That's what "neutrality" between two parties between which there isn't anything remotely close to moral parity amounts to, after all. Heck, it's what Barack Obama openly proclaimed before his repeated attempts to shaft the Jews on the Pals' behalf. It's true that it was common knowledge that O was and is actively anti-Semitic and pro-jihadist, and he tilted his dishonest "brokerage" heavily toward the Pals, while The Donald is "only" purporting to "not take sides". But in a confrontation between the only Western democracy in the Middle East versus a gang of bloodthirsty mass-murderers, how can there even be any question of being "neutral" between them?:
"GOP" presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday refused to pick sides in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
“You know, I don’t want to get into it,” he told hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski during a MSNBC town hall in Charleston, South Carolina.
To be fair, this could also have been because Trump is utterly ignorant of the issue and has suddenly discovered the merits of not flaunting said ignorance for the whole country to see in vivid technicolor. Which would suggest that his Iowa defeat did teach him something after all, although his pro-Code Pink/pro-abortion debate outburst last weekend augurs against that.
“If I win, I don’t want to be in a position where I’m saying to you [my choice] and the other side now says, ‘We don’t want Trump involved,'” Trump said of potentially winning the presidency and then brokering a lasting peace deal.
Why not? If he made it clear that he's pro-Israel - a position, by the by, that is - or was - a sacrament on the Right and enjoys 62% general public support - and the Pals retorted that they "didn't want him involved" in yet another round of farcical "peace" negotiations, that would be an indication that they knew they couldn't bamboozle him, and that the Israelis knew he had their backs. It would also perhaps get across to the Pals that a Trump administration was not going to serve as the Pals' useful dupe "muscle" to force the Jews into submitting to any and all "Palestinian" demands. The Pals, in other words, would have to genuinely negotiate if a "two-state solution" is what they really sought. And if it isn't and the "peace process" has been a quarter-century genocidal fraud all along - which it has been and remains to this day - then that would be flushed out into the open as well.
A proclamation of "neutrality," by contrast, communicates to the Pals that a President Trump can be had, pressured, and manipulated against their enemy and what should be our natural, no-brainier ally. And consequently they will have no incentive to do anything else but what they've been doing for the past twenty-six years: refuse to genuinely negotiate and kill ever more Jews. And that's no way to "make a deal".
Unless Trump intends to deceive and double-cross the Jews.
“Let me be sort of a neutral guy,” the billionaire added. “I have friends of mine that are tremendous businesspeople, that are really great negotiators, [and] they say it’s not doable.
If Trump doesn't think a Middle East "peace" deal is doable, why bother trying, and why be "neutral"? If he meant the former, there'd be some merit to that claimed stance, but there'd also be no reason not to maintain the U.S.-Israel alliance.
I'd like to believe that this is just Trump ignorance. But given his egotistical propensity against learning and "knowing what he doesn't know," is that what we want four more years of in the White House? Or is Trump declaring that the Israelis no longer have any place inside our "tribal" tent? And how, as a practical matter, would that make him any different from Barack Obama?