Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

Trump Deal - applicable or not?

  • Yes (after hearing details)

    Votes: 9 64.3%
  • No (after hearing details)

    Votes: 5 35.7%

  • Total voters
    14
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Samaria leader: Sovereignty maps look like disengagement 2

Samaria Regional Council chairman Yossi Dagan warns current sovereignty maps would endanger residents, lead to missiles on Tel Aviv


Samaria Regional Council chairman Yossi Dagan criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over the sovereignty maps Tuesday evening.

"The truth must be stated. If Netanyahu draws a lap and leaves out Elon Moreh - he is actually giving up Elon Moreh. When it comes to the 19 isolated settlements - it looks like a second Disengagement," Dagan said,

Dagan referred to communities such as Itamar, Elon Moreh, Yitzhar, Har Bracha, Mevo Dotan, and Harmish, which he said are isolated enclaves under the sovereignty maps. According to information obtained by the heads of the municipal councils, 19 communities will be isolated in the area of the Palestinian Authority after sovereignty has been applied and the de facto boundary will be in the middle of the communities in some cases.

According to Dagan, the creation of the enclaves will endanger residents' lives and reduce the State of Israel's ability to defend itself, since many of the communities sit on the highlands and mountains overlooking the coastal plain where the majority of Israel's population lives.

"It's not just that it's a second Disengagement," Dagan said. "It will also bring the results of the second Disengagement. Missiles on Tel Aviv, instead of the south, combined with the inability to defend the borders. This kind of plan is irresponsible, and I expect the prime minister to reject it utterly and not to allow any harm to the State's most vital interests."

The Samaria Regional Council has campaigned against the details of the plan to apply sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria in recent weeks, claiming that the plan would leave communities isolated and vulnerable and lead to the creation of a terrorist state in the heart of Israel.

Dagan stated that "sovereignty can be applied even without the support of the American government. Trump might condemn it, but he won't act to harm the State of Israel because he is a friend of Israel and friends should realize that there can sometimes be disagreements, especially when he is six months ahead of elections and his base is the Evangelicals who love Israel. The truth must be told: If Netanyahu draws a lap and leaves out Elon Moreh - he is actually giving up Elon Moreh. When it comes to the 19 isolated settlements - it looks like a Disengagement 2."


 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Sovereignty Day is here - but talks between Israel and the US continue on sovereignty plan

What will Israel's sovereignty plan look like - and when will it be implemented? Questions abound as deadline for sovereignty plan passes.


Wednesday marks the first day Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can introduce his sovereignty plan, according to the coalition deal with the Blue and White party, yet questions remain when Netanyahu will release the plan – and how much of Judea and Samaria the plan will cover.

Netanyahu and his associates have kept details of the sovereignty plan – which would apply Israeli law over parts of Judea and Samaria under the framework of the Trump administration’s Middle East peace plan – tightly under wraps, as talks with the US continue.

On Wednesday, Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi (Blue and White) told Galei Tzahal he believes it is "unlikely something would happen today."

Ashkenazi added, however, that he doesn't "know if there will be a statement today on the application of sovereignty. That is a question you have to ask Prime Minister Netanyahu."

Likud Minister Ze’ev Elkin Wednesday morning said ‘intensive’ deliberations with US on details of sovereignty plan. Elkain emphasized that US support is critical for the plan, noting that the coalition agreement which permits sovereignty plan to be pursued from July 1st onwards conditions permission for the plan on US approval.

Unconfirmed reports citing senior Israeli, American, and Palestinian Authority officials have suggested a number of widely varying scenarios, ranging from the possibility that Israel will only apply sovereignty to several large settlement blocs, dropping plans to include the Jordan Valley – to a report by Channel 11 Tuesday night which suggests Israel is negotiating with the US to include more fledging Israeli settlements in the map, in exchange for waving sovereignty over other areas.

According to the maps released in the Channel 11 report, which purport to show the US and Israeli sovereignty plans, both versions of the sovereignty plan would see Israel applying its law to roughly 30% of Judea and Samaria.

Under the Israeli plan, however, Israel would ‘trade’ some areas allotted to it under the US version of the plan, in exchange for more territory in sensitive areas between large Palestinian Authority population centers and Israeli towns earmarked to become isolated enclaves.

The Israeli plan would expand the areas surrounding the enclaves which would be placed under Israeli sovereignty, and would apply sovereignty to about 20 of the 25 fledgling towns and outposts which were excluded from the original American plan.

In exchange, Israel would not extend sovereignty over an equivalent area in the Judean Desert.

Other reports claim the US team is pushing to reduce the amount of territory to be included under the plan. President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, is reportedly opposed to Israel maximizing the territory to be placed under Israeli law.

According to a report by Channel 12 Tuesday night, US officials are pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for US recognition. Specifically, the US is pushing Israel to transfer land from Area C, which is under full Israeli control, to Area B, which is under Israeli security control, but PA civil control.

Netanyahu met on Tuesday with US Ambassador David Friedman and special Middle East envoy Avi Berkowitz. Following the meeting, the Prime Minister said, "I spoke with American Envoy Avi Berkowitz and Ambassador David Friedman on the issue of sovereignty. This is a matter which we are working on and which we will continue to work on in the coming days.”


 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Report: US pushing Israel to make gesture to PA

US administration reportedly pressing Israel to make a significant gesture towards the Palestinian Authority in exchange for sovereignty.

The US administration is pressing Israel to make a significant gesture towards the Palestinian Authority in exchange for Israel applying sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, Channel 12 News reported on Tuesday.

According to the report, US officials have proposed that Israel give land in exchange for land, in a manner that would allow Palestinian Arabs to build without restrictions or change the status of Area C (where Israel maintains security and civilian control) to that of Area B.

A government official said on Tuesday that "if the right knew what the Americans wanted in exchange for annexation, they would be less enthusiastic."

While sovereignty over Judea and Samaria can officially be applied on Wednesday as stipulated in the coalition agreement between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz, it is unclear if the move will indeed take place on Wednesday.

Netanyahu met on Tuesday with US Ambassador David Friedman and special Middle East envoy Avi Berkowitz. Following the meeting, the Prime Minister said, "I spoke with American Envoy Avi Berkowitz and Ambassador David Friedman on the issue of sovereignty. This is a matter which we are working on and which we will continue to work on in the coming days.”

On Monday, Netanyahu hinted to members of the Likud that the application of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria would not be implemented on July 1, explaining that it would be a complex move which requires many political and security considerations.

 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
MK Avi Dichter: Time to apply sovereignty - even without green light from US

Likud MK and former security chief Avi Dichter urges Netanyahu to move forward with sovereignty plan - even if deal not yet reached with US.

Likud MK and former chief of the Shin Bet internal security agency Avi Dichter urged Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to move forward with plans to apply sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria – even if an agreement has not yet been reached with the Trump administration over the precise boundaries of the sovereignty plan.

Speaking with Reshet Bet radio on Wednesday, MK Dichter said the time had come to extend Israeli law over Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

“There is absolutely no reason why half a million Israelis who are living there should be treated any differently, as if things are still up in the air [regarding their status], just because the land they’re living on still is not under Israeli sovereignty.”

When asked whether Israel should wait until receiving a green light from the White House before moving forward with the sovereignty plan, Dichter said Israel should move forward immediately.

“If the State of Israel had needed to wait, it would not have been established. There have been other things in the past Israel did without waiting. The time has come for [sovereignty] in Judea and Samaria.”

Today marks the first day, under the Israeli government’s coalition agreement, that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can pursue his yet-to-be released sovereignty plan.

Details of the timing and dimensions of the plan remain closely guarded, fueling speculation regarding when and over what areas Israel will apply sovereignty over.


 

ESay

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
176
Points
95
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
 

ESay

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
176
Points
95
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
New Neighborhood in Har Bracha "Instead of Sovereignty We Got a Holding Off"

Samaria Council : Netanyahu was supposed to declare sovereignty from here. MK Shaked: If the prime minister wants, he can apply sovereignty without freezing construction.

Former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Yeminah) and Knesset Member Haim Katz (Likud) took part in Wednesday's ceremony to lay a cornerstone for a new neighborhood in Har Bracha in Samaria.

Shaked called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to apply sovereignty without freezing construction in localities and without recognizing a Palestinian state. "We know he can," she said.



"In spite of the attempts by Blue and White and the Palestinians to sabotage the course, I sincerely hope the move is successful," Shaked added. "Today we are on July 1st, it will remember today the opening of great freedom and not today the application of sovereignty unfortunately. There is another month to make this move. "

Knesset Member Haim Katz (Likud) said at the ceremony, "We are here laying a cornerstone to make Mount Greeting a city and mother in Israel with tens of thousands of residents. Ayelet said about sovereignty, whether they want it or not, by the end of it we will build and settle the Land of Israel on all its parts and for that we came here today. ''

Samaria Council President Yossi Dagan said at the ceremony that the new neighborhood will be named after Rabbi Itamar Ben Gal, who was murdered in a stabbing attack in Samaria. " On July 1, from here, quickly proclaim sovereignty over all settlement, Bible sites, and expanses in Judea and Samaria.

'' In practice, instead of gaining sovereignty, we get a smattering of time. When Menachem Begin decided that he was applying sovereignty over the Golan, he applied it one day. He wasn't waiting for maps from Washington. "

"We are here to make a clear statement, we are residents of Samaria, residents of Judea and Benjamin, and our people with Israel, Likud voters, and the entire national camp. For the past year in three election campaigns and to apply full sovereignty.



 
Last edited:

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
44,163
Reaction score
7,290
Points
1,830
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
Why not ask Jordan why they pay Israel to keep the West Bank Arab out of Jordan?
Why not ask Egypt why they pay Israel to keep the Gazans out of Egypt?
Do you see a pattern here?
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
People are traumatized by mere suggestion.

If the US supports Israel's application of sovereignty - bless You!
If that support is conditioned by a binding resolution to abandon any claims - forget it.

Our people, will never abandon a single grain anymore,
whatever anyone signs and in whatever forum.

Period.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
People are traumatized by mere suggestion.

If the US supports Israel's application of sovereignty - bless You!
If that support is conditioned by a binding resolution abandoning any claims - no thanks.

Our people, will never abandon a single grain anymore,
whatever anyone signs and in whatever forum.

Period.
Of course there is no rational basis for believing Israel will have to give anything up, to gain US recognition of the annexation. On the other hand, much of the support in Israel for annexation is based on the belief that the US will recognize the annexed land as part of Israel and if the US were not prepared to do that there would probably not be enough support among Israelis to allow annexation to go forward. US recognition of the annexation is critical to the process going forward, and crazy talk about UN resolutions or giving up land claims does nothing to protect Israel's interests.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
People are traumatized by mere suggestion.

If the US supports Israel's application of sovereignty - bless You!
If that support is conditioned by a binding resolution abandoning any claims - no thanks.

Our people, will never abandon a single grain anymore,
whatever anyone signs and in whatever forum.

Period.
Of course there is no rational basis for believing Israel will have to give anything up, to gain US recognition of the annexation. On the other hand, much of the support in Israel for annexation is based on the belief that the US will recognize the annexed land as part of Israel and if the US were not prepared to do that there would probably not be enough support among Israelis to allow annexation to go forward. US recognition of the annexation is critical to the process going forward, and crazy talk about UN resolutions or giving up land claims does nothing to protect Israel's interests.
Luckily I'm not a politician,
I'm ready to eat rice and give half of my home to Jewish refugees. - if that's what it takes for Israel to do the right thing. If our grandparents could live on coupon rations with tents,
we can overcome that too - I'll sign my own boycott than give up a grain of soil belonging to the entirety of the Jewish people, in each generation and place, back then and now.

Not to mention,
whoever tried never ended well.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
People are traumatized by mere suggestion.

If the US supports Israel's application of sovereignty - bless You!
If that support is conditioned by a binding resolution abandoning any claims - no thanks.

Our people, will never abandon a single grain anymore,
whatever anyone signs and in whatever forum.

Period.
Of course there is no rational basis for believing Israel will have to give anything up, to gain US recognition of the annexation. On the other hand, much of the support in Israel for annexation is based on the belief that the US will recognize the annexed land as part of Israel and if the US were not prepared to do that there would probably not be enough support among Israelis to allow annexation to go forward. US recognition of the annexation is critical to the process going forward, and crazy talk about UN resolutions or giving up land claims does nothing to protect Israel's interests.
Luckily I'm not a politician,
I'm ready to eat rice and give half of my home to Jewish refugees. - if that's what it takes for Israel to do the right thing. If our grandparents could live on coupon rations with tents,
we can overcome that too - I'll sign my own boycott than give up a grain of soil belonging to the entirety of the Jewish people, in each generation and place, back then and now.

Not to mention,
whoever tried never ended well.
But of course all of this is irrelevant since the US has not asked Israel to give up anything in order yo gain US recognition of the annexed land.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
People are traumatized by mere suggestion.

If the US supports Israel's application of sovereignty - bless You!
If that support is conditioned by a binding resolution abandoning any claims - no thanks.

Our people, will never abandon a single grain anymore,
whatever anyone signs and in whatever forum.

Period.
Of course there is no rational basis for believing Israel will have to give anything up, to gain US recognition of the annexation. On the other hand, much of the support in Israel for annexation is based on the belief that the US will recognize the annexed land as part of Israel and if the US were not prepared to do that there would probably not be enough support among Israelis to allow annexation to go forward. US recognition of the annexation is critical to the process going forward, and crazy talk about UN resolutions or giving up land claims does nothing to protect Israel's interests.
Luckily I'm not a politician,
I'm ready to eat rice and give half of my home to Jewish refugees. - if that's what it takes for Israel to do the right thing. If our grandparents could live on coupon rations with tents,
we can overcome that too - I'll sign my own boycott than give up a grain of soil belonging to the entirety of the Jewish people, in each generation and place, back then and now.

Not to mention,
whoever tried never ended well.
But of course all of this is irrelevant since the US has not asked Israel to give up anything in order yo gain US recognition of the annexed land.
When I see that, I'll sing Nagilah Haleluyah,
in the meantime...I don't like the talks so much.

I hear a lot of convincing that there's no agreement to a Pali state,
instead of applying sovereignty in Judea.

Why convince me?
You know why folks get "rotten Arafat...beh meh...I'm going to build the next hill"?
...and if they want they can stick the Israeli flag with me...
...or better even bring one yourself...kinda attitude.
 
Last edited:

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
Whatever moves to the positive is good.
However agreement to a Pali state, makes many prefer to refuse the plan.

We can apply sovereignty without any plan or agreement.

Just sayin',
no one is gonna give up on a single hill,
even if Trump or Netanyahu agree on otherwise.
I fail to understand why so many Israelis continue to worry about Trump's plan leading to a Palestinian state. The conditions for US recognition of a Palestinian state laid out in Trump's plan would be impossible for the Palestinians to meet, so US recognition of a Palestinian state is impossible under the plan.

As I understand Trump's plan, it doesn't require Israel to give up any land or settlements, but it does exclude some outlying settlements from this annexation and bind Israel not to annex anymore land for two years in order to allow the PA to decide to come to the table, but if they don't, then there are no restrictions on further annexations after two years. I believe the present negotiations are about Israel's desire to exclude some of the land in the dessert that Trump included in his plan in order to include more land around some of the settlements without increasing the total amount of land annexed.

After eight years of Obama, I can see why some Israelis would be suspicious of the US, but I also think some Israeli leaders have not done their homework in learning about what is in the plan.
People are traumatized by mere suggestion.

If the US supports Israel's application of sovereignty - bless You!
If that support is conditioned by a binding resolution abandoning any claims - no thanks.

Our people, will never abandon a single grain anymore,
whatever anyone signs and in whatever forum.

Period.
Of course there is no rational basis for believing Israel will have to give anything up, to gain US recognition of the annexation. On the other hand, much of the support in Israel for annexation is based on the belief that the US will recognize the annexed land as part of Israel and if the US were not prepared to do that there would probably not be enough support among Israelis to allow annexation to go forward. US recognition of the annexation is critical to the process going forward, and crazy talk about UN resolutions or giving up land claims does nothing to protect Israel's interests.
Luckily I'm not a politician,
I'm ready to eat rice and give half of my home to Jewish refugees. - if that's what it takes for Israel to do the right thing. If our grandparents could live on coupon rations with tents,
we can overcome that too - I'll sign my own boycott than give up a grain of soil belonging to the entirety of the Jewish people, in each generation and place, back then and now.

Not to mention,
whoever tried never ended well.
But of course all of this is irrelevant since the US has not asked Israel to give up anything in order yo gain US recognition of the annexed land.
When I see that, I'll sing Nagilah Haleluyah,
in the meantime...I don't like the talks so much.

I hear a lot of convincing that there's no agreement to a Pali state,
instead of applying sovereignty in Judea.

Why convince me?
You know why folks get "rotten Arafat...beh meh...I'm going to build the next hill"?
...and if they want they can stick the Israeli flag with me...
...or better even bring one yourself...kinda attitude.
Obviously, I can't convince you, but I am surprised that someone so interested in annexation has not bothered to read the document that is the basis for it.
 

ESay

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
176
Points
95
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
It isn't the first time I have heard about non-relevance of the PA. Then what is a reason of this so called peace plan at all? An agreement means taking part of at least two sides, doesn't it? If the PA is irrelevant, then agree with Israel to annex as much as they wish and can and recognize the situation on the ground.

Btw, I have read a version that the US administration wants to put the situation on hold until the November's election.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
Making any significant concessions to the Arabs isn't a good idea. In any case, the Israel sovereignity won't be recognized by a significant number of countries, it will be strongly condemned by Muslim countries, and maybe some radical groups will declare jihad. So, why to get all this for say 20 acres, if you can get the same for 100 acres?

Something tells me that the US are inching toward recognition of Arab Palestinian state.
lol Whatever it is that's telling you that is lying. There is virtually no support for a Palestinian state among Trump supporters and even the Democrats are divided on the issue.
Maybe. In this case the US should support the Israeli sovereignity over as wide territory as possible. And as soon as possible.

Also, in this case I don't see any reason of Trump's peace deal. In order to get the deal working, the US should get an agreement from PA. I don't see any reason why the PA should endorse this agreement without their independence.
The PA is irrelevant. It has consistently refused to negotiate with Israel of any two state deal since 2000, and at this point is not competent to promise peace in exchange for any deal, nonetheless, Trump's plan explicitly says it will not support annexation if the PA were to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, and the PA has refused.

The land defined by the Trump plan comprises about 50% of area C, which is about 30% of Judea and Samaria, which some call the West Bank. It is only sparsely populated by Arabs and has significant strategic value to Israel. The US and Israel are negotiating now over minor adjustments Israel wants to make to the border specified in the Trump plan. There is already broad US-Israel agreement on annexation and once these details are worked out there will be announcements by both Trump and Netanyahu.
It isn't the first time I have heard about non-relevance of the PA. Then what is a reason of this so called peace plan at all? An agreement means taking part of at least two sides, doesn't it? If the PA is irrelevant, then agree with Israel to annex as much as they wish and can and recognize the situation on the ground.

Btw, I have read a version that the US administration wants to put the situation on hold until the November's election.
The plan calls for negotiations between Israel and the PA with the starting point the proposed annexation of half of area C, but the PA has refused to even discuss negotiations, annexation of half of area C will proceed without negotiations. In order to gain US recognition of the annexed land, Israel has to agree not to annex any more land for two years to give the PA a second chance to enter negotiations. Area C has been under Israeli control since 1967 and there is no way Israel is ever going to give up any of it, so the effect of the Plan is to change the de facto sovereignty Israel has been exercising over half of area C since 1967 into de jure sovereignty. Not really as big a deal as when you call it annexation.

President Trump recognized that since there was no political entity among the Palestinians that could credibly offer peace to Israel,a negotiated two state solution was never going to happen, and that meant the status quo would go on for the foreseeable future, so he devised a plan to try to bring about changes that would benefit both sides that was based on facts on the ground rather than unattainable dreams.

The PA loses nothing by the annexation since this was land the PA was never going to get anyway, but if they had chosen to negotiate on the basis of Trump's plan, annexation would have been put on hold during negotiations and be subject to any agreement the two sides made, but since the PA has refused any participation at all, it is irrelevant to the process.

The Israelis themselves are divided over how much land to annex, and while the majority support annexing the land specified in the Trump plan, a sizable minority is opposed to annexing any, so how much land the Israelis want to annex depends on which Israelis you ask.

Trump supporters are very enthusiastic Israel supporters and are very enthusiastic about annexation, so Trump will benefit politically by having the annexation take place before the election.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top