The $380 billion clue

Jewish tradition is replete with the idea that the past can predict or act as a harbinger of the future. Biblical exegesis is chock-full of instances of the saying “The acts of the fathers are a sign for the children,” where history portends the future, and the Holocaust is increasingly viewed as a lesson for the future and not a memory of what occurred.

So US President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, on the eve of his quick stop in Israel, is brimming with meaning for those hoping to gain an early handle on what is expected to be a whirlwind (in more ways than one) tour of the region on Monday and Tuesday.

While the Saudis were taking away billions of dollars worth of super advanced arms deals and Trump was taking away sword dancing skills and fancy golden medals, Israelis were taking away lessons from what everything that went down in Riyadh could mean for when it’s our turn to host the most watched man on the planet, on top of previews of the visit that have little to do with the Saudi leg.

Much of the coverage looks at the $380 billion arms deal with awe, and peers at how the deal, both the weapons and the fact that Trump was willing to give it to Saudi Arabia, will play out for Israel.

“380,000,000,000 dollars,” reads the entire lede of Yedioth Ahronoth’s top story on the trip, with the paper clearly left speechless by the sheer amount of money at play.

Yedioth columnist Shimon Shiffer notes that Israel’s lack of opposition to a deal that could potentially tip the balance of power in the region is in line with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy of not poking the president.

“He won’t move the embassy to Jerusalem, as he promised during the campaign? Won’t recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall? Maintaining policies that see the West Bank as occupied territory? Everything is fine. You don’t piss off a president who tweets and responds in unexpected ways,” he writes. “Netanyahu, King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas internalized well the advice they got from Trump’s posse, by which flattery will be met with flattery and brown-nosers rewarded accordingly.”

In the same tabloid, columnist Dan Raviv notes that while Netanyahu is keeping mum, many of his ministers are not, asking questions about why the Saudis are getting everything they want and Israel is getting nothing. “Senior Israeli officials loved Trump, at least at first. But now they are not so sure,” he writes.

In Haaretz, columnist Chemi Shalev takes away an even more sinister message from Trump’s Saudi visit and deal, wondering how much one can trust the words of a man who could do such a 180 that he would sell that many arms to a country he accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks.

“His shifting attitude toward the Saudi kingdom shows that he can change his mind violently literally from one day to the next, and turn his worst enemy into his greatest ally without thinking twice. And that he can do just the opposite as well, as he did with Comey, who morphed from Trump’s hero into a grandstanding nut job, without a blink of the president’s eye. And that Israel could also be tossed overboard from one moment to the next if Trump decides that it will make America great and possibly save his hide,” he writes.

As for those who still take the president at his word, count Israel Hayom editor Boaz J. Bismuth among them. Yes, the same Boaz J. Bismuth who interviewed Donald J. Trump and was also in the same room as Donald J. Trump and got his (Boaz J. Bismuth’s) picture in the paper several times for having spoken with Donald J. Trump about things that Boaz J. Bismuth and Donald J. Trump talk about when Boaz J. Bismuth talks to Donald J. Trump, which he (Boaz J. Bismuth) does.

“I love the people in Israel,” the paper’s headline on the interview reads, and like the anodyne quote, much of the article is either slogans from Trump (“Friedman is a deal-maker”) or Bismuth’s prattle about his excitement over the meeting and his despair when it got canceled because news broke about a special prosecutor being appointed, but then the interview was back on so Boaz J. Bismuth was happy again.

Bismuth describes Trump as warm and joins him in attacking the US media for his (Trump’s, not Boaz J. Bismuth’s) woes.

“During the interview I lose precious time because the president wants to have a background conversation with me (off the record). It’s even more interesting than the actual interview, and it’s clear he really loves us and wants our safety. It’s also clear as day that ties with Netanyahu are warm. He gets along with him and really appreciates him,” he writes, not sounding at all like a brainwashed member of a cult.

Part of that love apparently means not accidentally recognizing the US lack of recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. The paper reports on a video that went up from the White House showing Israel only within 1967 borders and notes that it was taken down after it sparked an outcry.

“At almost the same time, Trump put on his presidential Facebook page a map with clear writing on his arrival to ‘Jerusalem, Israel,’ and this time with the Golan, Judea and Samaria appearing in the graphic,” the paper reports, on the back end of a story detailing plans for Trump’s peace push.

Haaretz’s lead story has more details about what Trump is planning to ask leaders when he comes here, with the paper quoting a senior White House official.

“The president will remind Netanyahu that construction in the settlements must be restrained and steps must be taken to improve the Palestinian economy, the official said. Trump will remind Abbas that the Palestinian Authority must halt all incitement and violence against Israel,” the paper reports.

What few eyes aren’t turned to Saudi Arabia and Israel’s future are cast upon Iran, where relative moderate Hassan Rouhani won a second term as president Friday.

“Iranians said ‘yes’ to keeping the Iran deal and opening up to the West and ‘no’ to turning inward and isolation,” Yedioth writes about the election.

In Haaretz, analyst Zvi Bar’el notes that with Iran making its choice known, the ball is now in the West’s court to show it is willing to respond in kind.

“The election results will now challenge the international community and especially Donald Trump’s United States. The nuclear agreement and the world’s relations with Iran have received another four years of consensus. This is a critical period at whose end a new Iranian president will decide if and how to extend the nuclear agreement,” he writes. “If signing the agreement was based mainly on the West’s willingness to believe Rouhani, the next period will have to replace this faith with diplomatic and economic infrastructure that will guarantee the agreement’s extension and quell Iran’s desire to develop nuclear weapons in the future.”