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
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.
Will it be President Trump to police the towns, or build a house there?
Did Pres. Trump initiate it and create the base of support, or PM Netanyahu?

It's not "my dad your dad" kindergarten talk, neither a chicken and egg dilemma,
more a question of simple common sense - recognizing the constant and the interval.

PM Netanyahu governed during how many US presidents?
Wanna remind us what he inherited from Clinton?

We as a nation have our own job to do, if it aligns with the current American politics, how blessed, and sell it however You find fit as long as obstructions are not introduced.

If not...well You know us Israelis.
We rely on ourselves, and the Judeans on the ground,
who now sit both in the coalition and the opposition said the same,
and in the typical Israeli manner - 'to the face' when in WH with PM Netanyahu.

Accept it or not, but they didn't lie - lines are irrelevant.
Kids gonna keep building the Judean hills, and turn them into vibrant towns.
 
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.
Will it be President Trump to police the towns, or build a house there?
Did Pres. Trump initiate it and create the base of support, or PM Netanyahu?

It's not "my dad your dad" kindergarten talk, neither a chicken and egg dilemma,
more a question of simple common sense - recognizing the constant and the interval.

PM Netanyahu governed during how many US presidents?
Wanna remind us what he inherited from Clinton?

We as a nation have our own job to do, if it aligns with the current American politics, how blessed, and sell it however You find fit as long as obstructions are not introduced.

If not...well You know us Israelis.
We rely on ourselves, and the Judeans on the ground,
who now sit both in the coalition and the opposition said the same,
and in the typical Israeli manner - 'to the face' when in WH with PM Netanyahu.

Accept it or not, but they didn't lie - lines are irrelevant.
Kids gonna keep building the Judean hills, and turn them into vibrant towns.
Netanyahu has been a brilliant leader but the fact remains that for forty years nothing was annexed and now shortly after President Trump supports annexation, half of area C is about to be annexed. There is no rational basis for denying that annexation is only taking place now because President Trump supports it.
 
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.
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.
Will it be President Trump to police the towns, or build a house there?
Did Pres. Trump initiate it and create the base of support, or PM Netanyahu?

It's not "my dad your dad" kindergarten talk, neither a chicken and egg dilemma,
more a question of simple common sense - recognizing the constant and the interval.

PM Netanyahu governed during how many US presidents?
Wanna remind us what he inherited from Clinton?

We as a nation have our own job to do, if it aligns with the current American politics, how blessed, and sell it however You find fit as long as obstructions are not introduced.

If not...well You know us Israelis.
We rely on ourselves, and the Judeans on the ground,
who now sit both in the coalition and the opposition said the same,
and in the typical Israeli manner - 'to the face' when in WH with PM Netanyahu.

Accept it or not, but they didn't lie - lines are irrelevant.
Kids gonna keep building the Judean hills, and turn them into vibrant towns.
Netanyahu has been a brilliant leader but the fact remains that for forty years nothing was annexed and now shortly after President Trump supports annexation, half of area C is about to be annexed. There is no rational basis for denying that annexation is only taking place now because President Trump supports it.
The fact remains state of Israel NEVER annexed anything.

Liberated? Yes
Unified? Yes
Applied sovereignty? Yes

Read the actual bills of Eshkol, Begin and Shamir, the specific law that was used, was and order that passed with the creation of the state, that calls on the government, to apply "the law, jurisdiction and state administration in all the territory of Eretz-Yisrael that the government established in order". There's not a single law in Israel that talks about 'annexation', and it's not in our national interests to sign into any agreements formulated in these terms.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Janson Greenblat to IDF Radio: "Applying sovereignty must come with a commitment to allocate territory to a Palestinian state."


(Comment)

So basically all the hot air about "they have to negotiate"
and supporting Israeli sovereignty,
was just that - hot air.

The Judean youth, the Sovereignty Movement,
Yesha Council and David Alhiyani - were correct.

Don't wanna support it then don't,
PM Begin z"l applied sovereignty in the Golan,
and PM Eshkol z"l unified Jerusalem despite American disagreement.

Why do we need these conditions?

 
Last edited:
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Getting on the anti-sovereignty bandwagon

Along with the EU, Britain betrays the Jewish People again by opposing sovereignty. Then the US makes applying it suicidal.

Britain – the architect of the San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that led to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922 – has once again shamefully betrayed the Jewish People by warning Israel not to extend its sovereignty into Judea and Samaria.

Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that any such action would be in violation of international law - which Netanyahu disputes – despite the Mandate vesting in the Jewish People the right to “close settlement” in Judea and Samaria for the purposes of reconstituting the biblical Jewish National Home in what had been the heartland of the Jewish People 3000 years ago.

Britain had betrayed the Jewish People in 1950 after all the Jews living in Judea and Samaria had been ethnically cleansed by the invading Arab army of Transjordan in 1948. Britain – supported only by Pakistan and Iraq - recognised Transjordan’s illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria, the renaming of the newly merged entity as “Jordan” whilst “Judea and Samaria” was renamed “West Bank”.

Johnson told Netanyahu:

"I am immensely proud of the UK’s contribution to the birth of Israel with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. But it will remain unfinished business until there is a solution which provides justice and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.

"The only way it can be achieved is for both sides to return to the negotiating table. That must be our goal. Annexation would only take us further away from it."

Peace for both “Israelis” and “Palestinians”? Neither existed until 1948 and 1964.. There were only “Arabs” and “Jews” in 1917. The Arab residents of Palestine then comprised part of “the existing non-Jewish communities”.

Johnson seems apparently unaware that the “Palestinians”:
  • were defined for the first time in recorded history by article 6 of the 1964 PLO Charter
  • did not claim “regional sovereignty in the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” or “on the Gaza Strip” under article 24
  • were Jordanian citizens between 1954 and 1988.
Johnson’s warning to Israel is the complete antithesis of what he wrote on 29 October 2017 as Foreign Minister – ahead of the Balfour Declaration centenary on 2 November:

“I have no doubt that the only viable solution to the conflict resembles the one first set down on paper by another Briton, Lord Peel, in the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1937, and that is the vision of two states for two peoples.”

The Royal Commission was authorized by Royal Warrant dated 7 August 1936 which did not mention the “Palestinians” - only naming two parties – the “Arabs” and the “Jews” – not three - as disputants.



Read full article:

 

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.
Will it be President Trump to police the towns, or build a house there?
Did Pres. Trump initiate it and create the base of support, or PM Netanyahu?

It's not "my dad your dad" kindergarten talk, neither a chicken and egg dilemma,
more a question of simple common sense - recognizing the constant and the interval.

PM Netanyahu governed during how many US presidents?
Wanna remind us what he inherited from Clinton?

We as a nation have our own job to do, if it aligns with the current American politics, how blessed, and sell it however You find fit as long as obstructions are not introduced.

If not...well You know us Israelis.
We rely on ourselves, and the Judeans on the ground,
who now sit both in the coalition and the opposition said the same,
and in the typical Israeli manner - 'to the face' when in WH with PM Netanyahu.

Accept it or not, but they didn't lie - lines are irrelevant.
Kids gonna keep building the Judean hills, and turn them into vibrant towns.
Netanyahu has been a brilliant leader but the fact remains that for forty years nothing was annexed and now shortly after President Trump supports annexation, half of area C is about to be annexed. There is no rational basis for denying that annexation is only taking place now because President Trump supports it.
The fact remains state of Israel NEVER annexed anything.

Liberated? Yes
Unified? Yes
Applied sovereignty? Yes

Read the actual bills of Eshkol, Begin and Shamir, the specific law that was used, was and order that passed with the creation of the state, that calls on the government, to apply "the law, jurisdiction and state administration in all the territory of Eretz-Yisrael that the government established in order". There's not a single law in Israel that talks about 'annexation', and it's not in our national interests to sign into any agreements formulated in these terms.
I understand the difference, but the result is the same. Annexation suggests the land was not part of Israel to begin with but applying sovereignty suggests Israel had always had a legitimate claim to the land. Perhaps an important point in the propaganda wars but the result is the same and no one's opinion of the legitimacy of the process will change because of the wording.
 
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.
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.
Will it be President Trump to police the towns, or build a house there?
Did Pres. Trump initiate it and create the base of support, or PM Netanyahu?

It's not "my dad your dad" kindergarten talk, neither a chicken and egg dilemma,
more a question of simple common sense - recognizing the constant and the interval.

PM Netanyahu governed during how many US presidents?
Wanna remind us what he inherited from Clinton?

We as a nation have our own job to do, if it aligns with the current American politics, how blessed, and sell it however You find fit as long as obstructions are not introduced.

If not...well You know us Israelis.
We rely on ourselves, and the Judeans on the ground,
who now sit both in the coalition and the opposition said the same,
and in the typical Israeli manner - 'to the face' when in WH with PM Netanyahu.

Accept it or not, but they didn't lie - lines are irrelevant.
Kids gonna keep building the Judean hills, and turn them into vibrant towns.
Netanyahu has been a brilliant leader but the fact remains that for forty years nothing was annexed and now shortly after President Trump supports annexation, half of area C is about to be annexed. There is no rational basis for denying that annexation is only taking place now because President Trump supports it.
The fact remains state of Israel NEVER annexed anything.

Liberated? Yes
Unified? Yes
Applied sovereignty? Yes

Read the actual bills of Eshkol, Begin and Shamir, the specific law that was used, was and order that passed with the creation of the state, that calls on the government, to apply "the law, jurisdiction and state administration in all the territory of Eretz-Yisrael that the government established in order". There's not a single law in Israel that talks about 'annexation', and it's not in our national interests to sign into any agreements formulated in these terms.
I understand the difference, but the result is the same. Annexation suggests the land was not part of Israel to begin with but applying sovereignty suggests Israel had always had a legitimate claim to the land. Perhaps an important point in the propaganda wars but the result is the same and no one's opinion of the legitimacy of the process will change because of the wording.
No agreement using this formulation should ever be signed,
it's a matter of correct legal definition, or as usually called "small letters".

We don't need that, it's against our interests.

 
Last edited:

ESay

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
176
Points
95
Didn't want to open a new thread about this, so decided to post here this information.

Israel and UAE agreed on full normalization of relations. This was said in a trilateral statement of Israel, UAE and the US leaders. The delegations of two countries are supposed to meet soon for signing agreements regarding various fields, including security and direct flights.

According to the statement, Israel should postpone the plans of applying sovereignty to some West Bank territories, and will focus on developing ties with other Arab and Muslim countries.

The link (on Russian)

Well, cooperation of Israel and UAE is a long awaited thing for both countries, I think. And it can pave a way to normalization with some other Arab countries and formation of a security alliance with Israel and the Gulf monarchies to counter Iran. It seems that Israel will take a step back to go forward afterwards.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Didn't want to open a new thread about this, so decided to post here this information.

Israel and UAE agreed on full normalization of relations. This was said in a trilateral statement of Israel, UAE and the US leaders. The delegations of two countries are supposed to meet soon for signing agreements regarding various fields, including security and direct flights.

According to the statement, Israel should postpone the plans of applying sovereignty to some West Bank territories, and will focus on developing ties with other Arab and Muslim countries.

The link (on Russian)

Well, cooperation of Israel and UAE is a long awaited thing for both countries, I think. And it can pave a way to normalization with some other Arab countries and formation of a security alliance with Israel and the Gulf monarchies to counter Iran. It seems that Israel will take a step back to go forward afterwards.
Baruch HaShem!
Great news!

People have been saying this all the time, the deal of Trump's admin was really about relations in the Gulf.

There's also the "Growing Arab support for Israel" thread, where I've shared insights on less reported developments in these relations during the last 2 years. They've opened a HUGE shul in Dubai, the only one in the Gulf, and Israelis have been reporting on the opening of the skies for Israeli airlines, and how they were accommodated as tourists in Saudi Arabia... reports about special Kosher arrangements, our newest music getting popular there etc.

This is in Sa'udia last year:

This is UAE a month or two ago:

But a peace agreement definitely deserves a thread of its own.
 
Last edited:

ESay

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
176
Points
95
But a peace agreement definitely deserves a thread of its own
Yes, but that is only a first step. Decades have been need to take it. Though, I think that the pace will be much quicker in the coming years. Anyway, the UAE is only one chain. The ultimate goal is an alliance between Israel and the Gulf monarchies and as a result of it resolving the Palestinian issue.

Not surprisingly, Turkey condemned this agreement.

Turkey will be a natural rival of the possible alliance. Along with Iran. It is time for the Kurds to get some international support for their self-identification
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
38,435
Reaction score
11,050
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
Leftists Denounce Peace Deal Between Israel and the UAE
By
David Lange
-
August 13, 2020
250
I am sure you’ve already heard the news: Israel and the United Arab Emirates reached a historic agreement today to set up full diplomatic relations between the two countries.
You’d think those on the Left would welcome a peace treaty, right?

Just kidding – I am sure you all know better than that.
They hate it.
Here are some of the reactions:
Rashida Tlaib.

Profile photo, opens profile page on Twitter in a new tab

Rashida Tlaib

@RashidaTlaib

We won’t be fooled by another Trump/Netanyahu deal. We won't celebrate Netanyahu for not stealing land he already controls in exchange for a sweetheart business deal. The heart of the issue has never been planned, formal annexation, but ongoing, devastating apartheid.


Read more:


History Series
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
But a peace agreement definitely deserves a thread of its own
Yes, but that is only a first step. Decades have been need to take it. Though, I think that the pace will be much quicker in the coming years. Anyway, the UAE is only one chain. The ultimate goal is an alliance between Israel and the Gulf monarchies and as a result of it resolving the Palestinian issue.

Not surprisingly, Turkey condemned this agreement.

Turkey will be a natural rival of the possible alliance. Along with Iran. It is time for the Kurds to get some international support for their self-identification
Yes Turkey, Iran two big players in the ME,
and not so fond of each other to say lightly.

I've been saying this for years Arab-Israeli relations are not subject to Pali status,
it's the other way around, Arabs will solve it, because politically Palis are suicidal,
and the problems they fuel, the civil wars, the joining Iran against the entire
Sunni world - they're way too much mess for none contribution.

Those folks go on Egyptian TV demanding "a million martyr march to Jerusalem",
while having Iranian and Qatari flags on the billboards.
And even Qatar is giving signs of "had enough".

The deal was a ladder to climb off that tree,
and Palis still believing in the value of their narcissism - missed the main show.
 
Last edited:

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,125
Reaction score
2,522
Points
1,815
Leftists Denounce Peace Deal Between Israel and the UAE
By
David Lange
-
August 13, 2020
250
I am sure you’ve already heard the news: Israel and the United Arab Emirates reached a historic agreement today to set up full diplomatic relations between the two countries.
You’d think those on the Left would welcome a peace treaty, right?

Just kidding – I am sure you all know better than that.
They hate it.
Here are some of the reactions:
Rashida Tlaib.
Profile photo, opens profile page on Twitter in a new tab
Rashida Tlaib
@RashidaTlaib

We won’t be fooled by another Trump/Netanyahu deal. We won't celebrate Netanyahu for not stealing land he already controls in exchange for a sweetheart business deal. The heart of the issue has never been planned, formal annexation, but ongoing, devastating apartheid.
Read more:


History Series
BTW, Rashida Tlaib won her reelection with 66% of the vote.

Of course those crazy Zionists and rightwingnuts don't like her.
 
OP
rylah

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
2,376
Points
290
Leftists Denounce Peace Deal Between Israel and the UAE
By
David Lange
-
August 13, 2020
250
I am sure you’ve already heard the news: Israel and the United Arab Emirates reached a historic agreement today to set up full diplomatic relations between the two countries.
You’d think those on the Left would welcome a peace treaty, right?

Just kidding – I am sure you all know better than that.
They hate it.
Here are some of the reactions:
Rashida Tlaib.
Profile photo, opens profile page on Twitter in a new tab
Rashida Tlaib
@RashidaTlaib

We won’t be fooled by another Trump/Netanyahu deal. We won't celebrate Netanyahu for not stealing land he already controls in exchange for a sweetheart business deal. The heart of the issue has never been planned, formal annexation, but ongoing, devastating apartheid.
Read more:


History Series
BTW, Rashida Tlaib won her reelection with 66% of the vote.

Of course those crazy Zionists and rightwingnuts don't like her.
What does this have to do with the thread?
There's an actual topic, it's not Tlaib's election campaign.

Neither about your hasty generalizations of
Right-wing Zionists and Left-wing Zionists.


If you don't have anything on topic - get lost.
 
Last edited:

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,094
Reaction score
2,620
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Like or dislike is irrelevant. The solution is a matter of sound and valid logic based on evidence. Like some mathematical equations, there is more than one correct answer.

Of course those crazy Zionists and rightwingnuts don't like her.
Inflammatory and beside the point.
You’re getting yourself noticed.
(COMMENT)

When you add the component of emotion, greed or politics → the condition of sufficient reason
(Principle of Sufficient Reason) is damaged or destroyed.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top