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
crazy talk about UN resolutions or giving up land claims does nothing to protect Israel's interests.
And yet that UN Security Resolution is suggested in the plan.

They had an autonomy,
now we're talking about entering negotiations about a state.

How many times was the Pali state mentioned?

You see the mere talks about even an option of a state,
is encouraging further terror, and endangering the people of Israel.

And why should we freeze any construction if we're not going to establish one?
They won't, at best, if they had brains, they'll drag time to get money but keep exactly that.

I should freeze, while they keep building,
so that we can negotiate what they never had?

With the starting point at Shchem, Hebron, Bethlehem under Arab control??
 

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.
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.
Thanks for such a wide answer. I understand your point. But try to understand mine.

It is clear that the PA won't accept anything too short from the boundaries as of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem. They will demand their own state. Thinking that the PA will retreat from any of these claims contradicts the basic logic, because this will basically mean the end of the PA.

But here the red lines for Israel arise, because they won't accept the independent Palestinian state in any form, to say nothing about the boundaries and capital.

So, to sum this up, the peace plan was going to fail from the very beginning. And I cant believe that the authors didnt understand this.

No, not annexation can undermine the Trumps approval rating, but possible violence which can get started after Israel takes the steps.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
crazy talk about UN resolutions or giving up land claims does nothing to protect Israel's interests.
And yet that UN Security Resolution is suggested in the plan.

They had an autonomy,
now we're talking about entering negotiations about a state.

How many times was the Pali state mentioned?

You see the mere talks about even an option of a state,
is encouraging further terror, and endangering the people of Israel.

And why should we freeze any construction if we're not going to establish one?
They won't, at best, if they had brains, they'll drag time to get money but keep exactly that.

I should freeze, while they keep building,
so that we can negotiate what they never had?

With the starting point at Shchem, Hebron, Bethlehem under Arab control??
The conditions laid out for a possible Palestinian state are impossible to meet, so there is no possibility of a Palestinians state.


  • The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.
  • The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.
  • The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.
  • The Palestinians shall have achieved civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory and demilitarized its population.
  • The Palestinians shall have complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision.

No matter how pessimistic you may be no one can imagine the Palestinians meeting all these conditions.


The SC resolution would provide international recognition of Israel's sovereignty over the newly annexed land. This would be important since it would make it very difficult for some European countries to take punitive actions against Israel for teh annexation or even to criticize it, but the resolution would probably fail for exactly those reasons.

Everything encourages more threats and terrorism from the Palestinians.

The building freeze was a bad idea and the US has already dropped it.

Land not included in this annexation is not given to the Palestinians by the plan. Many issues will remain to be dealt with in the future. The only concession Israel has to make to secure US recognition of its sovereignty over the newly annexed land, is to not annex more land for four years, not two years as I had previously stated. It is not everything you had hoped for, but taking a hard look at Israeli politics, it is a lot more than would have been possible without Trump's support.
 

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.
Thanks for such a wide answer. I understand your point. But try to understand mine.

It is clear that the PA won't accept anything too short from the boundaries as of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem. They will demand their own state. Thinking that the PA will retreat from any of these claims contradicts the basic logic, because this will basically mean the end of the PA.

But here the red lines for Israel arise, because they won't accept the independent Palestinian state in any form, to say nothing about the boundaries and capital.

So, to sum this up, the peace plan was going to fail from the very beginning. And I cant believe that the authors didnt understand this.

No, not annexation can undermine the Trumps approval rating, but possible violence which can get started after Israel takes the steps.
The basic problem with a Palestinian state is that there is no political entity among the Palestinians that can credibly offer peace to Israel so it would be insanity for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state regardless of the boundaries. Until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, a negotiated two state solution is not possible, and any honest look at the state of government and politics among the Palestinians will show you that such a government will not be possible for the foreseeable future.

A peace plan has to be negotiated by parties that can credibly offer peace, so these are the conditions the Trump Plan laid down for US recognition of a Palestinians state:


  • The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.
  • The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.
  • The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.
  • The Palestinians shall have achieved civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory and demilitarized its population.
  • The Palestinians shall have complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision.

There are realistic conditions for a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, but clearly, they are not achievable by the PA, so the prospect of an independent Palestinian state is effectively dead regardless of what the EU or UN or leftists in the US or Israel say.

The Palestinian leaderships never ended the second intifada. The fence along the green line and actions of Israeli security forces throughout Judea and Samaria simply made it too difficult to carry out large scale terrorist attacks, so that now Israel has effectively secured peace with the Palestinians through it own actions. That means the question of whether or not the Trump plan will establish peace is moot since peace has already been established on the ground.

Trump supporters are eager to see annexation go forward and if there is an uptick of terrorist attacks from the Palestinians, they will see it as proof that the Palestinians can't be trusted to have an independent state.
 
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.
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.
Thanks for such a wide answer. I understand your point. But try to understand mine.

It is clear that the PA won't accept anything too short from the boundaries as of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem. They will demand their own state. Thinking that the PA will retreat from any of these claims contradicts the basic logic, because this will basically mean the end of the PA.

But here the red lines for Israel arise, because they won't accept the independent Palestinian state in any form, to say nothing about the boundaries and capital.

So, to sum this up, the peace plan was going to fail from the very beginning. And I cant believe that the authors didnt understand this.

No, not annexation can undermine the Trumps approval rating, but possible violence which can get started after Israel takes the steps.
The basic problem with a Palestinian state is that there is no political entity among the Palestinians that can credibly offer peace to Israel so it would be insanity for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state regardless of the boundaries. Until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, a negotiated two state solution is not possible, and any honest look at the state of government and politics among the Palestinians will show you that such a government will not be possible for the foreseeable future.

A peace plan has to be negotiated by parties that can credibly offer peace, so these are the conditions the Trump Plan laid down for US recognition of a Palestinians state:


  • The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.
  • The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.
  • The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.
  • The Palestinians shall have achieved civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory and demilitarized its population.
  • The Palestinians shall have complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision.

There are realistic conditions for a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, but clearly, they are not achievable by the PA, so the prospect of an independent Palestinian state is effectively dead regardless of what the EU or UN or leftists in the US or Israel say.

The Palestinian leaderships never ended the second intifada. The fence along the green line and actions of Israeli security forces throughout Judea and Samaria simply made it too difficult to carry out large scale terrorist attacks, so that now Israel has effectively secured peace with the Palestinians through it own actions. That means the question of whether or not the Trump plan will establish peace is moot since peace has already been established on the ground.

Trump supporters are eager to see annexation go forward and if there is an uptick of terrorist attacks from the Palestinians, they will see it as proof that the Palestinians can't be trusted to have an independent state.
Look that would help our conversation if you realize 2 things:

1. Application of sovereignty in Judea wasn't a suggestion born in the US or Trump admin.,
it was already a central topic of the previous election campaigns.

2. I've read 'the vision', but there's also experience.
Conditions and liabilities usually evaporate the day after agreements,
and what is left are the obligations to pressure Israel, and new facts on the ground for Arabs.

That's why the closer we get to actually applying sovereignty,
the more we start hearing about hesitation and US requests for 'gestures'.

In no way do I suggest taking Trump's voters' support for granted, I'm sincerely grateful,
but they also have to understand, and I'm sure hearing Evangelical Christians clearly say,
that application of Israeli sovereignty is natural development based on an existing right,
outside any framework of US admin. decision or say - to support and back up is one,
to suggest introduce restrictions on top of it is another.

Application of Israeli sovereignty is function of Israel's independent sovereign decision,
and Trump's plan is a framework of a negotiation, for which some expect a construction freeze.

I understand the touchy subject of elections, but try to understand that PM Netanyahu was not elected with the promise to enter negotiations and feed false dreams to the enemy,
rather to move on with the application of sovereignty.

We didn't vote on the condition of US support,
and neither for building freeze.

Arabs refused, we should move on, forever,
maybe we can play the role to support Trump until elections,
but that's about it, and important that Judeans state that truth clearly.
 
Last edited:

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,125
Reaction score
2,522
Points
1,815
Trump's Steal of the Century.

They will never get that pig to fly.
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
574
Reaction score
224
Points
143
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.
Thanks for such a wide answer. I understand your point. But try to understand mine.

It is clear that the PA won't accept anything too short from the boundaries as of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem. They will demand their own state. Thinking that the PA will retreat from any of these claims contradicts the basic logic, because this will basically mean the end of the PA.

But here the red lines for Israel arise, because they won't accept the independent Palestinian state in any form, to say nothing about the boundaries and capital.

So, to sum this up, the peace plan was going to fail from the very beginning. And I cant believe that the authors didnt understand this.

No, not annexation can undermine the Trumps approval rating, but possible violence which can get started after Israel takes the steps.
The basic problem with a Palestinian state is that there is no political entity among the Palestinians that can credibly offer peace to Israel so it would be insanity for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state regardless of the boundaries. Until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, a negotiated two state solution is not possible, and any honest look at the state of government and politics among the Palestinians will show you that such a government will not be possible for the foreseeable future.

A peace plan has to be negotiated by parties that can credibly offer peace, so these are the conditions the Trump Plan laid down for US recognition of a Palestinians state:


  • The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.
  • The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.
  • The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.
  • The Palestinians shall have achieved civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory and demilitarized its population.
  • The Palestinians shall have complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision.

There are realistic conditions for a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, but clearly, they are not achievable by the PA, so the prospect of an independent Palestinian state is effectively dead regardless of what the EU or UN or leftists in the US or Israel say.

The Palestinian leaderships never ended the second intifada. The fence along the green line and actions of Israeli security forces throughout Judea and Samaria simply made it too difficult to carry out large scale terrorist attacks, so that now Israel has effectively secured peace with the Palestinians through it own actions. That means the question of whether or not the Trump plan will establish peace is moot since peace has already been established on the ground.

Trump supporters are eager to see annexation go forward and if there is an uptick of terrorist attacks from the Palestinians, they will see it as proof that the Palestinians can't be trusted to have an independent state.
There really is no palestinian people. When Egypt seized Gaza in the ‘48 War and Jordan seized what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish names, neither country created a palestinian state. Nor, were there calls for a state from any palestinians. No such people existed. Jordan even renamed Judea and Samaria only as west bank, of the Jordan River, not as Palestine. Palestine and palestinian are made-up European names originally associated with Jews. Arabs began using those names in the 1960s. They‘re bogus.
 

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.
Thanks for such a wide answer. I understand your point. But try to understand mine.

It is clear that the PA won't accept anything too short from the boundaries as of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem. They will demand their own state. Thinking that the PA will retreat from any of these claims contradicts the basic logic, because this will basically mean the end of the PA.

But here the red lines for Israel arise, because they won't accept the independent Palestinian state in any form, to say nothing about the boundaries and capital.

So, to sum this up, the peace plan was going to fail from the very beginning. And I cant believe that the authors didnt understand this.

No, not annexation can undermine the Trumps approval rating, but possible violence which can get started after Israel takes the steps.
The basic problem with a Palestinian state is that there is no political entity among the Palestinians that can credibly offer peace to Israel so it would be insanity for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state regardless of the boundaries. Until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, a negotiated two state solution is not possible, and any honest look at the state of government and politics among the Palestinians will show you that such a government will not be possible for the foreseeable future.

A peace plan has to be negotiated by parties that can credibly offer peace, so these are the conditions the Trump Plan laid down for US recognition of a Palestinians state:


  • The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.
  • The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.
  • The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.
  • The Palestinians shall have achieved civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory and demilitarized its population.
  • The Palestinians shall have complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision.

There are realistic conditions for a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, but clearly, they are not achievable by the PA, so the prospect of an independent Palestinian state is effectively dead regardless of what the EU or UN or leftists in the US or Israel say.

The Palestinian leaderships never ended the second intifada. The fence along the green line and actions of Israeli security forces throughout Judea and Samaria simply made it too difficult to carry out large scale terrorist attacks, so that now Israel has effectively secured peace with the Palestinians through it own actions. That means the question of whether or not the Trump plan will establish peace is moot since peace has already been established on the ground.

Trump supporters are eager to see annexation go forward and if there is an uptick of terrorist attacks from the Palestinians, they will see it as proof that the Palestinians can't be trusted to have an independent state.
Look that would help our conversation if you realize 2 things:

1. Application of sovereignty in Judea wasn't a suggestion born in the US or Trump admin.,
it was already a central topic of the previous election campaigns.

2. I've read 'the vision', but there's also experience.
Conditions and liabilities usually evaporate the day after agreements,
and what is left are the obligations to pressure Israel, and new facts on the ground for Arabs.

That's why the closer we get to actually applying sovereignty,
the more we start hearing about hesitation and US requests for 'gestures'.

In no way do I suggest taking Trump's voters' support for granted, I'm sincerely grateful,
but they also have to understand, and I'm sure hearing Evangelical Christians clearly say,
that application of Israeli sovereignty is natural development based on an existing right,
outside any framework of US admin. decision or say - to support and back up is one,
to suggest introduce restrictions on top of it is another.

Application of Israeli sovereignty is function of Israel's independent sovereign decision,
and Trump's plan is a framework of a negotiation, for which some expect a construction freeze.

I understand the touchy subject of elections, but try to understand that PM Netanyahu was not elected with the promise to enter negotiations and feed false dreams to the enemy,
rather to move on with the application of sovereignty.

We didn't vote on the condition of US support,
and neither for building freeze.

Arabs refused, we should move on, forever,
maybe we can play the role to support Trump until elections,
but that's about it, and important that Judeans state that truth clearly.
First, while sovereignty has been a passionate topic of discussion for a long time, especially around election time, nothing has been annexed since 1980 and annexation of any part of Judea or Samaria would not be imminent if not for Trump.

Second, when you talk about Israelis, you say "we" but there is even now a significant minority of Israelis who opposed annexation of any part of Judea and Samaria, and without the expectation of US recognition of the annexation, that minority would probably swell to a majority. While sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria may be a done deal in the minds of the people you talk to, clearly it is not for most Israelis. I understand that you believe sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria is only being held up because of objections from Washington, but that is not true, most Israelis do not support it.

The objections you raise to the "deal" are frivolous.

The mere mention of a Palestinian state in the plan will endanger Israel.

Nonsense, a Palestinian state, the two state solution, is mentioned favorable thousands of times a day all over the world, including by some Jews in Israel, and when it is mentioned in the plan, it is mentioned only in terms of the PA meeting a set of conditions it cannot possibly meet in the foreseeable future. So it redefines a Palestinian state in terms that are beneficial to Israel.

Everything can change, but if the US were to some day stop supporting this deal as written, then Israel would be under no obligation to stand by it, either. When things change, you adapt to the changes, but cowering in fear of change is nearly always counter productive.

There are no gestures. These are just unsubstantiated rumors spread by people who oppose annexation for their own reasons.

You say you have read the plan, but take a step back from it and see the broader strokes. It erases the Green Line and it changes the discussion of a Palestinian state from whether the Palestinians have a right to one to what would be their responsibilities before be able to claim that right. There simply is no downside for Israel in the Plan.
 

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.
Thanks for such a wide answer. I understand your point. But try to understand mine.

It is clear that the PA won't accept anything too short from the boundaries as of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem. They will demand their own state. Thinking that the PA will retreat from any of these claims contradicts the basic logic, because this will basically mean the end of the PA.

But here the red lines for Israel arise, because they won't accept the independent Palestinian state in any form, to say nothing about the boundaries and capital.

So, to sum this up, the peace plan was going to fail from the very beginning. And I cant believe that the authors didnt understand this.

No, not annexation can undermine the Trumps approval rating, but possible violence which can get started after Israel takes the steps.
The basic problem with a Palestinian state is that there is no political entity among the Palestinians that can credibly offer peace to Israel so it would be insanity for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state regardless of the boundaries. Until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, a negotiated two state solution is not possible, and any honest look at the state of government and politics among the Palestinians will show you that such a government will not be possible for the foreseeable future.

A peace plan has to be negotiated by parties that can credibly offer peace, so these are the conditions the Trump Plan laid down for US recognition of a Palestinians state:


  • The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.
  • The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.
  • The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.
  • The Palestinians shall have achieved civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory and demilitarized its population.
  • The Palestinians shall have complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision.

There are realistic conditions for a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, but clearly, they are not achievable by the PA, so the prospect of an independent Palestinian state is effectively dead regardless of what the EU or UN or leftists in the US or Israel say.

The Palestinian leaderships never ended the second intifada. The fence along the green line and actions of Israeli security forces throughout Judea and Samaria simply made it too difficult to carry out large scale terrorist attacks, so that now Israel has effectively secured peace with the Palestinians through it own actions. That means the question of whether or not the Trump plan will establish peace is moot since peace has already been established on the ground.

Trump supporters are eager to see annexation go forward and if there is an uptick of terrorist attacks from the Palestinians, they will see it as proof that the Palestinians can't be trusted to have an independent state.
There really is no palestinian people. When Egypt seized Gaza in the ‘48 War and Jordan seized what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish names, neither country created a palestinian state. Nor, were there calls for a state from any palestinians. No such people existed. Jordan even renamed Judea and Samaria only as west bank, of the Jordan River, not as Palestine. Palestine and palestinian are made-up European names originally associated with Jews. Arabs began using those names in the 1960s. They‘re bogus.
During the Mandate, everyone who lived in the Mandate area west of the river was called a Palestinian since the area was called Palestine. But when the state of Israel was established, those who lived inside of Israel were called Israelis and those who lived outside of Israel were still called Palestinians.

Somehow the geographical designation of Palestinian morphed into the quasi nationalist, ethnic term, Palestinian. So now Arabs who have not lived in the area for generations called themselves Palestinians and Saudis and Egyptians who moved there more recently are also called Palestinians. The UN trying to show the world they did not support colonialism, enshrine this later use of the term in a number of resolutions, failing to see how absurd it was for a globalist organization to embrace a made up nationalist movement.

Because it embarrasses me as an American to talk about how presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama contributed to this farce, I will stop here.
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
574
Reaction score
224
Points
143
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.
Thanks for such a wide answer. I understand your point. But try to understand mine.

It is clear that the PA won't accept anything too short from the boundaries as of 1967 with the capital in East Jerusalem. They will demand their own state. Thinking that the PA will retreat from any of these claims contradicts the basic logic, because this will basically mean the end of the PA.

But here the red lines for Israel arise, because they won't accept the independent Palestinian state in any form, to say nothing about the boundaries and capital.

So, to sum this up, the peace plan was going to fail from the very beginning. And I cant believe that the authors didnt understand this.

No, not annexation can undermine the Trumps approval rating, but possible violence which can get started after Israel takes the steps.
The basic problem with a Palestinian state is that there is no political entity among the Palestinians that can credibly offer peace to Israel so it would be insanity for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state regardless of the boundaries. Until the Palestinians have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, a negotiated two state solution is not possible, and any honest look at the state of government and politics among the Palestinians will show you that such a government will not be possible for the foreseeable future.

A peace plan has to be negotiated by parties that can credibly offer peace, so these are the conditions the Trump Plan laid down for US recognition of a Palestinians state:


  • The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.
  • The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.
  • The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including school curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism towards its neighbors, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.
  • The Palestinians shall have achieved civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory and demilitarized its population.
  • The Palestinians shall have complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision.

There are realistic conditions for a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, but clearly, they are not achievable by the PA, so the prospect of an independent Palestinian state is effectively dead regardless of what the EU or UN or leftists in the US or Israel say.

The Palestinian leaderships never ended the second intifada. The fence along the green line and actions of Israeli security forces throughout Judea and Samaria simply made it too difficult to carry out large scale terrorist attacks, so that now Israel has effectively secured peace with the Palestinians through it own actions. That means the question of whether or not the Trump plan will establish peace is moot since peace has already been established on the ground.

Trump supporters are eager to see annexation go forward and if there is an uptick of terrorist attacks from the Palestinians, they will see it as proof that the Palestinians can't be trusted to have an independent state.
There really is no palestinian people. When Egypt seized Gaza in the ‘48 War and Jordan seized what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish names, neither country created a palestinian state. Nor, were there calls for a state from any palestinians. No such people existed. Jordan even renamed Judea and Samaria only as west bank, of the Jordan River, not as Palestine. Palestine and palestinian are made-up European names originally associated with Jews. Arabs began using those names in the 1960s. They‘re bogus.
During the Mandate, everyone who lived in the Mandate area west of the river was called a Palestinian since the area was called Palestine. But when the state of Israel was established, those who lived inside of Israel were called Israelis and those who lived outside of Israel were still called Palestinians.

Somehow the geographical designation of Palestinian morphed into the quasi nationalist, ethnic term, Palestinian. So now Arabs who have not lived in the area for generations called themselves Palestinians and Saudis and Egyptians who moved there more recently are also called Palestinians. The UN trying to show the world they did not support colonialism, enshrine this later use of the term in a number of resolutions, failing to see how absurd it was for a globalist organization to embrace a made up nationalist movement.

Because it embarrasses me as an American to talk about how presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama contributed to this farce, I will stop here.
Arabs and Muslims in the British Mandate generally rejected the names palestine and its derivative palestinian as Western inventions devised by the British in collusion with Jews. They historically viewed the country in its entirety as Syria or Sham in Arabic. The Jews pressed the British to cut off the southern part of Syria in order to implement the Balfour Declaration and reestablish a Jewish home.
 

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
... it changes the discussion of a Palestinian state from whether the Palestinians have a right to one to what would be their responsibilities before be able to claim that right.
Yeah. This is the conversation that we should be having.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Well they gotta protest about something,
at least let it be about something worthwhile.

And I'm optimistic we'll provide more good news
for the folks to have their opportunity to get that craze out.

 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
First, while sovereignty has been a passionate topic of discussion for a long time, especially around election time, nothing has been annexed since 1980 and annexation of any part of Judea or Samaria would not be imminent if not for Trump.
First, the Trump admin. formulated the socio-economic projects,
and included it as leverage in a wider geopolitical approach.

But essentially it's Naftali Bennet's plan,
and the geopolitical aspect of the plan regarding the Israeli-Arab alliance,
is the hard work establishing new relations allover all continents of PM Netanyahu .

Second, when you talk about Israelis, you say "we" but there is even now a significant minority of Israelis who opposed annexation of any part of Judea and Samaria, and without the expectation of US recognition of the annexation, that minority would probably swell to a majority. While sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria may be a done deal in the minds of the people you talk to, clearly it is not for most Israelis. I understand that you believe sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria is only being held up because of objections from Washington, but that is not true, most Israelis do not support it.
Second, there's no such significant minority aside from the Arab Joint List,
I'm quiet sure You won't surprise me with any of the new polls
that I haven't seen getting published now.

In matter of fact, it is a wide consensus on all political spectrum of the Israeli left and right,
that cities like Ma'ale Edumim, 'Ariel, Upper Modi'in, Beitar etc. which have become significant economic centers to be included in any plan, which is what we see being the focus of the currently discussed outline.

As well as Jordan valley, it is a no-discussion position, national position, that regardless of any formal status of bilateral or international agreement, it remains under Israeli control exclusively, as the minimal defensive geographical boundary in the country, this is ours.

Listen, it's like with the British Empire, they chose to side with the Zionist movement,
but only after we have already started building outside Jerusalem walls, built several new significant towns, infrastructure and networks of local coordination for investments, as well
as allocating great efforts, energy and time in the political promotion.

And here too, the base of the plan is in the Israeli political discourse, those who shifted it during and after the Oslo disaster were the Judeans themselves, they, Sovereignty Movement's Women in Green, Yesha Council, the young Party of Yeminah, Betzalel Smotrich, Tzipi Hotovely etc. these are the people representing the young generation which established the facts on the ground, the facts in the Israeli political discourse, and went to Washington never being afraid to both oppose our PM's and Your Presidents.

But beyond mere political level, there's also natural development in the environment. The Gush Dan area of Tel-Aviv, the central economic metropolitan area in Israel, joining several large cities together is located right to the west of Judea, a 10-20 minute ride to to the east, and already being overpopulated in comparison to the rest of the country. In Judea, which large portion of residents comprise of immigrants from America, the cost of living is times more affordable, for the price of an old 3 room apartment in Tel-Aviv, Herzliyah or Rishon L'Zion, one can get a modern small private house with a garden, with open nature, in one of the most fast growing and developing areas in the country, with a mostly young community and a family focused environment to grow Your kids.

The Israeli CBS shows that in a single generation every 3rd Israeli is an orthodox Jews. And B"H that the Israeli birth-rates have already evened and a bit surpassed the birth-rates of several major Arab nations, a trend that has been constant in the larger Arab world, especially with the countries focused on modernization.

It's really not what they show in the news, to say the least.
And the middle east is not anymore what people are used to think.

But I get it,
when taking leadership, great leaders tend to take credit for the work of other's,
and totally ok, if translates better to the base of support - as long as work is actually done.


The objections you raise to the "deal" are frivolous.

The mere mention of a Palestinian state in the plan will endanger Israel.

Nonsense, a Palestinian state, the two state solution, is mentioned favorable thousands of times a day all over the world, including by some Jews in Israel, and when it is mentioned in the plan, it is mentioned only in terms of the PA meeting a set of conditions it cannot possibly meet in the foreseeable future. So it redefines a Palestinian state in terms that are beneficial to Israel.
Yes, definitely - the mention of Pali state translates directly into justification for further violence.

Ahi, excuse me,
but frivolous is the manner in which You tend to disregard any my objections.
But it's going to be me to live with the consequence, and also having past experience.

And excuse me for making such a frivolous comparison, but You know, that African Americans are using the N-word doesn't justify regulating it into an agreement or law, neither justice.

Now, the N-word is merely a word, if empowered in public discourse will indirectly lead to fatal consequences, while the Pali states o.t.o.h. are actual power bases of suicide dealers.

Kinda like if You folks wait another year and a half until CHAZ arms up,
and the US admin signs with them a formal agreement.

Would that lead to less violence, or encourage it?

Everything can change, but if the US were to some day stop supporting this deal as written, then Israel would be under no obligation to stand by it, either. When things change, you adapt to the changes, but cowering in fear of change is nearly always counter productive.
The US is not side to the agreement, but according to the plan will take part in signing the agreement into international law, which will as far as I understand bound it constitutionally as it did with the Mandate terms.

It will have the status of international law in force of the Israeli sovereign decision to follow on the recognition of PLO, but regardless of US formal position.

And in case followed in such trajectory - a needless mistake.

There are no gestures. These are just unsubstantiated rumors spread by people who oppose annexation for their own reasons.

You say you have read the plan, but take a step back from it and see the broader strokes. It erases the Green Line and it changes the discussion of a Palestinian state from whether the Palestinians have a right to one to what would be their responsibilities before be able to claim that right. There simply is no downside for Israel in the Plan.
You know how exactly?
Why does construction have to freeze?
To wait for them to enter negotiations?

There's nothing their representatives have to offer or negotiate.
Nada.

Our focus is with the local population and gradual replacement of the PA autonomy rule with complete Israeli sovereignty, with the path to citizenship once the demographics naturally enforce the development and change the country outline with its economic centers.

Westerners and Arabs are used to think Israelis are in constant hurry,
but facts show the opposite, the time is on our side.

'Shwayah shwayah' as our Arab cousins say.
 
Last edited:

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,682
Points
280
First, while sovereignty has been a passionate topic of discussion for a long time, especially around election time, nothing has been annexed since 1980 and annexation of any part of Judea or Samaria would not be imminent if not for Trump.
First, the Trump admin. formulated the socio-economic projects,
and included it as leverage in a wider geopolitical approach.

But essentially it's Naftali Bennet's plan,
and the geopolitical aspect of the plan regarding the Israeli-Arab alliance,
is the hard work establishing new relations allover all continents of PM Netanyahu .

Second, when you talk about Israelis, you say "we" but there is even now a significant minority of Israelis who opposed annexation of any part of Judea and Samaria, and without the expectation of US recognition of the annexation, that minority would probably swell to a majority. While sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria may be a done deal in the minds of the people you talk to, clearly it is not for most Israelis. I understand that you believe sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria is only being held up because of objections from Washington, but that is not true, most Israelis do not support it.
Second, there's no such significant minority aside from the Arab Joint List,
I'm quiet sure You won't surprise me with any of the new polls
that I haven't seen getting published now.

In matter of fact, it is a wide consensus on all political spectrum of the Israeli left and right,
that cities like Ma'ale Edumim, 'Ariel, Upper Modi'in, Beitar etc. which have become significant economic centers to be included in any plan, which is what we see being the focus of the currently discussed outline.

As well as Jordan valley, it is a no-discussion position, national position, that regardless of any formal status of bilateral or international agreement, it remains under Israeli control exclusively, as the minimal defensive geographical boundary in the country, this is ours.

Listen, it's like with the British Empire, they chose to side with the Zionist movement,
but only after we have already started building outside Jerusalem walls, built several new significant towns, infrastructure and networks of local coordination for investments, as well
as allocating great efforts, energy and time in the political promotion.

And here too, the base of the plan is in the Israeli political discourse, those who shifted it during and after the Oslo disaster were the Judeans themselves, they, Sovereignty Movement's Women in Green, Yesha Council, the young Party of Yeminah, Betzalel Smotrich, Tzipi Hotovely etc. these are the people representing the young generation which established the facts on the ground, the facts in the Israeli political discourse, and went to Washington never being afraid to both oppose our PM's and Your Presidents.

But beyond mere political level, there's also natural development in the environment. The Gush Dan area of Tel-Aviv, the central economic metropolitan area in Israel, joining several large cities together is located right to the west of Judea, a 10-20 minute ride to to the east, and already being overpopulated in comparison to the rest of the country. In Judea, which large portion of residents comprise of immigrants from America, the cost of living is times more affordable, for the price of an old 3 room apartment in Tel-Aviv, Herzliyah or Rishon L'Zion, one can get a modern small private house with a garden, with open nature, in one of the most fast growing and developing areas in the country, with a mostly young community and a family focused environment to grow Your kids.

The Israeli CBS shows that in a single generation every 3rd Israeli is an orthodox Jews. And B"H that the Israeli birth-rates have already evened and a bit surpassed the birth-rates of several major Arab nations, a trend that has been constant in the larger Arab world, especially with the countries focused on modernization.

It's really not what they show in the news, to say the least.
And the middle east is not anymore what people are used to think.

But I get it,
when taking leadership, great leaders tend to take credit for the work of other's,
and totally ok, if translates better to the base of support - as long as work is actually done.


The objections you raise to the "deal" are frivolous.

The mere mention of a Palestinian state in the plan will endanger Israel.

Nonsense, a Palestinian state, the two state solution, is mentioned favorable thousands of times a day all over the world, including by some Jews in Israel, and when it is mentioned in the plan, it is mentioned only in terms of the PA meeting a set of conditions it cannot possibly meet in the foreseeable future. So it redefines a Palestinian state in terms that are beneficial to Israel.
Yes, definitely - the mention of Pali state translates directly into justification for further violence.

Ahi, excuse me,
but frivolous is the manner in which You tend to disregard any my objections.
But it's going to be me to live with the consequence, and also having past experience.

And excuse me for making such a frivolous comparison, but You know, that African Americans are using the N-word doesn't justify regulating it into an agreement or law, neither justice.

Now, the N-word is merely a word, if empowered in public discourse will indirectly lead to fatal consequences, while the Pali states o.t.o.h. are actual power bases of suicide dealers.

Kinda like if You folks wait another year and a half until CHAZ arms up,
and the US admin signs with them a formal agreement.

Would that lead to less violence, or encourage it?

Everything can change, but if the US were to some day stop supporting this deal as written, then Israel would be under no obligation to stand by it, either. When things change, you adapt to the changes, but cowering in fear of change is nearly always counter productive.
The US is not side to the agreement, but according to the plan will take part in signing the agreement into international law, which will as far as I understand bound it constitutionally as it did with the Mandate terms.

It will have the status of international law in force of the Israeli sovereign decision to follow on the recognition of PLO, but regardless of US formal position.

And in case followed in such trajectory - a needless mistake.

There are no gestures. These are just unsubstantiated rumors spread by people who oppose annexation for their own reasons.

You say you have read the plan, but take a step back from it and see the broader strokes. It erases the Green Line and it changes the discussion of a Palestinian state from whether the Palestinians have a right to one to what would be their responsibilities before be able to claim that right. There simply is no downside for Israel in the Plan.
You know how exactly?
Why does construction have to freeze?
To wait for them to enter negotiations?

There's nothing their representatives have to offer or negotiate.
Nada.

Our focus is with the local population and gradual replacement of the PA autonomy rule with complete Israeli sovereignty, with the path to citizenship once the demographics naturally enforce the development and change the country outline with its economic centers.

Westerners and Arabs are used to think Israelis are in constant hurry,
but facts show the opposite, the time is on our side.

'Shwayah shwayah' as our Arab cousins say.
Bennett has talked about several plans, but hasn't been able to make anything happen. Trump is making annexation happen.

More Israelis oppose West Bank annexation than support it — survey


A Palestinian state is mentioned favorably thousands fo times a day all over the world including in Israel, and it is mentioned without obligating the Palestinians to do anything in order to get it. The Trump plan only mentions a possible Palestinian state in terms of the extensive reforms the Palestinians would have to make to deserve a state. I know you are able to understand the difference but you are committed to applying Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, but there is very little support for that among the greater public. Even Bennett only proposed annexing area C.

The Plan will not become international law, just as Oslo never became international law. The US will seek to have the UN Security Council pass a resolution supporting it, but it will almost certainly fail since both the Europeans and Arabs will oppose it.

"Settlement Minister says government won't back Palestinian statehood. 'We won't freeze construction or create isolated enclaves.' "


Rylah, there are no monsters under the bed.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top