Trump, to Jerusalem and Back
Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital may have been bombastic, but it will not change much. It does not preclude the city’s eventual division into two capitals as part of a peace settlement, much less guarantee Israel sovereignty over all of Jerusalem as its “eternal capital.”
TEL AVIV – US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger famously singled out Israel as a country whose entire foreign policy is actually domestic. Yet the same is true of the United States, particularly when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
All US presidents attempting to resolve that conflict have faced massive – indeed, insurmountable – domestic political obstacles. With his recent decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Donald Trump has taken this trend to the next level, though the result may well be more of the same stagnation.
Trump’s Jerusalem declaration is the latest manifestation of the unlikely president’s quest for domestic legitimacy, which has made him almost obsessed with fulfilling his extreme and self-defeating campaign promises, including withdrawal from or renegotiation of major international treaties such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate agreement. Likewise, the Jerusalem decision was meant to appease the messianic dreams of his massive evangelical constituency.
Yet Trump’s actions have wider diplomatic implications, which he seems incapable of calculating. Understandably, Trump’s declaration has been met with rage from Palestinians, with President Mahmoud Abbas asserting that “from now on” he would not accept “any role” for the US in the peace process, and even calling for the world to reconsider its recognition of Israel.
Moreover, anti-American powers – Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and Turkey – have taken Trump’s divisive decision as an opportunity to enhance their own regional influence, at the expense of the US and its allies. They hope to position themselves as the champions of a great Arab and Muslim cause supposedly betrayed by the feeble reaction of Israel’s newfound Arab friends, particularly Saudi Arabia.
This response won’t help the Palestinians any more than it will help the US. Anger is not a strategy – a lesson that Palestinians have learned the hard way in the past. Abbas is presumably also still waiting for the United Kingdom to apologize for the 1917 Balfour declaration, the centenary of which Israel recently celebrated.
The fact is that, despite being demoralized by years of futile “peace processes,” the Palestinian masses are in no mood for a third intifada. And they blame their plight not just on the occupier, but also on their own unelected and utterly unpopular leaders, who offer them no sense of direction or achievable objectives.
The incendiary rhetoric of Palestine’s supporters in the Arab world has never done much for the Palestinian people, either. Trump’s Jerusalem declaration is not “the beginning of the end of Israel,” as Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has promised. Hezbollah is simply attempting to distract attention from its disgraceful war in support of Bashar al-Assad’s genocidal regime in Syria.
Likewise, by committing itself to the Palestinian “Islamic Resistance Forces,” Hezbollah’s patron, Iran, is simply recycling a policy that it has pursued since long before that declaration, with the goal of advancing its regional hegemonic designs. And, in fact, while the move has probably reinforced Iran’s claim to be the true defender of Jerusalem and Palestine, the biggest gains for Iran will likely be emotional. After all, the Sunni Middle East – led by a Saudi Arabia for which the quest for regional dominance amounts to a struggle for regime survival – will not accept being led by the rising Shia empire, especially if that means clashing head-on with Israel and the US.
Palestine also should not expect much from Russia. President Vladimir Putin is a realist; he knows that heeding the call for Russia to assume a leadership role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would damage his relationships with both parties, without bringing them any closer to a settlement. Russia’s calling is not – and has never been – that of a peacemaker.
So, in many ways, Trump’s Jerusalem declaration will not change much. As the Palestinians and their friends in the international community might realize when the dust settles, it does not preclude the city’s eventual division into two capitals as part of a peace settlement, much less guarantee Israel sovereignty over all of Jerusalem as its “eternal capital.”
In fact, it is a fantasy to assume, as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems to do, that Trump’s support is the key to getting the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim supporters to acquiesce to Israeli-Jewish rule over a city that is so important to both sides. Even Trump himself admitted the limits of Israel’s sovereignty in Jerusalem, and affirmed his commitment to the status quo regarding East Jerusalem’s holy sites.
Moreover, the restrained response of Arab leaders should not be interpreted as a vindication of Netanyahu’s assumption that his newfound allies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt could force the Palestinians into a US-brokered peace deal that would not meet the core requirements of their national narrative.
In any case, the days of Netanyahu’s expansionist government are numbered. The clumsy Jerusalem declaration cannot save Netanyahu’s current coalition government from massive corruption scandals and irreconcilable internal conflicts. Not even an Israel-friendly peace plan spearheaded by Trump (assuming his declaration does not foreclose it altogether) could do that.
Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition simply is no partner for a historic deal, on Jerusalem or on any other element of the dispute. The only way forward is for Israel to produce a new, more centrist coalition, while the Palestinians adopt a more sober and strategic approach. In that case, Trump’s Jerusalem declaration would not preclude a solution according to the peace parameters put forward by Bill Clinton. And, in fact, when I led the Israeli negotiating team almost two decades ago, both sides accepted the idea of Jerusalem being partitioned, albeit with flexible borders, along ethnic lines.
To improve the chances of success, America’s monopoly on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process should end. Instead, the negotiations should be handled more like those that produced the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, with a group of countries – in that case, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the US), plus Germany – working together to achieve results.
The EU Must Recognize the Palestinian State
At this point, the best way to encourage Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table is to work to level the playing field. Because the US clearly won't do that, the EU must take the lead, sending a message that is as forceful as it is necessary, by immediately recognizing the State of Palestine.
MADRID – Once again, US President Donald Trump has taken a unilateral approach to foreign policy – this time, by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And once again, Trump has misinterpreted the realities of the Middle East. Given that his latest move – which effectively blew up more than 70 years of international consensus – could precipitate a rapid deterioration in the region, it is imperative that the European Union step up.
The Trump administration’s Middle East policy rests on a reinvigorated alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Every American president since John F. Kennedy has made his first foreign visit either to Mexico, Canada, or Europe. Not Trump. He made a beeline to Riyadh, where he participated in a summit with 54 Muslim-majority countries and delivered an inflammatory speech vilifying Iran, which he asserted should be shunned by the international community.
After Saudi Arabia, Trump paid a visit to Israel, where he launched another fusillade of anti-Iran rhetoric. Saudi Arabia and Israel do not maintain diplomatic relations, but they are both US allies, and they have a shared opponent in Iran. In November, the head of the Israel Defense Forces, Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot, even expressed openness to sharing intelligence with Saudi Arabia to counter Iran. “With President Trump,” Eisenkot told the Saudi publication Elaph, “there is an opportunity to build a new international coalition in the region.”
The Saudi-Israeli rapprochement has been helped along by Saudi Arabia’s new crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), who is pursuing a program of modernization, both domestically and in foreign-policy terms. Earlier this month, MBS was rumored to have proposed an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan that would have been highly favorable to Israel, although the US and Saudi governments have since denied those reports.
In any case, Trump has clearly wanted to take advantage of these circumstances to deliver a diplomatic coup. And yet his decision on Jerusalem forces the Saudis to confront a dilemma: whether to place a higher priority on defending the Palestinian cause, or on normalizing ties with Israel as a means to contain Iran.
Some Saudis seem to hope for the latter, proposing to leave aside thorny questions about the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinians in general. Trump, too, attempted to add nuance to his declaration, asserting that he was not taking a position on the specific geographical boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, and that the US embassy would not be moved from Tel Aviv immediately.
But, as former US special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations Martin Indyk put it, the Americans “can try to limit the damage all they want, but they won’t be able to, because Jerusalem is such a hot-button issue.” That reality was reflected in the eruption of street protests across the Middle East soon after Trump’s announcement, though the large-scale violence that some feared has not occurred.
More telling, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation held an extraordinary summit in Istanbul, where its members reaffirmed “the centrality of the cause of Palestine and Al-Quds Al-Sharif [Jerusalem] to the Muslim Ummah,” recognized East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and strongly condemned Trump’s actions.
No Muslim, it seems, is prepared to forget that Jerusalem is home to the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third most sacred site in Islam. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman referred to the mosque when he warned Trump just how harmful the Jerusalem decision would be. And when Trump announced the decision anyway, the Kingdom derided it as “unjustified” and “irresponsible.”
The simple truth is that Saudi Arabia cannot distance itself from the Palestinian cause and allow other countries like Turkey and even Iran to carry the banner. That would amount to a tactical mistake akin to severing ties with Qatar a few months ago. It would also be difficult, if not impossible, for the Saudis suddenly to support a plan that was radically different from the Arab Peace Initiative, known as the “Saudi Initiative,” which was approved in 2002 and endorsed by the Arab League this year.
So Trump’s dream scenario – in which Saudi Arabia sides with Israel to pressure the Palestinians to make peace – is not going to materialize. First, Saudi Arabia is not in a position to waive Arab claims on Jerusalem. Second, a strategy that gives the Palestinians no say in their fate, and the fate of Jerusalem, will never succeed. And, third, Trump’s administration – including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to whom Trump has entrusted the US role in the Arab-Israeli peace process – is staffed with businesspeople, not politicians, as Kushner himself recently pointed out. But Jerusalem, and the Israel-Palestine conflict more broadly, is far too fraught to be treated like a business deal.
Though Trump has not ruled out the two-state solution – the approach endorsed by the United Nations – he may have put the final nail in its coffin. The only way to save it, or even to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, is to work toward a more level playing field. Here, the EU must take the lead and send a message that is as forceful as it is necessary, by immediately recognizing – as over 70% of UN member states have already done – the State of Palestine.
The path toward a two-state solution should start with the Arab Peace Initiative, which stipulates that the Arab League would recognize Israel if it were to retreat into its pre-1967 borders, though an alternative, more gradual approach could be considered. The two-state solution – which would allow Israel to retain its Jewish and democratic character, and should guarantee the viability of the Palestinian state – still represents the most credible way out of the Arab-Israeli quagmire. But if we are to achieve the “separation because of respect” that Yitzhak Rabin envisioned in the 1990s, there is no time to lose: the point of no return is inching closer with each passing day.
Trump’s Jerusalem Rationale and its Consequences
The US administration seems to believe that Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments are so concerned with the perceived Iranian threat that they will put aside their long-standing hostility toward Israel. The problem is that the new Saudi crown prince's highest priority – to consolidate his power – may lead him to reject a peacemaking role.
NEW YORK – It is 50 years since the Six-Day War – the June 1967 conflict that, as much as any other event, continues to define the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. After the fighting was over, Israel controlled all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, in addition to the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.
Back then, the world saw this military outcome as temporary. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, the backdrop to what was to become a diplomatic solution to the problem of the stateless Palestinians, was adopted some five months after the war ended. But, as is often the case, what began as temporary has lasted.
This is the context in which President Donald Trump recently declared that the United States recognized Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital. Trump stated that the US was not taking a position on the final status of Jerusalem, including “the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty” there. He made clear that the US would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides. And he chose not to begin actually moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv, even though he could have simply relabeled what is now the US consulate in Jerusalem.
The attempt to change US policy while arguing that little had changed did not persuade many. Most Israelis were pleased with the new US stance, and most in the Arab world and beyond were incensed.
Just why Trump chose this moment to make this gesture is a matter of conjecture. The president suggested it was simply recognition of reality and that his predecessors’ policy failure to do so had failed to yield any diplomatic benefits. This is true, although the reason diplomacy failed over the decades had nothing to do with US policy toward Jerusalem, and everything to do with divisions among Israelis and Palestinians and the gaps between the two sides.
Others have attributed the US announcement to American domestic politics, a conclusion supported by the unilateral US statement’s failure to demand anything of Israel (for example, to restrain settlement construction) or offer anything to the Palestinians (say, supporting their claim to Jerusalem). Although the decision has led to some violence, it looks more like an opportunity lost than a crisis created.
What made this statement not just controversial but potentially counterproductive is that the Trump administration has spent a good part of its first year putting together a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This announcement could well weaken that plan’s already limited prospects.
What the Trump administration seems to have in mind is to give outsiders, and Saudi Arabia in particular, a central role in peacemaking. Informing this approach is the view that Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments are more concerned with the perceived threat from Iran than with anything to do with Israel. As a result, it is assumed that they are prepared to put aside their long-standing hostility toward Israel, a country that largely shares their view of Iran.
Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue would create a political context in the Arab world that would allow them to do just this. The hope in the Trump administration is that the Saudis will use their financial resources to persuade the Palestinians to agree to make peace with Israel on terms Israel will accept.
The problem is that the only plan to which this Israeli government is likely to agree will offer the Palestinians far less than they have historically demanded. If so, the Palestinian leaders themselves may well determine it is safer to say no than to sign on to a plan sure to disappoint many of their own people and leave them vulnerable to Hamas and other radical groups.
The Saudis, too, may be reluctant to be associated with a plan that many will deem a sellout. The top priority for the new Saudi leadership under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is to consolidate power, which the prince is doing by associating himself with an effort to attack corruption in the Kingdom and by pursuing a nationalist, anti-Iranian foreign policy.
But neither tactic is going entirely according to plan. The anti-corruption effort, while so far popular, risks being tarnished by selective prosecution of offenders (which suggests that it is more about power than reform) and reports about the crown prince’s own lifestyle. And the anti-Iran efforts have become inseparable from what has become an unpopular war in Yemen and diplomatic embarrassments in Lebanon and Qatar. Meanwhile, ambitious plans to reform the country are proving easier to design than to implement, and are sure to alienate more conservative elements.
The problem for Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law who leads US policy in this area, is that the Saudis are likely to prove much less of a diplomatic partner than the White House had counted on. If the new crown prince is worried about his domestic political standing, he will be reluctant to stand shoulder to shoulder with an American president seen as too close to an Israel that is unwilling to satisfy even minimal Palestinian requirements for statehood.
All of which brings us back to Jerusalem. Trump argued that recognizing the city as Israel’s capital was “a long overdue step to advance the peace process and the work towards a lasting agreement.” More and more it appears that Trump’s move will have just the opposite effect.
The New Fulcrum of the Middle East
The postwar international order is undergoing a substantial realignment, and so, too, is the Middle East. Whereas the Israel-Palestinian conflict once determined most other geopolitical developments in the region, it is now largely crowded out by other disputes, not least the hegemonic struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
BERLIN – We live in a time of geopolitical transition. China’s effort to replace the United States as the world’s leading power, or at least to become a co-partner in global leadership, deservedly receives much attention. But the macro-level dynamics that have long defined the Middle East are also shifting, and here, too, US influence is likely to diminish.
Just over a century ago, the Sykes-Picot Agreement divided the Middle East between France and Great Britain, and established national borders that remain in place to this day. But now the regional order is changing.
Since Israel’s founding, the Arab-Israeli conflict has largely dominated the region’s geopolitics. Israel won the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and all the wars that followed it. But whether the Israelis and the Palestinians could reach an acceptable settlement, and thus bring peace to the Middle East, remained a central concern in international affairs.
The closest the Israelis and the Palestinians have ever come to achieving peace was during the period between the signing of the first Oslo Accord on September 13, 1993, and the assassination of then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on November 4, 1995. It is worth recalling that in both the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords, the status of Jerusalem was left unresolved. It was widely agreed that such a sensitive and complicated issue would have to be addressed at the end of the peace process.
The Israel-Palestine conflict lost its centrality in the region after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, and more so after the Arab Spring began in late 2010. After 2011, the Syrian civil war and the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIS) dominated the regional narrative. But now that an international coalition has deprived ISIS of its “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq, the struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia for regional dominance has come to the fore.
So far, Iran and Saudi Arabia have confronted one another mainly through proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. But each country’s support for rival factions in Lebanon, together with the ongoing diplomatic dispute between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is also part of their larger struggle.
Against this backdrop, the unresolved Israel-Palestine conflict seemed to have been downgraded to the status of a fringe dispute. That remained the case until US President Donald Trump’s administration decided unilaterally this month to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Israel’s government and the Knesset (parliament) are based in West Jerusalem, and foreign dignitaries routinely make official visits there. But Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six-Day War has never been internationally recognized, and other countries, including the US, have kept their embassies in Tel Aviv, because they know that Jerusalem’s status is a fraught political and religious issue.
Moreover, all other countries understand that weighing in on one side of the Jerusalem question would damage the prospects for an eventual two-state solution – the idea of which dates back to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine – because both Israelis and Palestinians claim the city as their capital.
In 1947, a two-state solution was not viable, because Arab states responded to Israel’s founding by waging war against it. When the Palestinians finally recognized the existence of Israel in 1993, that decision alone was seen as a big step forward.
Although diplomats still speak of a Middle East peace process, there has been no process to achieve peace for many years. A two-state solution remains the only conceivable option for satisfying both sides, but it is becoming less credible with time, and with the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And now America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital could mean the end of the two-state solution once and for all.
But the alternative, a binational arrangement, would confront Israel with the dilemma of remaining either democratic or Jewish, but not both. And with a two-state solution off the table, it would be only a matter of time before the Palestinians, having abandoned the struggle for their own state, instead demanded equal civil rights.
There is a third option, at least in theory: a Palestinian state could be created in Gaza, extended into the Northern Sinai, and put under Egypt’s de facto control, while the West Bank could be divided between Israel and Jordan. But the Palestinians would never accept this outcome, and it would not solve the problem of Israel becoming a binational state.
One wonders why Trump decided to act on the Jerusalem issue now. Was it the result of his usual irrationalism, or of domestic politics? Or does he have in mind a new territorial solution that transcends the traditional parameters of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
It is worth noting that Trump’s unilateral demarche drew only a moderate response from the major Arab powers – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. For the Saudis, countering Iran is the top priority. And because Saudi Arabia is too weak to win that fight on its own – particularly in Lebanon and Syria – it will continue to strengthen its ties with Iran’s other rivals, especially with the region’s military superpower: Israel.
The emerging alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel, once unimaginable, will likely become one of the driving forces of the new Middle East. Only time will tell what the price of such an anti-Iranian alliance will be?
Donald Trump Versus Mideast Peace
The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.
JERUSALEM – In a matter of three weeks, the United States government has attacked the Palestinian people on three fronts. First, on November 17, President Donald Trump’s administration announced its decision (subsequently reversed) to close the Palestine Liberation Organization’s diplomatic office in Washington, DC. Then, on December 5, the US Congress voted unanimously to adopt the Taylor Force Act, which blocks aid to the Palestinian Authority from 2018 to 2024, unless the PA stops paying monthly salaries and other benefits to the families of killed or convicted Palestinian militants. But it was the third attack, which came the following day, that will prove most devastating to efforts to achieve peace.
In defiance of overwhelming global opposition, not to mention past United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, Trump announced that the US will officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.
Of course, that is not how Trump’s administration presents it. As the New York Times reported just before the announcement, Trump administration officials believe the decision, which entails moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, could actually hasten the peace process, “by removing a source of ambiguity from the American position.” After all, they point out, the embassy question comes up every six months, when the president has to sign a new waiver to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv – a process that, from their perspective, repeatedly stokes political tension.
In his address on the topic, Trump reiterated this argument. Officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he asserted, “is a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement.” He also claimed that the decision “is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement,” one “that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians.”
But, in that same speech, Trump betrayed the superiority he ascribes to Israel: “Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital.” Despite its best efforts, Palestine, of course, is not recognized as a sovereign state by the US. So, far from seeking a fair peace deal between the two parties, Trump has effectively declared victory for Israel – and instructed the Palestinians to accept defeat quietly.
Yet the Palestinians have displayed a profound capacity for resistance. Just last summer, when the Israeli government decided unilaterally to install metal detectors at the entrances of Al Haram Al Sharif/Al Aqsa Mosque, Palestinians demonstrated outside the mosque for two weeks, forcing the Israelis to reverse the decision.
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is a far more powerful symbolic move, suggesting that it could spur even more formidable resistance – and not just from the 300,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem, or even from the more than 12 million Palestinians around the world. What Trump’s administration fails to recognize is that Jerusalem – the third-holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina – isn’t just an Israeli-Palestinian issue; all of the world’s 350 million Arabs and 1.5 billion Muslims have a direct and vital stake in it.
Trump may think that his current honeymoon with Saudi Arabia will allow him to escape pushback from Arab leaders. But Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is facing too much opposition to his own reforms to side openly with Israel on so emotive an issue as Jerusalem.
The fact is that leaders across the Muslim and Arab world are not going to allow Trump to hand Jerusalem to Israel unilaterally, simply to satisfy his small base of US Christian Zionist evangelicals (he received the support of less than a quarter of American Jews). And, indeed, Mohammad Shtayyeh, a member of the Fatah central committee, has already pledged that the Palestinian leadership, in coordination with Jordan and other Arab states, will resist the dictate.
Yet it is not just Arabs or Muslims who support the Palestinians’ just demands for a fair peace agreement. Innumerable people worldwide – of all faiths and backgrounds, as well as resolutions by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, and the International Court of Justice – also support this stance. This is true even in the US: according to a poll released by the Arab American Institute, only 20% of Americans (including American Arabs and American Jews) favor moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The Palestinians are calling for a two-state solution, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state and West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The Israelis, by contrast, have consistently thwarted a two-state solution, and demanded to have Jerusalem all to themselves. In short, it is the Israeli government’s position – and that of the Trump administration – that must change, if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ever to be resolved.
Many in Israel recognize this: 25 prominent Israelis, including former diplomats, army generals, and academics, signed a letter to Trump’s Mideast peace envoy denouncing the Jerusalem decision. “The status of Jerusalem,” they wrote, “lies at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and must be determined within the context of resolving that conflict.”
Any viable peace deal must be able to stand the test of time. And that means it must be fair and just, rather than leaving one party seething with resentment – especially if that resentment extends to millions of people worldwide. Attempting to ram a solution down Palestinians’ throats will increase the likelihood of even more violence, not peace.