On Thursday's New Day, CNN global affairs analyst Aaron David Miller reacted negatively to President Donald Trump's plan to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and, while reacting to reports of violent protests by Palestinian Arabs, hyperbolically likened Trump's decision to hitting Arabs on the head with a hammer.
Shortly before 7:00 a.m. ET, Chris Cuomo showed clips of Palestinian Arabs protesting and referred to acts of violence being perpetrated, as the CNN host alluded to the argument that the violent reaction illustrates that extremism by Arabs is the primary problem. Cuomo posed:
This will be argued by proponents of this move as proof of the need for it, that, you know, this is what's going on out there, and you don't reward violence by not making a step in the right direction like calling Jerusalem the capital. They'll use this as proof of the strength of the decision. How do you see it?
Miller gave some cover to those who would try to rationalize the violent reaction as he began:
I don't see it that way because I'm not sure -- I mean, it's kind of a tautology -- the notion that you take a -- you hit somebody over the head with a hammer. What do you expect them to do? Just roll over and say, "I'll sign the deal right now"? No. There's clearly going to be a reaction.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, December 7, New Day on CNN:
CHRIS CUOMO: Right now, we're showing live pictures of what's happening in Ramallah. You have what appears to be a group of young people -- again, there's some burning tires, they're getting slingshots going there and they're throwing objects at security now.
This will be argued by proponents of this move as proof of the need for it, that, you know, this is what's going on out there, and you don't reward violence by not making a step in the right direction like calling Jerusalem the capital. They'll use this as proof of the strength of the decision. How do you see it?
AARON DAVID MILLER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I don't see it that way because I'm not sure -- I mean, it's kind of a tautology -- the notion that you take a -- you hit somebody over the head with a hammer. What do you expect them to do? Just roll over and say, "I'll sign the deal right now"? No. There's clearly going to be a reaction.
The question, though, is: How sustained and how severe a reaction? Does Israeli control of the West Bank and Shin Bet's cooperation with the Palestinian Authority -- is it still viable? Will it preempt some of this stuff? So, again, I think we are in for a rough patch. The real question, though, is: How widespread is this going to be and how sustainable?
But I come back to the final point, Chris. This administration has a tendency to create solutions for problems that don't exist. I still do not understand -- and as a member of the American Jewish community -- our embassy should be in West Jerusalem -- it's one of the few countries in the world in which the United States does not maintain its embassy in a preferred capital of a host country. The problem is, one person's floor is another person's ceiling.
And the United States has a broader obligation not just to deal with the realities here at home -- domestic politics or Israeli political realities -- we need to think more broadly about what constitutes American national security interests. This was -- in my judgment -- ill-advised, ill-timed, and ill-conceived, and there's going to be a price to be paid even though that price may not be as severe as some of the world enders believe.
