Which presidential candidate do Jewish Americans support for peace in the Middle East?

Analysis Which presidential candidate do Jewish Americans support for peace in the Middle East?
Supporters of both parties are switching their traditional allegiances just days before the election. (AFP) (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 29 October 2024
Follow

Which presidential candidate do Jewish Americans support for peace in the Middle East?

Which presidential candidate do Jewish Americans support for peace in the Middle East?

LONDON: On Oct. 7, the first anniversary of the Hamas-led attack on Israel, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her Jewish husband Doug Emhoff planted a small pomegranate tree in the grounds of the vice president’s residence at the US Naval Observatory.

The solemn occasion, and the tree itself, was freighted with symbolic meaning.

In Judaism, the fruit of the pomegranate tree is a symbol of righteousness and hope, traditionally served on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. The fruit is said to contain 613 seeds — exactly the same number of the commandments, or mitzvot, found in the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

Harris, who said she was planting the tree to remind future vice presidents “not only of the horror of Oct. 7, but (also) of the strength and endurance of the Jewish people,” dedicated it “to the 1,200 innocent souls who, in an act of pure evil, were massacred by Hamas terrorists.”

A few weeks earlier, her rival Donald Trump had made an altogether less subtle pitch for the votes of Jewish Americans. Addressing the Israeli-American Council summit in Washington at an event also held to commemorate Oct. 7, he told his audience that “anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat.”

In fact, he added, any Jew who voted for Harris “should have your head examined.”




Trump said: “Anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat.” (AFP)

In truth, with precious votes to be had from Jewish and Arab voters alike in the seven key battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, both candidates are walking a tightrope between the regional sensibilities that could have such an impact on a presidential election taking place almost 10,000 km away.

And, as the recent Arab News-YouGov poll revealed, Arab American voters in particular are hard pressed to decide which of the two candidates, with their very different rhetorical styles, are likely to be better for the Middle East in general if elected president. Both Harris and Trump are each supported by exactly 38 percent of those polled.

As a mark of the general uncertainty about the real plans and intentions of either candidate once in office, supporters of both parties are switching their traditional allegiances just days before the election.

On Oct. 14, the Arab American Political Action Committee, which has consistently backed Democratic presidential nominees, announced that for the first time since its foundation in 1998 it would be endorsing neither candidate.

“Both candidates have endorsed genocide in Gaza and war in Lebanon,” AAPAC said in a statement. “We simply cannot give our votes to either Democrat Kamala Harris or Republican Donald Trump, who blindly support the criminal Israeli government.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s bravura performance at the Israeli American Council summit on Sept. 20, at which he cast himself as Israel’s “big protector” and suggested a Harris presidency would spell “annihilation” for the state, appears to have backfired.

Opinion

This section contains relevant reference points, placed in (Opinion field)


His comments earned rebukes from organizations including the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, addressed Trump’s remarks in a statement, saying that “preemptively blaming American Jews for your potential election loss does zero to help American Jews (and) increases their sense of alienation in a moment of vulnerability.”

As if to illustrate just how tricky the electoral tightrope is, strung as it is against the background of events in the Middle East, a poll commissioned by the Jewish Democratic Council of America at the beginning of October found that 71 percent of Jewish voters in the seven battleground states intended to vote for Harris, with only 26 percent backing Trump.

This is an intriguing development, especially when set alongside the findings of the Arab News-YouGov poll, which found a similar swing away from traditional voting intentions among Arab Americans, a slim majority of whom intend to vote for Trump.

The slight majority support for Trump (45 percent vs. 43 percent for Harris) is despite the fact that 40 percent of those polled described themselves as natural Democrats, and only 28 percent as Republicans.

It reflects disappointment in the Arab American community at the perceived failure of the Biden-Harris administration to adequately rein in Israel or hold it to account. In 2020, 43 percent of respondents had backed Biden, with only 34 percent voting for Trump.




Kamala Harris and her Jewish husband Doug Emhoff planted a small pomegranate tree in the grounds of the vice president’s residence. (AFP)

As Firas Maksad, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C., told a recent edition of the Arab News podcast “Frankly Speaking,” “the fact that they are so evenly split is surprising, particularly given what’s been happening in Gaza and now Lebanon.

“You’d think that that would have an impact and would dampen the vote for somebody who is so staunchly pro-Israel, like Donald Trump, but clearly that’s not the case.”

With just days to go until the election, however, it remains almost impossible to say with any certainty which of the candidates would be best for the Middle East in general, and in particular for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Even the experts are struggling to predict how a Harris administration and a Trump administration might differ in their approach to the Middle East.

“When you dig a little deeper into things beyond our headlines, beyond our polarized politics, President Trump’s and Vice President Harris’ positions on a variety of important issues in the Middle East — whether it’s the two-state solution, whether it’s US policy toward Iran, whether it’s regarding human rights and promotion of democratic reform in the region — are not all that different from each other,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, speaking in a Foreign Policy magazine election debate on Monday.

“On the two-state solution they obviously have very different visions of what that would look like, based on President Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ that he tabled during his one term in office. But nevertheless, they’re both supportive of a two-state solution to bring the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians to an end.”

Similarly, although in 2018 Trump pulled out the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal adopted by Iran and the P5+1 countries in 2015, both candidates now appear committed to reinvigorating it.

FASTFACTS

• A poll conducted in October by the conservative Manhattan Institute had Harris leading Trump 67% to 31% among likely Jewish voters.

• Polls of Jewish voters in 7 battleground states conducted for the Jewish Democratic Council of America had Harris leading Trump 71% to 26%.


“President Trump was often bellicose about Iran,” said Cook. “But his bellicosity hid the fact that what he was most interested in was putting pressure on the Iranians to bring them back to the negotiating table so that he can negotiate a better deal than the JCPOA.

“The administration that Vice President Harris has served has for the past two and a half years sought to draw the Iranians back into a JCPOA deal that would put limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

“So, on those big issues there may be a difference in style, a difference in rhetoric, but the ultimate policy goal of both candidates seems to me very much the same.”

Speaking in the same debate, Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the Chatham House policy institute, said that there were still many question marks hanging over Harris’ approach to the region.

“She’s very cautious; she’s a bit of a black box and so we can read whatever we want into her,” she said. “But there’s also no guarantee as to what will come out from President Trump (on) the Middle Eastern landscape.




“Both candidates have endorsed genocide in Gaza and war in Lebanon,” AAPAC said in a statement. (AFP)

“I think there is a lot of expectation that he will stop the war, because he has implied as much, and for a lot of leaders around the region, but more broadly for citizens across multiple Middle Eastern countries, this is urgent.

“They would like to see the violence coming to an end, regular humanitarian aid being delivered to Gaza, and, of course, the violence also stopped in Lebanon, and that is the expectation, that Trump is going to pick up the phone to Prime Minister Netanyahu and put an end to this conflict.”

There is also an anticipation that Trump “will try to find some way around his previous engagement in the region to invest in an Israeli-Saudi normalization process,” she said. “But here there’s a caveat.

“Over the past year and particularly over the past few weeks the Saudi leadership have made it very clear that normalization is going to be predicated not on a process but on (Palestinian) statehood, and so there will (have to) be negotiation on what all of that means.”

On Oct. 14, the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations, an independent, non-partisan think tank, published a report comparing and contrasting the two candidates’ positions on a series of global issues, including Israel, Gaza and the Middle East.

Harris, it summarized, “backs Israel’s right to self-defense but has also been outspoken about the toll on Palestinian civilians amid the war between Israel and Hamas.”




Even the experts are struggling to predict how a Harris administration and a Trump administration might differ in their approach to the Middle East. (AFP)

As a result, many of her policy positions have been contradictory. For example, she called for an Israel-Hamas ceasefire in March, a month ahead of President Biden, criticized Israel’s leadership for the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza and called for a two-state solution “where the Palestinians have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.”

She has also said Israel must bring to justice “extremist settlers” responsible for violent attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Yet Harris has also said she “will always give Israel the ability to defend itself” and fully supports US military aid to Israel (worth more than $12 billion since Oct. 7, 2023), which she has vowed to continue providing if elected president.

In the past, Trump’s support for Israel, “a cherished ally,” has raised hackles across the region.

In 2017 he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there. In 2019 he reversed decades of US policy and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, seized from Syria by Israel in 1967.

In 2020 his Abraham Accords were widely seen as favoring Israel and patronizing the Palestinians, while from an Arab perspective the fatal flaw in a two-state peace initiative he unveiled that same year was that it proposed granting Israel sovereignty over much of the occupied territories.

Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity: A vision to improve the lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people,” which he unveiled alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, received a mixed reaction.

It was rejected by the Arab League and denounced by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority as a “conspiracy deal,” but received more positive reviews from Gulf states.




Harris has also said she “will always give Israel the ability to defend itself” and fully supports US military aid to Israel. (AFP)

The UAE’s ambassador to Washington called it “a serious initiative that addresses many issues raised over the years,” while Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it “appreciates the efforts of President Trump’s administration to develop a comprehensive peace plan.”

The plan, three years in the making, was never implemented. Intriguingly, however, it remains on the shelf, an oven-ready initiative that would allow a new Trump administration to hit the ground running in pursuit of his claim that only he is capable of bringing peace to the region.

It was, perhaps, telling that in the middle of campaigning in the knife-edge presidential race, Trump took time out last week to give an exclusive interview to Saudi TV channel Al Arabiya — recalling that his first overseas trip as president in 2017 had been to the Kingdom.

“I want to see the Middle East get back to peace but peace that’s going to be a lasting peace and I feel really truly confident it’s going to happen, and I believe it’s going to happen soon,” he told Al Arabiya’s Washington bureau chief, Nadia Bilbassy-Charters.

He stressed his admiration for, and friendship with, the Saudi crown prince, adding: “I was respected over there and (had) great relationships with so many including (Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman) and (if elected on Nov. 5) we’re going to get it done and it’s going to get done properly.”

The US election, he predicted, “is going to make a big difference.”

One way or the other, it certainly will.

 


Indonesia digs out as flooding, landslide death toll hits 20

Indonesia digs out as flooding, landslide death toll hits 20
Updated 2 sec ago
Follow

Indonesia digs out as flooding, landslide death toll hits 20

Indonesia digs out as flooding, landslide death toll hits 20

JAKARTA: Rescue workers in western Indonesia used heavy equipment on Tuesday to dig out from weekend flooding and landslides that have killed at least 20 people, the national disaster agency said.
In North Sumatra, the bodies of five people listed as missing had been pulled from under a mountain of mud and debris, agency spokesman Abdul Muhari said in a statement.
“All victims have been found dead,” he said Tuesday, adding that 10 people in all had been killed in a Karo district landslide.
Beginning Saturday, heavy rain pounded four districts across northern Sumatra, producing the deadly floods and landslides.
Juspri Nadeak, disaster chief in hardest-hit Karo district, said the discovery of victims not yet reported missing to authorities remained a possibility.
“The landslide area provides access to hot springs, so there’s a possibility that tourists were hit by it,” he told AFP Tuesday.
“We are still cleaning up the mud and debris from the landslide while anticipating the possibility of discovering more victims.”
In a village in Deli Serdang district, where four people have been found dead and two more were missing, piles of mud, logs and rocks were scattered around the village where a rescue operation was underway.
“The electricity was cut off and there is no cellphone reception, making it difficult for us rescuers to communicate,” Iman Sitorus, a local search and rescue agency spokesman, told AFP.
Authorities also have deployed heavy equipment to clean up the debris, he said.
Indonesia has suffered a string of recent extreme weather events, which experts say are made more likely by climate change.
In May, at least 67 people died after a mixture of ash, sand and pebbles carried down from the eruption of Mount Marapi in West Sumatra washed into residential areas, causing flash floods.
The disaster agency on Monday revised downward its tally to 15 dead and seven missing following an earlier report that listed one more killed.
The death toll climbed to 20 on Tuesday following the discovery of the five bodies in Karo district.
The rest of the victims were found in South Tapanuli, Padang Lawas and Deli Serdang districts.


Large fire at Japan rocket test site

Large fire at Japan rocket test site
Updated 3 min 19 sec ago
Follow

Large fire at Japan rocket test site

Large fire at Japan rocket test site

TOKYO: A huge fire erupted Tuesday at a Japanese rocket testing station, sending flames and smoke soaring into the sky, in the latest mishap for the country’s ambitious space program.
There were no reports of any injuries in the incident, in a remote area of Kagoshima in southern Japan, where a solid-fuel Epsilon S rocket was being tested.
Footage on national broadcaster NHK showed towering balls of fire and white fumes rising from the Tanegashima Space Center.
Journalists stationed around 900 meters (yards) away reported a large explosion shortly after after the combustion test began at 8:30 am (2330 GMT).
“There was an abnormality during today’s combustion test. We are trying to assess what happened,” the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) told AFP in a statement.
“No injuries have been reported at this point. The cause is also under investigation.”
The Asahi Shimbun daily reported that the agency’s plan to launch the Epsilon S — the successor to the Epsilon — by March was now nearly impossible.
In July 2023 one engine of an Epsilon S exploded during a test around 50 seconds after ignition.
In that incident a piece of metal from the ignition melted and damaged the thermal insulator covering the engine, allowing fuel to catch fire, Kyodo News reported.

SETBACK
That was one in a string of setbacks for Japan’s space program, including launch attempts for its next-generation H3 launch system.
JAXA managed a successful blast-off in February this year for the H3, which has been mooted as a rival to SpaceX’s Falcon 9.
But that followed a failed attempt in February 2023 when the ignition process failed. The following month a destruct command was issued shortly after blast-off.
“Including the Epsilon S, the development of flagship rockets is extremely important for the independence of Japan’s space development program,” top government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters at a regular briefing on Tuesday.
In January, Japan successfully landed an unmanned probe on the Moon — albeit at a crooked angle — making it just the fifth country to achieve a soft landing on the lunar surface.
But in March a rocket made by a private Japanese company exploded seconds after launch.
Tokyo-based Space One’s 18-meter (60-foot) Kairos rocket blasted off in the coastal Wakayama region of western Japan, carrying a small government test satellite.
Around five seconds later, the solid-fuel rocket erupted in fire, sending white smoke billowing around the remote mountainous area as orange flames raged on the ground, live footage showed.
Burning debris fell onto the surrounding slopes as sprinklers began spraying water, in dramatic scenes watched by hundreds of spectators gathered at public viewing areas including a nearby waterfront.
Space One said at the time that it had taken the decision to “abort the flight” and details were being investigated.


Trump threatens to impose sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China on first day in office

Trump threatens to impose sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China on first day in office
Updated 26 November 2024
Follow

Trump threatens to impose sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China on first day in office

Trump threatens to impose sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China on first day in office

NEW YORK: President-elect Donald Trump is threatening to impose sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China as soon as he takes office as part of his efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and drugs.
The tariffs, if implemented, could dramatically raise prices on everything from gas to automobiles. The US is the largest importer of goods in the world, with Mexico, China and Canada its top three suppliers, according to the most recent Census data.
Trump made the threats in a pair of posts on his Truth Social site Monday evening in which he railed against an influx of illegal migrants, even though southern border crossings have been hovering at a four-year low.
“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25 percent Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” he wrote, complaining that “thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before,” even though violent crime is down from pandemic highs.
He said the new tariffs would remain in place “until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! ”
Trump also turned his ire to China, saying he has “had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl, being sent into the United States – But to no avail.”
“Until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10 percent Tariff, above any additional Tariffs, on all of their many products coming into the United States of America,” he wrote.
It is unclear whether Trump will actually go through with the threats or if he is using them as a negotiating tactic before he takes office in the new year.
Arrests for illegally crossing the border from Mexico have been falling and remained around four-year lows in October, according to the most recent US numbers
The Border Patrol made 56,530 arrests in October, less than one third of the tally from last October.
Much of America’s fentanyl is smuggled from Mexico. Border seizures of the drug rose sharply under President Joe Biden, and US officials tallied about 21,900 pounds (12,247 kilograms) of fentanyl seized in the 2024 government budget year, compared with 2,545 pounds (1,154 kilograms) in 2019, when Trump was president.
Trump’s nominee for treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, if confirmed, would be one of several officials responsible for imposing tariffs on other nations. He has on several occasions said tariffs are a means of negotiation with other countries.
He wrote in a Fox News op-ed last week, before his nomination, that tariffs are “a useful tool for achieving the president’s foreign policy objectives. Whether it is getting allies to spend more on their own defense, opening foreign markets to US exports, securing cooperation on ending illegal immigration and interdicting fentanyl trafficking, or deterring military aggression, tariffs can play a central role.”
If Trump were to move forward with the threatened tariffs, the new taxes would pose an enormous challenge for the economies of Canada and Mexico, in particular.
They would also throw into doubt the reliability of the 2020 trade deal brokered in large part by Trump, which is up for review in 2026.
Spokespeople for Canada’s ambassador to Washington and its deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, who chairs a special Cabinet committee on Canada-US relations to address concerns about another Trump presidency, did not immediately provide comment.
Trump’s promise to launch a mass deportation effort is a top focus for the Cabinet committee, Freeland has said.
A senior Canadian official had said before Trump’s posts that Canadian officials are expecting Trump to issue executive orders on trade and the border as soon as he assumes office. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department and Economy Department also had no immediate reaction to Trump’s statements. Normally such weighty issues are handled by the president at her morning press briefings.


Judge grants dismissal of election subversion case against Trump

Judge grants dismissal of election subversion case against Trump
Updated 26 November 2024
Follow

Judge grants dismissal of election subversion case against Trump

Judge grants dismissal of election subversion case against Trump
  • Smith cited the long-standing Justice Department policy of not indicting or prosecuting a sitting president in his motions to have the cases dismissed

WASHINGTON: A judge on Monday granted a request by prosecutors to dismiss the election subversion case against Donald Trump because of a Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a sitting president.
Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to the request by Special Counsel Jack Smith to dismiss the case against the president-elect “without prejudice,” meaning it could potentially be revived after Trump leaves the White House four years from now.
“Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here,” Chutkan said, adding in the ruling that “the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office.”
Trump, 78, was accused of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden and removing large quantities of top secret documents after leaving the White House, but the cases never came to trial.
Smith also moved on Monday to drop his appeal of the dismissal of the documents case filed against the former president in Florida. That case was tossed out earlier this year by a Trump-appointed judge on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed.
The special counsel paused the election interference case and the documents case this month after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the November 5 presidential election.
Smith cited the long-standing Justice Department policy of not indicting or prosecuting a sitting president in his motions to have the cases dismissed.
“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” Smith said in the filing with Chutkan. “But the circumstances have.”
“It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President,” Smith said.
“As a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated.”
In a separate filing, Smith said he was withdrawing his appeal of the dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump but pursuing the case against his two co-defendants, Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the cases were “empty and lawless, and should never have been brought.”
“Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME,” he said. “Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before.”
Trump was accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding — the session of Congress called to certify Biden’s win, which was violently attacked on January 6, 2021 by a mob of the then-president’s supporters.
Trump was also accused of seeking to disenfranchise US voters with his false claims that he won the 2020 election.
The former and incoming president also faces two state cases — in New York and Georgia.
He was convicted in New York in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election to stop her from revealing an alleged 2006 sexual encounter.
However, Judge Juan Merchan has postponed sentencing while he considers a request from Trump’s lawyers that the conviction be thrown out in light of the Supreme Court ruling in July that an ex-president has broad immunity from prosecution.
In Georgia, Trump faces racketeering charges over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results in the southern state, but that case will likely be frozen while he is in office.

 


No regrets: Merkel looks back at refugee crisis, Russia ties

No regrets: Merkel looks back at refugee crisis, Russia ties
Updated 26 November 2024
Follow

No regrets: Merkel looks back at refugee crisis, Russia ties

No regrets: Merkel looks back at refugee crisis, Russia ties
  • Merkel, who speaks Russian, also defends her engagement over the years with Putin, who speaks German — despite her misgivings about the former KGB agent who once allowed a labrador into a meeting between them, apparently playing on her fear of dogs

BERLIN: Germany’s former chancellor Angela Merkel gives a spirited defense of her 16 years at the helm of Europe’s top economy in her memoir “Freedom,” released in 30 languages on Tuesday.
Since she stepped down in 2021, Merkel has been accused of having been too soft on Russia, leaving Germany dangerously reliant on cheap Russian gas and sparking turmoil and the rise of the far right with her open-door migrant policy.
Her autobiography is released as wars rage in Ukraine and the Middle East, Donald Trump is headed back to the White House and Germany faces snap elections after its ruling coalition collapsed this month.
Merkel, 70, remembered for her calm and unflappable leadership style, rejects blame for any of the current turmoil, in the 736-page autobiography co-written with longtime adviser Beate Baumann.
After years out of the public eye, she has given multiple media interviews, reflecting on her childhood under East German communism and tense encounters with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump, who she felt “was captivated by politicians with autocratic and dictatorial tendencies.”
In the full memoir, she gives further insights into her thoughts and actions — including during the 2015 mass refugee influx, which came to define the final years of her leadership.

Critics have charged that Merkel’s refusal to push back large numbers of asylum-seekers at the Austrian border led to more than one million arrivals and fueled the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).
Merkel, who at the time posed for a selfie with one Syrian refugee, says she “still does not understand ... how anyone could have assumed that a friendly face in a photo would be enough to encourage entire legions to flee their homeland.”
While affirming that “Europe must always protect its external borders,” she stresses that “prosperity and the rule of law will always make Germany and Europe ... places where people want to go.”
In addition, she writes in the French edition of the book, fast-aging Germany’s “lack of manpower makes legal migration essential.”
Her bold declaration at the time — “wir schaffen das” in German or “we can do this” — was a “banal” statement with the message that “where there are obstacles, we must work to overcome them,” she argues.
And on the AfD, she cautions Germany’s mainstream parties against adopting their rhetoric “without proposing concrete solutions to existing problems,” warning that with such an approach mainstream movements “will fail.”

Merkel, who speaks Russian, also defends her engagement over the years with Putin, who speaks German — despite her misgivings about the former KGB agent who once allowed a labrador into a meeting between them, apparently playing on her fear of dogs.
She describes the Russian leader as “a man perpetually on the lookout, afraid of being mistreated and always ready to strike, including by playing at exercising his power with a dog and making others wait.”
Nevertheless, she says that “despite all the difficulties” she was right “not to let contacts with Russia be broken off ... and to also preserve ties through trade relations.”
The reality is, she argues, that “Russia is, with the United States, one of the two main nuclear powers in the world.”
She also defends her opposition to Ukraine joining NATO at a 2008 Bucharest summit, considering it illusory to think that candidate status would have protected it from Putin’s aggression.
After the summit, she remembers flying home with the feeling that “we in NATO had no common strategy for dealing with Russia.”

Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine in February 2022, and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, cut Germany off from cheap Russian gas, with the taps’ closure a key driver of its ongoing economic malaise.
But Merkel rejects criticism for having allowed the Baltic Sea pipelines in the first place, pointing out that Nord Stream 1 was signed off on by her predecessor, the Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder, long a friend of Putin.
On Nord Stream 2, which she approved after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, she argues that at the time it would have been “difficult to get companies and gas users in Germany and in many EU member states to accept” having to import more expensive liquefied natural gas from other sources.
Merkel says the gas was needed as a transitional energy source as Germany was pursuing both a switch to renewable energy and the phase-out of nuclear power following Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster.
On nuclear power itself, she argues that “we do not need it to meet our climate goals” and that the German phase-out can “inspire courage in other countries” to follow suit.