Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

[Sunni Man]

The U.S. government claims to be a neutral 3rd party mediator in the Palestinian / Israeli conflict.

But in reality is 100% on Israel's side during any negotiations. ..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The U.S. government claims to be a neutral 3rd party mediator in the Palestinian / Israeli conflict.

But in reality is 100% on Israel's side during any negotiations. ..

But in reality is 100% on Israel's side during any negotiations. .

Can you blame us? The Palestinians are awful.

 

[USAF 2023]

Abbas was invited; he wouldn't even take Trump's phone call

Abbas was invited to sign on to the so called Peace Plan "after" the U.S. and Israel had worked out the terms without any input from the Palestinians. ...

Another Muslim lie. Abbas could have made his objections known prior to this day,

Please tell us why Abbas rejected Olmert Peace Plan and why just recently the PLO made a formal statement that Jews would not be permitted at the Western Wall

 

[Coyote]

. . . or an area wide conflagration.

You are going to be so disappointed.

If at the end of the year, Trump has not been impeached, and he is re-elected, and there is no war in the ME? I will be pleasantly surprised.

TY.

Then you must not be keeping up with events. There was never a possibility that Trump would be removed from office meaning the entire impeachment show was never anything but a political stunt. Virtually all the analysts expect Trump to be reelected. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf states all helped the US develop the plan and now support it, so it will not result in a war involving Israel.

No. It doesn't mean it was a political stunt.

lol Since impeachment is meant to be a process for removing a president from office and there was never a chance Trump would be removed from office, it can be nothing but a political stunt.

No. It's also means of letting the people know the President has crossed a line. And it isn't done lightly. Despite what you seem to believe he is not an emperor, he can not just do what ever he wants. He is accountable and it's a means of holding him accountable even if he isn't removed from office.

There are two processes:
Impeachment
Removal from Office

Three presidents in US history have been impeached. None removed.

It was formulated to be very difficult to remove a president and for good reason. I agree with the fact it is difficult - it keeps it from being abused.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are going to be so disappointed.

If at the end of the year, Trump has not been impeached, and he is re-elected, and there is no war in the ME? I will be pleasantly surprised.

TY.

Then you must not be keeping up with events. There was never a possibility that Trump would be removed from office meaning the entire impeachment show was never anything but a political stunt. Virtually all the analysts expect Trump to be reelected. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf states all helped the US develop the plan and now support it, so it will not result in a war involving Israel.

No. It doesn't mean it was a political stunt.

lol Since impeachment is meant to be a process for removing a president from office and there was never a chance Trump would be removed from office, it can be nothing but a political stunt.

No. It's also means of letting the people know the President has crossed a line. And it isn't done lightly. Despite what you seem to believe he is not an emperor, he can not just do what ever he wants. He is accountable and it's a means of holding him accountable even if he isn't removed from office.

There are two processes:
Impeachment
Removal from Office

Three presidents in US history have been impeached. None removed.

It was formulated to be very difficult to remove a president and for good reason. I agree with the fact it is difficult - it keeps it from being abused.

You are agreeing with me that it was just a political stunt. Since impeachment is intended as the first step in removing a president and everyone knew from the start Trump would not be removed from office, the only purpose in impeaching him was to campaign against him as you just acknowledged, making it no more than a political stunt and an egregious abuse of power by the House Democrats. You are agreeing with me in substance but you are saying it is ok for House Democrats to abuse their powers and misuse the impeachment process for political purposes.

 

[USAF 2023]

The juden are a very emotional people, and have trouble engaging in an adult debate without resorting to slinging invectives at their opponent. ...

The question “ Why didn’t Abbas accept Olmert’s offer” is not engaging in conversation?
The Raghead doesn’t have an answer so he slings mud

 

[Sunni Man]

Unlike you, I haven't been rude or called anyone names during this entire thread. ..

 

[Coyote]

Shusha

I read through the first part (not the appendixes yet, and the economic development sales pitch).

There are parts I think are good:

Addressing the handling of crossings.

Demilitarization (for those that argue against it, I would put it in the context of how we handled Japan after WW2 - a combination of economic development aid and demilitarization so they wouldn't be a threat again).

The continued management of the Holy Sites. I agree, Israel has done a good job there. I would change one thing for sure though, not: "Muslims who come in peace are welcome to pray here" but rather "ALL who come in peace are welcome to pray here".

Specifically addressing concerns that we don't need another failed state in the area, and what to do to prevent that.

Some parts are iffy:

The refugee situation and the fact that the new nation of Palestine (unlike Israel with it's Jewish refugees) can not freely choose to allow them to return - it is subject to Israel's oversight. I don't think that should be the case. It is the right of a nation to choose who to allow citizenship to and who not to.

Tying to tie Gaza to the West Bank. Culturally and politically they are different. Tying them together hinders the West Bank in developing the institutions needed for success and means their outcome is dependent on Gaza's behavior. Seems they are to be treated as two different regions with different plans.


Some parts are not, imo, workable or would be extremely challenging:

The borders. Palestine is left with a "state" entirely dependent on Israel's good will. Discontinous Palestinian territory peppered Israeli enclaves creating even more discontunuity. What bothers me is that the solution is, repeatedly, state of the art crossings, bridges, etc etc. All in all a LOT of building in order to accommodate the incredible discontinuity. That means a lot of investment and maintenance while farmers, who can't even access parts of their land anymore, require hours to get around the security blocks just to reach the other end of their farm. Who is going to pay for it all and pay to maintain it? (Maybe I missed that or it's in the appendices).

Viability. What makes for a viable state? I read something a while back on this but I can't find it. It was an article that listed characteristics that helped make a state viable or successful - it included access to ports, either rivers or ocean. Looking a the map for the Palestinian state (WB only) it has NO direct access to the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, or the Mediterranean. Promises of port access, special roads, and resorts and just that - promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given. When I looked up rivers in Israel (Google Maps) they seems to be almost nothing in the Palestinian area (assuming I am reading it right). Lack of control over water resources makes a state extremely vulnerable.

Acknowledging the Palestinian's culture. I think what bothers me a lot is that this almost reads like the total imposition of another (American) culture and values over the Palestinians. It has a glitzy, salesman quality to it that seems to totally ignore the possibility that the Palestinians have their own culture, which may not be the same as ours. Any plan that will work has to recognize this and work within the existing culture to affect reforms over time in those areas where reforms are really needed (corruption, human rights). Imposing it, in the form of a "peace plan" is doomed to failure imo.

There is a heavy heavy dependence on yet-to-be-specified massive amounts of money.

And lastly, but most important - complete lack of any input from the Palestinians and more, a seeming lack of interest for input from the Palestinians. And I think that is important.

 

[Coyote]

Children - get on topic please, stop squabbling or take it to the FZ.

 

[Shusha]

...while its government would be stripped of the ability to enter into treaties.​

Has anyone got a page number on this one?

​

 

[Shusha]

Some parts are iffy:

The refugee situation and the fact that the new nation of Palestine (unlike Israel with it's Jewish refugees) can not freely choose to allow them to return - it is subject to Israel's oversight. I don't think that should be the case. It is the right of a nation to choose who to allow citizenship to and who not to.

I agree with you that this is a tricky issue. On the one hand, its a valid point that Israel's security should be front and center on the issue. It serves no one to flood a newborn Palestine with hostile ISIS members. On the other hand, yes, sovereign States must have the right to determine their own immigration criteria. Still, its a JOINT committee, so there is that. If I was negotiating this, I would put a time limit on it. I don't know, maybe a generation? 25 years?

Tying to tie Gaza to the West Bank. Culturally and politically they are different. Tying them together hinders the West Bank in developing the institutions needed for success and means their outcome is dependent on Gaza's behavior. Seems they are to be treated as two different regions with different plans.

Yep. I'd be down for this.

 

[Coyote]

Some parts are iffy:

The refugee situation and the fact that the new nation of Palestine (unlike Israel with it's Jewish refugees) can not freely choose to allow them to return - it is subject to Israel's oversight. I don't think that should be the case. It is the right of a nation to choose who to allow citizenship to and who not to.

I agree with you that this is a tricky issue. On the one hand, its a valid point that Israel's security should be front and center on the issue. It serves no one to flood a newborn Palestine with hostile ISIS members. On the other hand, yes, sovereign States must have the right to determine their own immigration criteria. Still, its a JOINT committee, so there is that. If I was negotiating this, I would put a time limit on it. I don't know, maybe a generation? 25 years?

Tying to tie Gaza to the West Bank. Culturally and politically they are different. Tying them together hinders the West Bank in developing the institutions needed for success and means their outcome is dependent on Gaza's behavior. Seems they are to be treated as two different regions with different plans.

Yep. I'd be down for this.

That might work, a sunset clause?

 

[Shusha]

The borders. Palestine is left with a "state" entirely dependent on Israel's good will. Discontinous Palestinian territory peppered Israeli enclaves creating even more discontunuity. What bothers me is that the solution is, repeatedly, state of the art crossings, bridges, etc etc. All in all a LOT of building in order to accommodate the incredible discontinuity. That means a lot of investment and maintenance while farmers, who can't even access parts of their land anymore, require hours to get around the security blocks just to reach the other end of their farm. Who is going to pay for it all and pay to maintain it? (Maybe I missed that or it's in the appendices).

I think this is a creative and viable solution to a very prickly problem. It offers freedom of movement to both Israelis and Palestinians, entirely within their own state, without having to cross into the other state.

But bring me your offers, then. What would you suggest as an alternative? Forced expulsion of populations? Forcing Palestine to accept hundreds of thousands of Israelis (who would become Palestinians)? How would you protect the Jewish population of Palestine in that case?

Viability. What makes for a viable state? I read something a while back on this but I can't find it. It was an article that listed characteristics that helped make a state viable or successful - it included access to ports, either rivers or ocean. Looking a the map for the Palestinian state (WB only) it has NO direct access to the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, or the Mediterranean. Promises of port access, special roads, and resorts and just that - promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given. When I looked up rivers in Israel (Google Maps) they seems to be almost nothing in the Palestinian area (assuming I am reading it right). Lack of control over water resources makes a state extremely vulnerable.

Well, the plan covers a joined Palestine, so they would have access to a port. If we were going to change that, we could always give WB a tunnel or road to a port. Why not?

Lack of water resources make lots of states vulnerable. No different than dozens of other states. Palestine will have to deal with it the way those others deal with it. Good trade relations, technology, etc.

Acknowledging the Palestinian's culture. I think what bothers me a lot is that this almost reads like the total imposition of another (American) culture and values over the Palestinians. It has a glitzy, salesman quality to it that seems to totally ignore the possibility that the Palestinians have their own culture, which may not be the same as ours.

This would have to be addressed in some sort of counter-offer. What would you suggest?

Any plan that will work has to recognize this and work within the existing culture to affect reforms over time in those areas where reforms are really needed (corruption, human rights). Imposing it, in the form of a "peace plan" is doomed to failure imo.

That is on the Palestinians to achieve. They can only be given so much of a leg-up.

There is a heavy heavy dependence on yet-to-be-specified massive amounts of money.

Palestinians are the receipients of the largest amounts financial aid ever in history. Let's put the money towards progress and peace.

And lastly, but most important - complete lack of any input from the Palestinians and more, a seeming lack of interest for input from the Palestinians. And I think that is important.

The opportunity for input is happening right now. Let's see if they take it up. (I am not hopeful).

promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given

Yeah. Israel learned that with Gaza.

What we are discussing here is a Peace Agreement. Peace Agreements signed by the Parties concerned are the CORNERSTONE of modern relations between States. You are attempting to say here that Israel can't really be trusted. The implication that Israel will unilaterally and arbitrarily break Treaties made in good faith with a real partner for peace is a vile accusation playing off the "unique evil" trope.

 

[Shusha]

Some parts are iffy:

The refugee situation and the fact that the new nation of Palestine (unlike Israel with it's Jewish refugees) can not freely choose to allow them to return - it is subject to Israel's oversight. I don't think that should be the case. It is the right of a nation to choose who to allow citizenship to and who not to.

I agree with you that this is a tricky issue. On the one hand, its a valid point that Israel's security should be front and center on the issue. It serves no one to flood a newborn Palestine with hostile ISIS members. On the other hand, yes, sovereign States must have the right to determine their own immigration criteria. Still, its a JOINT committee, so there is that. If I was negotiating this, I would put a time limit on it. I don't know, maybe a generation? 25 years?

Tying to tie Gaza to the West Bank. Culturally and politically they are different. Tying them together hinders the West Bank in developing the institutions needed for success and means their outcome is dependent on Gaza's behavior. Seems they are to be treated as two different regions with different plans.

Yep. I'd be down for this.

That might work, a sunset clause?

Seems reasonable. I mean, if Arab Palestine is going to take up an offer of peace, it serves them ill nearly as much as Israel to have ISIS or other extremist groups using their country for a base.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Agree. Annexation, IMO, was always in their plans, based on their strategy of shifting the demographics to make it more favorable, this just officially opens the door for them.

I disagree annexation was "always" in Israel's plans. Annexation became part of the necessary conversation about 10-12 years ago as a result of the Arab Palestinian response to Israeli disengagement in Gaza. Even then, there was a settlement freeze. Its only been in the past 5-10 years that annexation has come to the forefront of the conversation. And it is largely a result of continued violence from Gaza and the assumption that the WB would react in a similar fashion. That is the CAUSE of the annexation of the Jordan Valley. Its a security need. That is the CAUSE of the annexation of large settlement blocs. Its a security need. That need for security is a direct result of Arab Palestinian actions and they are responsible for it.

I disagree annexation was "always" in Israel's plans. Annexation became part of the necessary conversation about 10-12 years ago as a result of the Arab Palestinian response to Israeli disengagement in Gaza.

Israel has been annexing land to build settlements since 1948.

 

[rylah]

Ok, I've the reading Vision.
Principally I reject any national determination in any land allotted for Jewish sovereignty, and especially Judea, other than that of Israel.

For the vote, because intuitively something still holds me from apparently voting "no", I'll make a conditional compromise, and test it according to proportion between the dangers and the gains from agreeing to taking part in the plan ( as if accepted without changes due to negotiations) as it is.
I need some time to weigh it out.

Now skipping analysis, and I've tried playing different scenarios - without being naive about both parties, and the most objective thing I can say, is for both of them, the smartest thing is to cease the opportunity and improvise later.

Even if none take the end goals seriously, there's so much to grab to bring immediate improvement,
while in the stage of negotiations which takes years, especially for the Arabs, big packages of candies on each stage of development.

There's a big political obstacle here, way bigger than the one in Israel, that is too evident on the Arab side. Namely, Abbas is unlikely to end his career in agreement to such a deal, and he certainly doesn't want to get murdered for which there will be much legitimacy on the street. All the while the US denied Hamas and others except the PA while forwarding definite conditions under which it can be beneficiary or part to the plan.

So I said 'skipping analysis', I'm just saying all these suggest the US has additional political bets in the PA for the nearest future, probably in coordination with Arab League states.

(To conclude )

- on the top of it Oslo was recognition of PLO which was Israel's self-defeat,
the Trump Deal is about 'end of all claims'... What is left is to weigh out what between those two.
That again, if I can abandon all ideology, and go strictly cold pragmatism.

How can someone sign an end to Israel's claim in Judea, I frankly cannot comprehend!

Who would want this on his name, as the peak of political career?!

But again, I need to review this from a strategic perspective, so still give it the benefit of the doubt.
So I probably best enjoy Shabat, and have a better perspective on this with a fresh mind next week.






In the meantime, there were several things positive and negative, that caught my attention, that I think worth a discussion on its own (as many of the programs), so if anyone wants to discuss specifically...:

1. Prayer on the Temple Mount
2. Enclaves
3. Triangle territory exchange
4. Gaza-WB oil/gas rig
5. Investment in neighbors
6. 2 new cities in Negev
7. Demilitarized no Hamas and "Jihad on Jihad"
8. Dead Sea resort
9 .Tourism 3 countries.

 

[Coyote]

The borders. Palestine is left with a "state" entirely dependent on Israel's good will. Discontinous Palestinian territory peppered Israeli enclaves creating even more discontunuity. What bothers me is that the solution is, repeatedly, state of the art crossings, bridges, etc etc. All in all a LOT of building in order to accommodate the incredible discontinuity. That means a lot of investment and maintenance while farmers, who can't even access parts of their land anymore, require hours to get around the security blocks just to reach the other end of their farm. Who is going to pay for it all and pay to maintain it? (Maybe I missed that or it's in the appendices).

I think this is a creative and viable solution to a very prickly problem. It offers freedom of movement to both Israelis and Palestinians, entirely within their own state, without having to cross into the other state.

But bring me your offers, then. What would you suggest as an alternative? Forced expulsion of populations? Forcing Palestine to accept hundreds of thousands of Israelis (who would become Palestinians)? How would you protect the Jewish population of Palestine in that case?

I'm really not sure, but it would not be forced expulsions. At one point though you had suggested that Jewish enclaves in Palestininan areas would remain in Palestine and Arab enclaves in Israeli areas would remain in Israel, they could choose to retain their citizenship or take a new citizenship but would not be forced to move. Is that off the table?

Viability. What makes for a viable state? I read something a while back on this but I can't find it. It was an article that listed characteristics that helped make a state viable or successful - it included access to ports, either rivers or ocean. Looking a the map for the Palestinian state (WB only) it has NO direct access to the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, or the Mediterranean. Promises of port access, special roads, and resorts and just that - promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given. When I looked up rivers in Israel (Google Maps) they seems to be almost nothing in the Palestinian area (assuming I am reading it right). Lack of control over water resources makes a state extremely vulnerable.

Well, the plan covers a joined Palestine, so they would have access to a port. If we were going to change that, we could always give WB a tunnel or road to a port. Why not?

Lack of water resources make lots of states vulnerable. No different than dozens of other states. Palestine will have to deal with it the way those others deal with it. Good trade relations, technology, etc.

Actually yes different from other states in that it is completely surrounded by another state who can control access to other nations, water resources, ports. I'm just curious not give them direct access at some point of the Jordan river or the Dead Sea? Why not allow them a bit of border with Jordan?

Acknowledging the Palestinian's culture. I think what bothers me a lot is that this almost reads like the total imposition of another (American) culture and values over the Palestinians. It has a glitzy, salesman quality to it that seems to totally ignore the possibility that the Palestinians have their own culture, which may not be the same as ours.

This would have to be addressed in some sort of counter-offer. What would you suggest?

I don't think it would be addressed in a counter offer because the ENTIRE plan almost is based on placing a whole new culture over the Palestinian one. For example, a requirement for western style financial institutions yet - suppose what they, as a culture prefer, is Sharia compliant financial systems? When I'm reading this plan, I'm seeing a very Americanized idea of what Palestine should be. Some good, some comes off with a "we know what's best for you" almost colonialist attitude. I would feel more comfortable if there was Palestinian input - doesn't have to be leadership, but Palestinians who would be effected and who would have to make it work.

Any plan that will work has to recognize this and work within the existing culture to affect reforms over time in those areas where reforms are really needed (corruption, human rights). Imposing it, in the form of a "peace plan" is doomed to failure imo.

That is on the Palestinians to achieve. They can only be given so much of a leg-up.

It's not about a leg up.

There is a heavy heavy dependence on yet-to-be-specified massive amounts of money.

Palestinians are the receipients of the largest amounts financial aid ever in history. Let's put the money towards progress and peace.

And lastly, but most important - complete lack of any input from the Palestinians and more, a seeming lack of interest for input from the Palestinians. And I think that is important.

The opportunity for input is happening right now. Let's see if they take it up. (I am not hopeful).

No. The opportunity for input is not happening. It's presented to them as fully baked. That's it.

Imagine if Trump unilaterally declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine.

And unilaterally cancelled all aid to Israel.

And closed Israel's embassy in the US.

Then Kushner got together with Abbas, and other Arab states and formulated a Peace Plan and Economic Development plan for Israel and Palestine.

Then presented it to Israel as a "take it or leave it" (and imply that the Jews are morons who don't know what's good for them).

That would go over well wouldn't it? That would really get them to the negotiating table right?

promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given

Yeah. Israel learned that with Gaza.

What we are discussing here is a Peace Agreement. Peace Agreements signed by the Parties concerned are the CORNERSTONE of modern relations between States. You are attempting to say here that Israel can't really be trusted. The implication that Israel will unilaterally and arbitrarily break Treaties made in good faith with a real partner for peace is a vile accusation playing off the "unique evil" trope.

No. There is no "unique evil" trope so quit throwing that out! It's a reality. It happens. My own country walked out of two major international agreements - just. like that. ANY country has to take into account it's own security and the security and well being of its citizens. Why would Palestine be any different? The more points of dependence there are on other countries for basic needs, economy, and resources the more vulnerable they are if that country chose to leave the agreement or act putatively.

Why do you expect Palestine to be different than other countries in what they need?

 

[rylah]

There is really nothing else to say, and the last time I found myself to be as saddened over being in complete agreement with an author's take I cannot recall:

Trump’s Peace Plan Is a Trojan Horse That Aims to Make Israeli Occupation Permanent

With its glossy cover, talk of a two-state solution, and the promise of billions of dollars in investment, Trump’s peace plan is little more than a piece of political malware masquerading as a credible diplomatic initiative. The goal is not to bring about peace but to normalize the status quo, including Israel’s military rule over millions of Palestinians, and render it permanent.

Despite its talk of “compromises” on “both sides,” the plan satisfies a long list of right-wing Israeli demands on virtually all core issues in the conflict—from an undivided Jerusalem to annexing occupied territory to liquidating the rights of Palestinian refugees. Although the plan purports to be “realistic” and “fact-based,” it is mired in historical and political revisionism. [...]

The centerpiece of the plan is the creation of a so-called Palestinian state in roughly 70 percent of the West Bank but one that is shorn of any meaningful sovereignty. The roughly 120 or so Israeli settlements, along with the 650,000 Israeli settlers now living throughout the Israeli-occupied West Bank, would remain under permanent Israeli control, as would the entirety of the Jordan Valley—thus completely encircling the putative Palestinian state with annexed Israeli land. The Trump vision is in effect a recipe for indefinite Israeli occupation—a sort of Palestinian Bantustan surrounded by Israel and entirely at its mercy.

Palestine’s borders, airspace, territorial waters, and electromagnetic sphere would remain under Israel’s control, while its government would be stripped of the ability to enter into treaties. Territorial contiguity would be reserved for Israel and its settlements, while Palestinians would get only “transportation contiguity” through a “state-of-the-art” network of bridges, roads, and tunnels.

What’s more, the emergence of this encircled and disjointed Palestinian entity would itself be subject to numerous conditions, including an array of legal, political, fiscal, and security reforms, such as the disarming and pacification of Hamas in Gaza—with the ultimate decision on whether the conditions had been met left to Israel. One of the more disturbing elements of the Trump plan includes a proposal to swap areas of Israel proper that are currently heavily populated by Palestinian citizens of Israel to the so-called Palestinian state—an idea championed by racial purists on Israel’s far-right, who seek to reduce the number of non-Jews living in Israel.

Jerusalem, perhaps the most sensitive and contentious of all permanent status issues, would remain undivided and under permanent Israeli sovereignty. Palestinians would be allowed to set up a capital near (but notably not in) the city of Jerusalem, which “could be named Al-Quds or another name as determined by the State of Palestine.”

The plan also takes the issue of Palestinian refugees, including those who fled or were driven from their homes during Israel’s creation in 1948 and their descendants, off the table. While previous peace negotiations—including the Clinton Parameters of 2000 and the Annapolis negotiations of 2007-2008—provided for at least a symbolic return of some refugees, the Trump plan states rather explicitly that there would be “no right of return by, or absorption of, any Palestinian refugee into the State of Israel.” Instead, Palestinian refugees would choose integration in their current host countries, resettlement in third countries, or absorption in the newly created Palestinian entity.

The chances that Palestinians would agree to negotiate on the basis of the Trump vision are nil. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas angrily dismissed the plan as a “conspiracy” that would eventually be relegated to the “the dustbin of history” while threatening to take the matter to the International Court of Justice.

The plan may well have been designed to elicit a Palestinian “no,” which could then be used as pretext for Israeli annexation. Indeed, within hours of the plan’s unveiling, Netanyahu announced that the process of extending Israeli sovereignty to areas not allocated to the Palestinian entity would be taken up by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, within a matter of days. Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, was quick to offer unqualified support for any such annexation.​

This is a catastrophe, and the initiation, the emboldening of a heinous crime, perpetrated under a threadbare veil of fake benevolence. In reality, it is a "good job" done on the Palestinians, and, if initial reporting proves accurate, they are going to get it hard and fast.

A bogus so called "Peace Plan" where the Palestinian's weren't given a seat at the negotiation table and all the terms are dictated to them by the U.S. and Israel. ...

Abbas was invited; he wouldn't even take Trump's phone call

Abbas was invited to sign on to the so called Peace Plan "after" the U.S. and Israel had worked out the terms without any input from the Palestinians. ...

This is simply not true.
Neither have you actually read it.

 

[rylah]

Agree. Annexation, IMO, was always in their plans, based on their strategy of shifting the demographics to make it more favorable, this just officially opens the door for them.

I disagree annexation was "always" in Israel's plans. Annexation became part of the necessary conversation about 10-12 years ago as a result of the Arab Palestinian response to Israeli disengagement in Gaza. Even then, there was a settlement freeze. Its only been in the past 5-10 years that annexation has come to the forefront of the conversation. And it is largely a result of continued violence from Gaza and the assumption that the WB would react in a similar fashion. That is the CAUSE of the annexation of the Jordan Valley. Its a security need. That is the CAUSE of the annexation of large settlement blocs. Its a security need. That need for security is a direct result of Arab Palestinian actions and they are responsible for it.

I disagree annexation was "always" in Israel's plans. Annexation became part of the necessary conversation about 10-12 years ago as a result of the Arab Palestinian response to Israeli disengagement in Gaza.

Israel has been annexing land to build settlements since 1948.

Nothing that international law didn't vest with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation.
Remind you we discuss 2020, stay on topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Agree. Annexation, IMO, was always in their plans, based on their strategy of shifting the demographics to make it more favorable, this just officially opens the door for them.

I disagree annexation was "always" in Israel's plans. Annexation became part of the necessary conversation about 10-12 years ago as a result of the Arab Palestinian response to Israeli disengagement in Gaza. Even then, there was a settlement freeze. Its only been in the past 5-10 years that annexation has come to the forefront of the conversation. And it is largely a result of continued violence from Gaza and the assumption that the WB would react in a similar fashion. That is the CAUSE of the annexation of the Jordan Valley. Its a security need. That is the CAUSE of the annexation of large settlement blocs. Its a security need. That need for security is a direct result of Arab Palestinian actions and they are responsible for it.

I disagree annexation was "always" in Israel's plans. Annexation became part of the necessary conversation about 10-12 years ago as a result of the Arab Palestinian response to Israeli disengagement in Gaza.

Israel has been annexing land to build settlements since 1948.

Annexing the shit out of it.
Hurry up, Palestine is only gonna get smaller...…..