Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Jason Miks.

December 6, 2017

Fareed: What Exactly Was the Point of Trump's Jerusalem Move?

President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a "remarkably un-strategic" move, Fareed argues.

"If this decision had been announced as part of a series of moves towards peace, with the United States doing some things to assist the Palestinian side and some things to assist the Israeli side, then it might make sense. But today's announcement feels untethered from any broader strategy, and instead more like an act of political pandering.

"What is odd about the statement is that it doesn't actually foreclose the possibility that there may be a shared capital between the Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, there was a softening of the language—which may have been done at the last minute—that implies the United States is not saying there cannot also be a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. The actual language was vaguer than that, but that was clearly the intent.

"But that raises a question: why do it? If you're not actually changing policy, what is the point of an announcement like this? It seems like a giveaway to Israeli hardliners and hard-line groups in the United States, but a symbolic slap in the face to millions of Palestinians and Arabs.

"The President suggested that he was making good on a campaign promise. But let's remember he failed to label China as a currency manipulator on day one of his presidency, and he hasn't so far built a wall, much less had Mexico pay for it. So, it's odd that this is a campaign promise that he has decided that he must adhere to.

"Will it lead to massive violence, as some have warned? It's dangerous to try to make predictions in the Middle East, but the Palestinians are so powerless and divided that it's difficult to see large-scale violence taking place, including against Israel. There might very well be protests, or isolated terrorist incidents. But the upshot of this move is more likely that it will simply add further despair to Palestinians, while toughening the most hard-line elements in Israel. And that, in turn, will mean that this problem will become ever more intractable."

No, Trump got it right. Elliott Abrams disagrees, arguing in Newsweek that recognizing Jeruslaem as the capital "closes no doors, if the Palestinians really want to open them."

"Whatever the final municipal borders Israelis decide upon, whatever final municipal borders and arrangements might emerge from peace negotiations, whatever else Jerusalem may some day be (including a Palestinian capital), there is one thing that is absolutely certain: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," Abrams says.

"The refusal to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital has for all these years been part of the campaign to refuse the Jewish state the legitimacy every other state gets. It makes Israel uniquely disadvantaged among nations—the only country in the entire world not permitted to choose its capital—giving a sense of impermanence and reduced rights."

Dems Giving Putin Credit – and Power – He Doesn't Deserve

With his announcement that he will seek reelection next year, Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely to loom over the international stage for years to come. But Edward Luce argues in the Financial Times that the Democrats' obsessive focus on Putin's role in the US election credits him with a degree of power and influence he doesn't really have.

"The idea that a struggling petro-state thousands of miles away could manipulate the world's greatest democracy is beyond flattering. It is empowering," Luce writes.

"There are any number of reasons Mr Trump scraped the 77,000 margin in the three key Midwestern states that clinched him the electoral college. Jill Stein, the Green party candidate, was one of them. She received more votes in Wisconsin and Michigan than Mr. Trump's winning tally. Mrs. Clinton's refusal to campaign in Wisconsin was another. The former FBI director James Comey's last-minute bombshell about reopening the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails was a third. And so on. None of these explain why Mr. Trump's support came within distance of victory in the first place."

"Mr. Putin is an opportunist who wishes to tarnish the west. But America was already doing that by itself. He was only throwing paraffin on to the fire. The market for fake news predated Mr. Putin. As the UK's Sun newspaper would say: it was the west [that] lost it."

Why Pakistan Won't Change for America

Defense Secretary James Mattis this week sounded like a string of US officials before him in calling for Pakistan to get serious about confronting militants. And he's likely to be met with the same stubborn inaction, writes Michael Kugelman for CNN Opinion. The reason? "A misalignment of interests."

Pakistan views groups like the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network "as useful assets to push back against Indian influence in Afghanistan, and as a helpful hedge against the possibility of an eventual American exit from that country.

"From Pakistan's perspective, it would be sheer folly to sever ties with the most powerful non-state actors operating in Afghanistan—actors whose influence would increase even more if Afghanistan descends into unrest and civil war," Kugelman writes.

"Domestic politics in Pakistan also ensure Islamabad won't change course and comply with US demands anytime soon. Elections are next year. As the country enters campaign season, no politician worth his or her salt—including those leading the current government—would remotely consider calling for accommodating American demands."

Kim: Immature, Brash, Brutal and…Rational

Kim Jong Un may be immature, brash and brutal. But that doesn't mean he isn't also rational. At least, that's what U.S. intelligence and military officials believe, the Wall Street Journal's Nancy Youssef writes.

"A driving factor behind the US assessment is that each time North Korea could have behaved in dangerous ways regarding its nuclear weapons, Mr. Kim hasn't taken that risk. While angry exchanges of tweets and statements by President Donald Trump and North Korea this year appeared to portend an imminent threat, national security experts said the uptick in rhetoric didn't appear to change Mr. Kim's calculations or behavior," Youssef writes.

"Among other signs of rationality, US military officials noted that there is no indication of a North Korean military buildup. There is no movement of troops or provocative acts toward US Navy ships or aircraft in the region, a sign, they said, that Mr. Kim isn't seeking to engage in impetuous, ill-advised military actions."

Still, the "U.S. still has gaps in its understanding of North Korea; US officials concede, for example, that they don't understand Mr. Kim's command and control structure."

Forward

Copyright © 2017 CNN

What did you like about today's Global Briefing? What did we miss? Let us know what you think: GlobalBriefing@cnn.com

unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences