Can Trump teach Israel to be reasonable?

Israel perceives a threat in the fact that a revolution has taken place in Syria, in which the people came to power after 60 years, and in the possibility of stability emerging in the country. With this perceived threat, it began attacking every movement like a raging bull; in Syria it perceived weapons it had never perceived before, saw military sites it had never seen, and attacked them.

It is stated very openly. A stable Syria, especially a Syria governed by its own people, is a threat to Israel, and the attacks carried out are a natural consequence of this perception. That stability and the people's welfare and security constitute a threat actually also shows that the bloodiest, most merciless massacres of recent history, which have continued in Syria until now, were in fact part of Israel's security.

Imagine a country whose own welfare and security can be secured only by all the countries around it being on fire. Is there, one wonders, any other country in history that has secured its security with this concept? It is precisely for this reason that Israel is an exceptional formation in history to the point of perversity, and precisely for this reason it will not be possible for it to survive for long.

As of the day the people's revolution took place in Syria, Israel launched attacks on all its predetermined targets, and in particular bombed all the areas in Syria where Turkey was likely to set up bases, or which had been mentioned or had somehow come onto the agenda. It did not neglect to tell its own press and its official spokesmen that all these attacks carried a message to Turkey.

Recently, somewhat more openly, it has said that it sees the influence Turkey has gained in Syria with the revolution as a threat. Why? Turkey's constituting a threat to Israel does not arise from Turkey's actions or from stated intentions or plans. Even if Turkey did nothing, it represents a danger to Israel. Turkey's quality of being a danger is no different from the Syrian people's spontaneous quality of being a danger. This is of course a perception of threat and danger that has no reasonableness whatsoever, arising entirely from paranoia and innate hostility.

On this occasion there is something that has now been fully revealed. Until now Israel was in effect treating Syrian land as its own. Because the Assad regime, which massacred its own people in Syria, even with Iran behind it, never left Israel's tutelage and displayed an administration subordinate to it. Every Syrian citizen it killed meant one fewer enemy of Israel. That is why those who lament Assad in the name of the so-called "axis of resistance" would do well to open their eyes and reread these events.

The most important item on the agenda of the Zionist, genocidal Israel's prime minister Netanyahu's second visit to the US after a short interval was Syria, before Gaza. Proceeding from the fact that he had lost Syria and, on top of that, handed it over to Turkey, which he regards as a more substantial enemy, he complained to Trump and asked for his help. It became clear once again, through the stance he showed on this occasion, that there is continuity and consistency in the attitude Trump has displayed on Syria from the start. Trump's stance since his first term toward withdrawing his troops from Syria is not compatible at all with Israel's Syria policy.

That there was a serious divergence between them on this was not hidden from view, but in his first term Trump's will in this direction was caught on the resistance of the Pentagon and the CIA, and even the objections of certain segments within the Republican Party, and could not advance sufficiently. And these objections could cite no reason other than Israel's security in Syria. Yet in his second term too, Trump is seen insisting on this stance despite all the other parties, even despite Israel. The answer Trump gave to the help Netanyahu requested against Turkey undoubtedly constitutes a new and strong clue regarding the parameters of Trumpism, which has now begun to take clear shape.

Trump openly credits the revolution in Syria to Turkey and especially to Erdoğan, and accepts it as such, as a right. His appreciative words, at the press conference with Netanyahu, for Erdoğan as a leader who did in Syria what had not been done for 2000 thousand years were also read as a warning and a calibration to Israel and its genocidal prime minister to watch their step. While saying he was ready to mediate between Erdoğan and Netanyahu, he said that for this Netanyahu too needed to be a little reasonable. These statements can be seen as the first big US objection to Israel's chronic and customary demand that US politics follow Israel blindly.

That Trump, at the press conference where he announced the new tariffs, wanted what he was doing to be seen as a struggle for "America's independence" perhaps carries a heavy irony. But in fact it also makes a reality visible. That is the reality that, in foreign policy, despite all its power no state can be absolutely independent or an absolute power. Trump sees how the foundations of the US, regarded as the world's superpower, have been hollowed out, and tries to take measures against this within the most reasonable framework. He is trying to plug the holes that are draining America's pools. For this he is determining new alliances and new enmities. At this point it is understood that he sees Turkey as a new and strong ally. That is why Netanyahu's threat perception does not concern him much. For him what matters is from whom benefit or harm to the US comes.

We hope that, with this rapprochement, Turkey will also find an opportunity to show how far Israel is from being reasonable on the Gaza issue.

Is this too optimistic a wish? As with Syria, can Trump teach Israel to be reasonable on Gaza too? If he did, would anything called Israel remain? Is Israel not precisely the name of this irrationality?