicated the situation even further.The expansion of existing settlements in the West Bank at the expense of expropriating Palestinian lands for that purpose is also not justified morally and weakens Israel's case.

Today we have players that are far more extremist on both sides not readily amenable to realistic negotiations.

On the Palestinian side, there is the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas, who is weak and ineffectual as well as lacking support from the Palestinian People. Hamas has far more support than Abbas and plays a very important role as it has more support in the West Bank than the PA. Hamas will never allow Abbas to sign a peace treaty with Israel, which would be the first step in ending the occupation of land since June 1967.

Hamas will never agree with any form of negotiations with Israel on a Two State Solution and an end to the occupation. It is dead set on Israel’s total destruction and a Palestinian State replacing Israel. The rhetoric of glee coming from the Palestinian leadership – Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority - after every terror attack, is further proof of the irreversible hate against Israelis and closes the door of any form of rapprochement.

B’tzelem executive director of the human rights group,Hagai El-Ad, addressed the UN on 14th October 2016 condemning the Israeli occupation He wrote an article in Haaretz Oct 16, 2016 stating his reason for addressing the UN:

“There is no chance Israeli society, of its own volition and without any help, will end the nightmare. Too many mechanisms insulate the violence we conduct in order to control the Palestinians.

I spoke at the United Nations against the occupation because I am striving to be a human being. And human beings, when they take responsibility for an injustice against other human beings, have a moral obligation to take action.

I spoke at the United Nations against the occupation because I am an Israeli. I have no other country. I have no other citizenship and no other future. I grew up here and will be buried here. I care about the fate of this place, the fate of its people and its political fate, which is my fate, too. And in light of all these ties, the occupation is a disaster.

I spoke at the United Nations against the occupation because my colleagues at B’Tselem and I, after so many years of work, have reached several conclusions. Here’s one: The reality will not change if the world does not intervene. I suspect that our arrogant government also knows this, so it’s busy fear mongering against such an intervention.

Intervention by the world against the occupation is just as legitimate as any human-rights issue. It’s all the more so when it involves an issue like our ruling over another people. This is no internal Israeli matter. It is blatantly an international matter.

Sharing is caring. Spread the word

Here’s another conclusion: There is no chance Israeli society, of its own volition and without any help, will end the nightmare. Too many mechanisms insulate the violence we conduct in order to take control of them. Too many excuses have accumulated. There have been too many fears and too much anger – on both sides – over the past 50 years. In the end, I’m sure, Israelis and Palestinians will end the occupation, but we won’t do it without the world’s help.

The United Nations is many things. Many of them are problematic; some of them are really foolish. I don’t agree with them. But the United Nations is also the organization that gave us a state in 1947, and that decision is the basis of the international legitimacy of our country, the one where I’m a citizen. And with every day of occupation, we not only chew away at Palestine with delight, we also destroy our country’s legitimacy.

I don’t understand what the government wants the Palestinians to do. We have ruled their lives for nearly 50 years, we have shredded their land to bits. We wield military and bureaucratic power with enormous success and get along just fine with ourselves and the world.

What are the Palestinians supposed to do? If they dare demonstrate, it’s popular terror. If they call for sanctions, it’s economic terror. If they pursue legal means, it’s judicial terror. If they turn to the United Nations, it’s diplomatic terror.

It turns out that anything a Palestinian does besides getting up in the morning and saying “Thank you, Rais” – "Thank you, master" – is terror. What does the government want, a letter of surrender or for the Palestinians to disappear? They won’t disappear.

We won’t disappear either, nor will we be silent. We must repeat it everywhere: The occupation is not the result of a democratic vote. Our decision to control their lives, as much as it suits us, is an expression of violence, not democracy. Israel has no legitimate option to continue this way. And the world has no option to continue treating us as it has so far – all talk and no action.

I spoke at the UN Security Council against the occupation because I am optimistic, because I am an Israeli, because I was born in Haifa and live in Jerusalem, and because I am no longer a young man and every day of my life has accompanied our control of them. And because it is impossible to carry on like this.

We must not carry on like this. I spoke at the UN Security Council against the occupation because I am striving to be a human being”.

After reading what he said in his address, I got the impression that he was morally correct but at the same time altruistic and unrealistic. Also his address was very naive and played into the hands of Israel’s enemies in the UN. However, from a practical point of view he was not correct. If there were no Palestinian terror attacks on innocent people, irrespective of their creed, Hagai El-Ad’s speech would be justified. By his speech, he has placed B’tzelem in the camp of Israel’s haters who are not human rights oriented, nor do they care about human dignity. Their collective silence on Jihadi movements in the Middle East, including their indifference to the widespread massacres in Syria is conspicuous by their silence. They are vociferous in supporting UN resolutions against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, while at the same time they do not condemn the vilest Palestinian terrorist murders of innocent people.

The sickening double-standard, hypocritical justification of terror is viewed as a “legitimate fight by the Palestinian victims of the occupation against the cruel occupier - Israel”. They do not view Islamist or Palestinian terror as evil but rather as heroic deeds of bravery. B’tzelem, whose purpose is to monitor human rights abuses by the IDF in Israeli occupied territories, is a just and moral cause. However, fighting to end the occupation without any peace agreement that is watertight in ensuring Israel’s security and right to exist, is not a moral cause and deserves condemnation. Hagai El-Ad is playing into the hands of Hamas that also opposes Israel’s occupation which is synonymous to supporting Israel’s destruction and total replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state. Differentiation between the occupation and Israel’s total destruction is not on the Hamas agenda. Hamas is a factor that cannot be overlooked as it has more support than the PA by far.

The mantra of “ending the occupation” really means ending Israel’s existence. If this mindset is dominant then “ending the occupation” is no option. Mahmoud Abbas knows that he does not have the power or support of Hamas to sign a peace treaty with Israel to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian State alongside Israel. If he does, his life will be endangered. This is a fact and negotiations with Abbas to end the occupation are an exercise in futility while Hamas has the strength and final say. As it is, Abbas is viewed as a traitor by the majority of Palestinians as well as an ally of Israel and the US. This also explains why no general elections have been held for many years.

If we look at the bigger picture, it is obvious that ending the occupation, despite the question of morality, is not an option when the “partner” is not prepared to negotiate or recognize Israel’s right to exist.