WarSclerotic

No matter what U.S President Donald Trump does, the knee-jerk reaction of the haters and his political opponents will always be uncontrollable, obsessive rage.

But the hysterical reactions of politicians and journalists to what Trump did or didn’t say at the press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the conclusion of their joint summit in Helsinki reached new heights. They accused Trump of betraying his country and neglecting the national interests of the American people, and once again brought up the conspiracy theories, according to which the U.S. president fawns over Putin in public because the Russian leader has incriminating information about Trump or his associates. Worse still, they say Trump would rather attack U.S. intelligence agencies than Putin for his crimes, foremost among them Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Trump’s critics very nearly accused the U.S. president of colluding with the Russian enemy.

The announcement just three days ahead of the Helsinki summit that 12 Russian intelligence officers had been indicted for hacking Democratic officials cast a shadow over the meeting between the two leaders, the first such talks in a decade. While there were many reasons Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama avoided meeting with Putin during his second term in office, the absence of a personal relationship between the leaders of the two biggest world powers for such an extended period of time did nothing to straighten Putin out. The opposite is true: This approach bolstered the sense in Moscow that Washington was interested in conflict and preparing for a new cold war. Trump sought to break with this perception and prevent an unnecessary escalation. He wanted to look for ways to increase cooperation between the two countries, including those that would serve the U.S. economy. After all, Trump is first and foremost a businessman who wants to “make America great again.”

From the little Trump and Putin revealed about their meeting, the two clearly discussed many important topics. But these matters were not the focus of their joint press conference. Instead, the two leaders were forced to contend with the provocative questions of – mainly American – journalists, who sought to instigate a public spat between Trump and Putin. But neither leader had come to Helsinki to fight. They simply wanted to try and forge a new dynamic between their countries.

One statement Trump made that did not get enough attention, probably due to the fact it did not relate to Russian subversion, says a lot about what happened in Helsinki: “I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.” Trump, who knew that even if Putin gave him the keys to Moscow, his opponents and the media would ask why he didn’t demand St. Petersburg while he was at it, preferred to take the heat for not crucifying Putin on the subject of Russian meddling in the U.S. elections and not reveal the issues he discussed with Putin. One can only hope the attacks on Trump did not serve to distract their attention from the issues that really matter.

In their uproar over the Helsinki summit, the hypocrisy of Trump’s critics is all the more evident. The same liberal Left that tells us we should talk to Hamas and Hezbollah, makes pilgrimages to the grave of the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, fiercely defends the Iran nuclear deal and crowned Obama for renewing ties with Cuba now lashes out at Trump for “selling his soul to the war criminal and human rights violator” Putin. In Israel, too, Trump’s obsessed critics chose to ignore the historical significance in the superpowers’ commitment to ensuring Israel’s security and instead invest their energy in laying into Trump once more.

Hamas leadership has decided to scale back its kite ‎terrorism campaign and it is likely to come to a halt by next ‎week, the Palestinian daily Al-Quds reported ‎Wednesday.‎

According to the report, the decision was made in an ‎effort to prevent a full-fledged clash between Israel ‎and Hamas in Gaza.‎

The terrorist arson campaign, launched in late ‎‎April, has so far decimated over 9,000 acres of ‎forest ‎and farmlands on the Israeli side of the ‎border. Incendiary kites and balloons have caused ‎millions of dollars in damage to the area over the ‎past three months and environmental experts ‎say it ‎will take at least 15 years to rehabilitate ‎the ‎vegetation and wildlife that have been destroyed. ‎ ‎

Al-Quds quoted senior Gaza sources as saying that ‎Hamas’ decision stemmed from their reluctance to see ‎Gaza, which is in a dire humanitarian state, subjected ‎to another war.‎

Hamas has therefore decided to heed the advice of ‎Egyptian officials, who warned that Israel’s ‎patience was wearing thin and Gaza’s rulers would be ‎wide to curb the kite terrorism campaign. ‎

Gaza-based terrorists fired 200 projectiles at ‎Israel’s border towns over the weekend, triggering a ‎forceful Israeli response. While an Egyptian-brokered ‎cease-fire was achieved eventually, it did little to ‎affect arson terrorism. ‎

Dozens of fires, sparked by incendiary kites and ‎balloons, scorched the Israeli side of the border on ‎Monday and Tuesday, with one balloon landing in a ‎kindergarten in the Sdot Negev Regional Council as ‎children were playing in the yard. ‎

No injuries were reported in the incident, but ‎defense officials said Israel was no longer ‎willing to contain the situation and that a military ‎campaign in Gaza was getting closer by the day. ‎

‎’We may have no choice but to topple Hamas’‎

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Gershon Hacohen, who was the ‎officer in charge of implementing the 2005 ‎disengagement from Gaza Strip, told Israel Hayom ‎that Hamas’ provocations may lead to war.‎

‎”Hamas doesn’t want a full-blown conflict, only to ‎widen the gray areas where it operates. We have to ‎be creative – not just technologically – to prevent ‎that,” he noted.‎

‎”When it comes to Gaza, Hamas is stuck. From an ‎ideological standpoint, its border riots and ‘March ‎of Return’ is about ending the ‘occupation’ in ‎Israel – something that enjoys wall-to-wall ‎Palestinian consensus. Hamas will not relinquish ‎this [ideology] and that’s why we have to act ‎forcibly in Judea and Samaria, too. When it comes to ‎Gaza, the [Israeli] interest is to maintain its ‎separation from Judea and Samaria.” ‎

Still, Hacohen said that in the event of another war ‎with Gaza, Israel may have no choice but to seize ‎control of the enclave, even if it does not ‎completely serve its interests. ‎

‎”It’s good for us that someone else, not Abu Mazen ‎‎[Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] is ‎ruling Gaza because it undermines the EU’s pressure ‎to form a Palestinian state in the 1967 lines. This ‎is why we don’t want to topple Hamas’ regime, but if ‎we’re left with no other choice and we end up going ‎into Gaza, we may have to eliminate Hamas. ‎

“If that happens, we’ll have to be very careful not ‎to hand it [Gaza] to Abu Mazen on a silver platter. ‎It’s inconceivable that would we go in, fight and ‎eliminate Hamas, then just hand it [Gaza] over to ‎him. We’ll have to come up with something more ‎creative.”‎

He further urged the IDF to “think outside of the ‎box” with respect to dealing with kite terrorism. ‎

he cautioned against politicizing military ‎decisions, such as IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi ‎Eizenkot’s position against targeting kite ‎cells comprising children, Hachoen stressed that “we ‎have to prevent any breach of our sovereignty, ‎period. This doesn’t necessarily mean killing 8-year-olds. We have to be creative and think outside ‎the box. The IDF has to find a solution to arson ‎terrorism.”‎

Former National Security Council Director Maj. Gen. ‎‎‎(ret.) Giora Eiland, for his part, said that when it ‎comes to the Gaza Strip, the only thing guiding ‎Israel should be its own interests. ‎

‎”We keep coming up with tactical solutions for the ‎situation, and that’s partially correct, but there ‎is a lack of strategic thought about our interests ‎versus reality on the ground, and whether or not our ‎actions promote Israeli interests,” he explained. ‎

‎”The reality is that, for the past 12 years, Gaza ‎Strip has been an independent state. It has a strong ‎government, clear borders, a military and foreign ‎policy. Israel is always better off dealing with a ‎state rather than a terrorist organization.‎

‎”Gaza may be an enemy state, but Israel is ‎surrounded by those and it knows how to regulate ‎its relations with them,” he continued. “Israel has ‎no territorial, economic or political interest in ‎Gaza. The only interest it has is maintaining peace ‎and security. Hamas’ interests are also simple – it ‎wants to stay in power, gain international ‎legitimacy and rehabilitate Gaza. ‎

‎”These interests are not so far apart and the ‎differences can be bridged. But to do that, Israel ‎has to engage Hamas government directly. This is the ‎only way to end the kite terrorism and secure a ‎prisoner exchange deal. Appealing to Gazans is ‎ineffective.”‎

Eiland‎ maintains that ‎”the diplomatic and security ‎price we will pay will be minor but reaching an ‎agreement will have major benefits because there ‎will be peace and quiet on the border. Given ‎tensions in the northern sector, a quiet southern ‎border is vital. That’s the only interest Israel ‎should consider,” he said.