Forget Jerusalem, forget Paris

The power of denial is evident in the Hebrew print press Friday morning, between the climate change denialism factoring into US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord and tabloid Israel Hayom’s turning as much of a blind eye as it can to Trump’s abandonment of his promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Both stories garner top headline real estate, and are even seen as ideologically linked by some.

Yedioth Ahronoth leads off with the decision not to move the embassy, showing its position as a general bellwether of mainline Israeli opinion by chiding Trump for the decision and highlighting the fact that the president — shocker — broke his campaign promise.

Israel Hayom, owned by Trump buddy Sheldon Adelson, buries the story on page 5 and puts on it the best possible spin it can muster with the headline “The question is not if the move happens, but only when,” quoting from the White House statement. The headline reflects the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office ingratiating response to the decision, which leads the story even as it admits “Israeli disappointment” over the decision.

The irony of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu crowing about the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Israel’s eternal capital and only a few days later “being spat at like this by his big friend in the White House” isn’t lost on Yedioth columnist Nahum Barnea.

“The fact that he and his colleagues in the government were forced to say that the spit was just rain, a slight disappointment, only added humiliation to the beating. This is how afraid they are to admit their mistake in understanding Trump, this is how afraid they are of his tweets,” he writes.

Donning his analyst hat, Haaretz’s Barak Ravid notes that the wording of the White House statement makes clear that the “when” in the equation is when there is a peace deal with the Palestinians.

“The statement was worded in language that the prime minister understands best, rooted in his well-known slogan: ‘If they give, they’ll get, if they don’t give, they won’t get.’ Trump reminded Netanyahu that nothing is free, at least not with Trump,” he writes. “The message in the White House statement was that if the prime minister wants a US Embassy in Jerusalem, the road to it passes through a peace agreement with the Palestinians.”

Israel Hayom’s lead story casts doubt on whether such a deal will ever be possible if it means giving away the other half of Jerusalem, according to results of a survey of Israelis published by the tabloid.

According to the survey, only 33 percent of Israelis are okay with a final settlement in which peace comes at the price of partial Palestinian control over the Old City of Jerusalem. The paper explains that a mere 16% said they would agree to it if it meant full Palestinian control of the Old City, and when those people were asked if they knew that meant Palestinian control of the Western Wall, two-thirds of them changed their minds. The paper notes that the poll surveyed both Jews and Arabs, claiming that it means a two-state solution is pretty much off the table, with even leftists opposed to giving Palestinians control in the Old City. Critics might ask about proposals envisioning the Old City internationalized to some extent, and not under complete control by either Israelis or Palestinians.

On the off chance Trump is able to brew his ultimavfefe deal, Haaretz reports that the new administration is looking into an Obama-era plan drafted between Israel and the US for how to deal with security as part of a two-state solution. The paper offers little more than circumstantial evidence that the new administration is actually dusting off the playbook, but does provide details into the never-published plan’s formation, demise and what’s contained inside.

“According to participants from both sides, the IDF presented to the American team a document with 26 points which defined all of Israel’s security concerns and interests in the West Bank. The American team was asked to provide effective solutions to each and every one of those 26 points,” the paper reports. “Some of the senior Israeli officers who took part in the conversations believed that almost all the points in the document received satisfactory answers from the Americans. The political leadership – Netanyahu and [then-defense minister Moshe] Ya’alon – disagreed.”

While one plan is possibly getting dusted off, another one bites the dust, with Trump announcing he will pull out of the Paris Climate Accord, which makes the pro-Trump broadsheet’s lead story.

Yedioth also plays up the announcement, terming Trump a “president against the world.” In a column, though, Amir Ben-David writes that the US stands to lose as much from the pullout as the rest of the planet.

“The consequences of the decision can of course do substantial damage to the global fight against global warming, but according to experts can also cause heavy damage to the US economy, and perhaps to its international standing as well,” he writes.

Haaretz columnist Chemi Shalev also argues Trump is against the world, particularly Europe, which has not shown Jerusalem’s willingness to put up with his shtick. With this latest move, America’s global standing will likely fall below the nadir experienced in the twilight of George W. Bush’s presidency, and this should worry Israel, he argues.

“A resentful America that closes itself off to the world, reneges on promises it made, shakes off international treaties it signed and turns its back on its most trusted allies — and whose president is despised and ridiculed — should scare Israel out of its mind,” Shalev writes. “An America that is against the world and vice versa is a greater existential threat to the Jewish state than Israel itself, when the whole world is against it.”