Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
This would have to be addressed in some sort of counter-offer. What would you suggest?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.
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.
That is on the Palestinians to achieve. They can only be given so much of a leg-up.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.
It's not about a leg up.
Palestinians are the receipients of the largest amounts financial aid ever in history. Let's put the money towards progress and peace.There is a heavy heavy dependence on yet-to-be-specified massive amounts of money.
The opportunity for input is happening right now. Let's see if they take it up. (I am not hopeful).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.
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?
Yeah. Israel learned that with Gaza.promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given
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?
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. ...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.
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. ...Abbas was invited; he wouldn't even take Trump's phone call
This is simply not true.
Neither have you actually read it.
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. ...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.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. ...Abbas was invited; he wouldn't even take Trump's phone call
This is simply not true.
Neither have you actually read it.
Sorry, but he even refused Trump's phone call
Palestine’s Abbas refuses to take calls from US’ Trump
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?
This would have to be addressed in some sort of counter-offer. What would you suggest?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.
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.
That is on the Palestinians to achieve. They can only be given so much of a leg-up.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.
It's not about a leg up.
Palestinians are the receipients of the largest amounts financial aid ever in history. Let's put the money towards progress and peace.There is a heavy heavy dependence on yet-to-be-specified massive amounts of money.
The opportunity for input is happening right now. Let's see if they take it up. (I am not hopeful).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.
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?
Yeah. Israel learned that with Gaza.promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given
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?
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.Israel has been annexing land to build settlements since 1948.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.
Annexing the shit out of it.
Hurry up, Palestine is only gonna get smaller...…..
flacaltenn brings up an extremely relevant point (on the other thread).
In the absence of a fully functioning government in Palestine, and given Abbas’ age, can we credibly our faith in government continuity and adherence to any potential Peace Treaty? Assuming an unlikely acceptance.
The deal of the century has certainly brought people together. Fatah and Hamas were in meetings whilst trump was lauding his impeachment deflection .
The plan requires the Palestinians, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad to completely disarm, end all payments to terrorists and end all demonization of Israel and Jews within 4 years or they don't get a state. In four years? Maybe in four generations.Negotiate with violent losers?As usual, you have misrepresented the facts. The Palestinians weren't excluded from participation in drawing up the plan, they simply refused to participate. The annexation map was drawn up so that no Arab villages would be annexed. While the Palestinians refused to participate in drawing up the plan, in an effort to be fair, the US worked closely with Arab states including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both strong supporters of the Palestinian national aspirations, to fairly represent Palestinian interests, and both countries strongly support the plan.
Israel did not get everything it wanted. If the Palestinians agree to participate in the plan, Israel will have to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state in approximately 70% of Judea and Samaria in addition to Gaza, and Israel will have to allow the Palestinians to operate their own shipping companies out of Haifa and Ashdod, allowing the Palestinians direct access to North Africa and Europe without going through Israeli customs. Both of these items are very unpopular in Israel. In addition, Israel will have to agree to a four year freeze on construction in area that go to the Palestinians if they agree to the plan.
What the Palestinians get is US and Israeli recognition of a sovereign state of Palestine in 70% of Judea and Samaria in addition to Gaza - ,making their new state eligible for membership in the UN -their own shipping companies in Haifa and Ashdod that will not have to go through Israeli customs, and sufficient investment in the Palestinian economy - at least $25,000.000,000 - to double or triple their GDP and wages and salaries.
The question is not how this compares with what the Palestinians want, but how this compares to other options the Palestinians can realistically aspire to, and the answer is the only other option is the status quo, all this plan will cost the Palestinians is the inestimable joy they receive from murdering Jews.
Regarding this: As usual, you have misrepresented the facts. The Palestinians weren't excluded from participation in drawing up the plan, they simply refused to participate.
Did Jared Kushner have any talks with the Palestinians? Did he attempt any talks while formulating this? I don't think he did. He hashed it out first with Israel...no Palestinian invite. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember reading anything about Palestinians being invited 0 only Jared trotting off to Israel.
And add Trump's actions towards them regarding Jerusalem, their consulate, and international aid - of course they weren't going to be part of it later.
Kushner basically trashed the Palestinian people with the type of statement that harkens back to the Paternalistic attitudes of the colonial empires:
"Do they want to have a state? Do they want to have a better life? If they do, we have created a framework for them to have it, and we’re going to treat them in a very respectful manner. If they don’t, then they’re going to screw up another opportunity like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence."
There is at best, a certain naiveté and arrogance in some of it. The development ideas are straight out of an American frame of reference and there is a certain pie-in-the-sky aspect to it (where in the heck is all the money going to come from?). There is a heavy reliance on state of the art this and high speed that and a hell of a lot of infrastructure. It reminds me of a real-estate developer's model for a proposed community sales pitch. Most often, development works best in conjunction with the communities it is supposed to serve and a bottom up not top down approach. Has anyone asked the Palestinian people (not leadership) what they envision?
I've only read the first 30 pages, and this is what I've noticed so far.
That said - I do think there are some possibilities, but it may have been rendered toxic by the method in which it was created.
And still - where will all this money come from? A lot of promises....That's crazy.Regarding this: As usual, you have misrepresented the facts. The Palestinians weren't excluded from participation in drawing up the plan, they simply refused to participate.
Jerusalem is off the table. Refugees are off the table Settlements are off the table. The Jordan Valley is off the table. Controlling your own borders is off the table.
So why don't you want to negotiate?
Some points from the article I posted upthread resonated with me. How do we know rocket attacks on Israel made from a future Palestinian state won't happen?
Gazan style.
Unlike you, I haven't been rude or called anyone names during this entire thread. ..
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?
This would have to be addressed in some sort of counter-offer. What would you suggest?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.
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.
That is on the Palestinians to achieve. They can only be given so much of a leg-up.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.
It's not about a leg up.
Palestinians are the receipients of the largest amounts financial aid ever in history. Let's put the money towards progress and peace.There is a heavy heavy dependence on yet-to-be-specified massive amounts of money.
The opportunity for input is happening right now. Let's see if they take it up. (I am not hopeful).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.
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?
Yeah. Israel learned that with Gaza.promises and they can be as easily taken away as they are given
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?
These are not real problems.
Neither the terms you use contradict those of the various programs in the plan, which are specifically modeled after successful Arab League countries.
Also...I know, I know...but Switzerland comes to mind...
That is why, in any deal, I think Gaza and WB should be dealt with separately.But Hamas in Gaza is just gonna have to make it's own deal.. Fatah and the PA want nothing to do with them..
flacaltenn brings up an extremely relevant point (on the other thread).
In the absence of a fully functioning government in Palestine, and given Abbas’ age, can we credibly our faith in government continuity and adherence to any potential Peace Treaty? Assuming an unlikely acceptance.
Of course you can't.. NO PLAN can proceed without a delegation of representatives that come from a STABLE process of selection.. It's all irrelevant if that can't happen...
We made too big a deal about "National Elections".. Pushed the Palis into a Civil War by doing so.. Even when ISRAEL was telling the US it was not TIME for elections, our political calendar said it was.. And it destroyed the PA by exposing the weaknesses in SUPPORT for a "powerful central govt"...
At THIS TIME -- the best way to GET stable and PRESCRIBED Pali leadership might be to just accept the top officials from each of the 5 or 6 biggest Pali cities and ACCEPT THEM as representative.. The local scale politics is more representative of the whole of Pali opinion anyways...
What was the question? ...Deflection. Just answer the question. You can’t or won’t
That is why, in any deal, I think Gaza and WB should be dealt with separately.
Regarding this: As usual, you have misrepresented the facts. The Palestinians weren't excluded from participation in drawing up the plan, they simply refused to participate.
Did Jared Kushner have any talks with the Palestinians? Did he attempt any talks while formulating this? I don't think he did. He hashed it out first with Israel...no Palestinian invite. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember reading anything about Palestinians being invited 0 only Jared trotting off to Israel.
And add Trump's actions towards them regarding Jerusalem, their consulate, and international aid - of course they weren't going to be part of it later.
Kushner basically trashed the Palestinian people with the type of statement that harkens back to the Paternalistic attitudes of the colonial empires:
"Do they want to have a state? Do they want to have a better life? If they do, we have created a framework for them to have it, and we’re going to treat them in a very respectful manner. If they don’t, then they’re going to screw up another opportunity like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence."
There is at best, a certain naiveté and arrogance in some of it. The development ideas are straight out of an American frame of reference and there is a certain pie-in-the-sky aspect to it (where in the heck is all the money going to come from?). There is a heavy reliance on state of the art this and high speed that and a hell of a lot of infrastructure. It reminds me of a real-estate developer's model for a proposed community sales pitch. Most often, development works best in conjunction with the communities it is supposed to serve and a bottom up not top down approach. Has anyone asked the Palestinian people (not leadership) what they envision?
I've only read the first 30 pages, and this is what I've noticed so far.
That said - I do think there are some possibilities, but it may have been rendered toxic by the method in which it was created.
And still - where will all this money come from? A lot of promises....
False premise.
Jordan ceded the West Bank to Israel in 1994 - Israel cannot "occupy" its own land.
