Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

[Hollie]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Hamas obviously has a military wing so I’m not sure why you would claim Palestine has no military.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Hamas obviously has a military wing so I’m not sure why you would claim Palestine has no military.

They are talking about Trump's peace plan, under which Palestine would have no military.

 

[Coyote]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Hamas obviously has a military wing so I’m not sure why you would claim Palestine has no military.

I didn't claim that. Perhaps you should reread my post.

 

[Hollie]

Originally posted by Hollie
Islamic terrorists expected up to give up Islamic terrorism?

That’s just, you know, racist or something.

Well, to be fair, the history of "negotiations" between every settler colonialist state that has ever existed in human history and the natives they subjugated (America and Indians, Afrikaners and black south africans, France and Algeria's natives etc, etc...) can be summed up by the 4th item FY forgot to mention:

The natives were expected to spread their asscheeks and hope it wouldn't be too fat.

So no one can say I'm unfairly singling out Israel.

You seem not to have noticed that some societies (oddly, non-islamist societies), have managed to overcome religious, tribal alliances and joined the modern world. I would cite Hong Kong, Vietnam, South Korea and Israel to name a few. It is possible to overcome adversity and some societies can take control of their future, Some, not all.

And oddly, there Muslim majority societies such as Senegal that can join that list.

Let’s hope they can keep their islam under control.

 

[Coyote]

#3 would be ideal but unlikely I'm guessing.

#2 would be criminal and as a member of Team Palestine I'm totally opposed to any involuntary displacements.

#1 probably the best work around and any solution will most likely incorporate some version of this.

Exactly. We agree. #3 is optimal, but "off the table" as far as Palestine is concerned. We might morally disagree with that position, and for good reasons, but ... shrug, what can you do?

We agree. #2 is criminal and a violation of human rights (not to mention TOTALLY hypocritical of the Arab Palestinians as in "you must not remove us, but we have the right to remove you" sort of way.) Also off the table.

Therefore, Swiss Cheesy is the only viable, realistic solution to the problem. I'll suggest, then, that complaints against the Plan because "contiguity" fall into the "not real problems" category. Though there is still room to argue "we need a little more territory" from the Palestinians.

It's not a "not real" problem because no matter what the logistics of it ARE problematic. So to shuffle it off as a "not real" problem is in my opinion unreal.

Just for reference can you think of any other country that has had to deal with something like this in terms of borders?

 

[Hollie]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Hamas obviously has a military wing so I’m not sure why you would claim Palestine has no military.

I didn't claim that. Perhaps you should reread my post.

I did mis-read your comment. My apologies.

 

[Shusha]

For example, discuss control of borders, territorial waters, airspace.

I agree these things are NECESSARY for sovereignty and thus, Palestine should have them. (Note its perfectly fine for one State to be completely enclosed by another State. There are several of them in the world.)

How can we give Palestine this control while STILL ensuring Israel's security? (And also protecting the lives of Palestinians by ensuring Israel never has to defend itself.)


Palestinians

I would propose a reversal of the fundamental premise of the clauses in the Trump Framework. The current Framework prioritizes Israel's security, creates a normalization of Israeli security control and conditions removal of security on "good behaviour" by the Palestinians. I suggest we reverse this and make Palestine's sovereignty the default and expect its normalization at some point in the future. Its a subtle shift in attitude, and won't make much difference in practical terms for the near future, but its a necessary step for full Palestinian sovereignty.

That is interesting and intrigues me, but I'm having a hard time visualizing it. Can you expand on this one thing?

That said, any peace deal will HAVE to confront Israeli need for security.

I agree on that point.

If I understand you correctly about what you want clarification on...

The wording of the Plan as it stand now is:

1. The State of Palestine shall be fully demilitarized and remain so.
2. The State of Palestine will have security forces capable of managing internal security and preventing terrorist attacks within the State of Palestine and against the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt ... These specific capabilities may not violate the principle that the State of Palestine shall remain fully demilitarized, derogate the State of Israel's over-riding security responsibility and will be agreed upon by the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
3. This security protocol is intended to continue unless and until there is a different agreement by both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

I would argue that, in principle, this needs to be reframed.

It is recognized that the State of Palestine, having attained full and recognized sovereignty and agreeing to live in peace with her neighbors and abide by the principles as laid out in the Charter of the United Nations, shall embrace the responsibility of retaining military forces for the explicit purpose of protecting her citizens and territorial integrity from aggression. This principle will be temporarily mitigated by voluntary compliance of supervision by the State of Israel.

1. The State of Palestine shall be fully demilitarized for a period of not less than 50 years.
2. The State of Palestine and the State of Israel will have a mutual defense pact in all cases of external aggression.
3. The State of Palestine will have security forces capable of managing internal security and preventing terrorist attacks within the State of Palestine and against the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt. These security forces will work closely with supervising forces from the State of Israel, especially with respect to border security.
4. Should the State of Palestine, or its security forces, violate the principles of peaceful co-existence with her neighbors, the State of Israel shall have the immediate and unilateral responsibility for the over-riding security for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel.
5. Following the period of demilitarization an international Committee consisting of the State of Israel, the United States, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Arab Republic of Egypt and five member States agreed upon by the four permanent Committee members will agree to either release the State of Palestine from this requirement, or to renew it for a period of time at their discretion.

(The above its perfect, but I had 15 minutes to work on it instead of 3 years).

The principle is just a shift in attitude. The State of Palestine has a right to a military force and to defend itself. That right has been temporarily restricted but will be restored with co-operation and continued peace in the best interests of both nations.

I also feel like there should be a really big stick here, but can't for the life of me figure out what it should be.

 

[rylah]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

 

[Shusha]

So why wouldn't there be a reason they might want to end this conflict given the more urgent and destabilizing issues emerging in the area?

Yep. The Arab world is choosing up sides whether they are going to be part of the "destabilizing" or the "stabilizing". They present a nice united front for the most part, but when Iran comes knocking ...

The sad part is that Abbas seems to be choosing the wrong side, and ultimately what I believe to be the losing side. And its going to hurt.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ et al,

As I said in Posting #15686 (Jan 24, 2020), future criminal life-style is often predictable by reviewing the history of past criminal behaviors. That applies equally to the future response of any Peace Plan that might be presented to the criminal; positions held by the Arab Palestinians.

Since the invitation to assist the UN Palestine Commission in the implementation of a peaceful solution to the "Question of Palestine," the Arab Palestinians adopted a political posture of belligerence, hostility and violence.

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."

"It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission."

The "Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
​

(COMMENT)

There is NO reason in the world to suggest that the majority of the Arab League or the Arab Palestinians would adopt a peaceful posture or any non-violence solution to the conflict. They are people who have repeatedly provided support for acts of terrorism and anti-Semitism.

I cannot (for the life of me) understand why any peaceful nation would provide any further support to the Arab Palestinian Regime.


Most Respectfully,
R

Your usual hit piece.

What would the US say if someone wanted to hack off everything west of the Mississippi and give it to foreign settlers?

 

[rylah]

For example, discuss control of borders, territorial waters, airspace.

I agree these things are NECESSARY for sovereignty and thus, Palestine should have them. (Note its perfectly fine for one State to be completely enclosed by another State. There are several of them in the world.)

How can we give Palestine this control while STILL ensuring Israel's security? (And also protecting the lives of Palestinians by ensuring Israel never has to defend itself.)

I would propose a reversal of the fundamental premise of the clauses in the Trump Framework. The current Framework prioritizes Israel's security, creates a normalization of Israeli security control and conditions removal of security on "good behaviour" by the Palestinians. I suggest we reverse this and make Palestine's sovereignty the default and expect its normalization at some point in the future. Its a subtle shift in attitude, and won't make much difference in practical terms for the near future, but its a necessary step for full Palestinian sovereignty.

That said, any peace deal will HAVE to confront Israeli need for security.

Maybe I'm missing something in the suggestion,
do You mean AFTER demilitarization?

 

[toastman]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ et al,

As I said in Posting #15686 (Jan 24, 2020), future criminal life-style is often predictable by reviewing the history of past criminal behaviors. That applies equally to the future response of any Peace Plan that might be presented to the criminal; positions held by the Arab Palestinians.

Since the invitation to assist the UN Palestine Commission in the implementation of a peaceful solution to the "Question of Palestine," the Arab Palestinians adopted a political posture of belligerence, hostility and violence.

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."

"It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission."

The "Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
​

(COMMENT)

There is NO reason in the world to suggest that the majority of the Arab League or the Arab Palestinians would adopt a peaceful posture or any non-violence solution to the conflict. They are people who have repeatedly provided support for acts of terrorism and anti-Semitism.

I cannot (for the life of me) understand why any peaceful nation would provide any further support to the Arab Palestinian Regime.


Most Respectfully,
R

Your usual hit piece.

What would the US say if someone wanted to hack off everything west of the Mississippi and give it to foreign settlers?

How is that in any way related to Israel or the Palestinians?

 

[Coyote]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

 

[Coyote]

For example, discuss control of borders, territorial waters, airspace.

I agree these things are NECESSARY for sovereignty and thus, Palestine should have them. (Note its perfectly fine for one State to be completely enclosed by another State. There are several of them in the world.)

How can we give Palestine this control while STILL ensuring Israel's security? (And also protecting the lives of Palestinians by ensuring Israel never has to defend itself.)


Palestinians

I would propose a reversal of the fundamental premise of the clauses in the Trump Framework. The current Framework prioritizes Israel's security, creates a normalization of Israeli security control and conditions removal of security on "good behaviour" by the Palestinians. I suggest we reverse this and make Palestine's sovereignty the default and expect its normalization at some point in the future. Its a subtle shift in attitude, and won't make much difference in practical terms for the near future, but its a necessary step for full Palestinian sovereignty.

That is interesting and intrigues me, but I'm having a hard time visualizing it. Can you expand on this one thing?

That said, any peace deal will HAVE to confront Israeli need for security.

I agree on that point.

If I understand you correctly about what you want clarification on...

The wording of the Plan as it stand now is:

1. The State of Palestine shall be fully demilitarized and remain so.
2. The State of Palestine will have security forces capable of managing internal security and preventing terrorist attacks within the State of Palestine and against the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt ... These specific capabilities may not violate the principle that the State of Palestine shall remain fully demilitarized, derogate the State of Israel's over-riding security responsibility and will be agreed upon by the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
3. This security protocol is intended to continue unless and until there is a different agreement by both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

I would argue that, in principle, this needs to be reframed.

It is recognized that the State of Palestine, having attained full and recognized sovereignty and agreeing to live in peace with her neighbors and abide by the principles as laid out in the Charter of the United Nations, shall embrace the responsibility of retaining military forces for the explicit purpose of protecting her citizens and territorial integrity from aggression. This principle will be temporarily mitigated by voluntary compliance of supervision by the State of Israel.

1. The State of Palestine shall be fully demilitarized for a period of not less than 50 years.
2. The State of Palestine and the State of Israel will have a mutual defense pact in all cases of external aggression.
3. The State of Palestine will have security forces capable of managing internal security and preventing terrorist attacks within the State of Palestine and against the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt. These security forces will work closely with supervising forces from the State of Israel, especially with respect to border security.
4. Should the State of Palestine, or its security forces, violate the principles of peaceful co-existence with her neighbors, the State of Israel shall have the immediate and unilateral responsibility for the over-riding security for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel.
5. Following the period of demilitarization an international Committee consisting of the State of Israel, the United States, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Arab Republic of Egypt and five member States agreed upon by the four permanent Committee members will agree to either release the State of Palestine from this requirement, or to renew it for a period of time at their discretion.

(The above its perfect, but I had 15 minutes to work on it instead of 3 years).

The principle is just a shift in attitude. The State of Palestine has a right to a military force and to defend itself. That right has been temporarily restricted but will be restored with co-operation and continued peace in the best interests of both nations.

I also feel like there should be a really big stick here, but can't for the life of me figure out what it should be.

Interesting what a shift reframing it does. It recognizes the essential rights.

I'm curious how the agreements made with Japan were worded after WW2, I never looked other than very generally. I wonder if there is anything applicable there?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

 

[Coyote]

So why wouldn't there be a reason they might want to end this conflict given the more urgent and destabilizing issues emerging in the area?

Yep. The Arab world is choosing up sides whether they are going to be part of the "destabilizing" or the "stabilizing". They present a nice united front for the most part, but when Iran comes knocking ...

The sad part is that Abbas seems to be choosing the wrong side, and ultimately what I believe to be the losing side. And its going to hurt.

Abbas' leadership is not very strong and he is not very popular.

I think parts of the Arab world is maturing in the area of world wide geo-politics and economies. I think they realize making peace with Israel is in everyone's best interest. IMO only. But seeing the refugees from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, the growth of much more sophisticated terrorist ideologies that are destabilizing to themselves. I don't know...

 

[flacaltenn]

For example, discuss control of borders, territorial waters, airspace.

I agree these things are NECESSARY for sovereignty and thus, Palestine should have them. (Note its perfectly fine for one State to be completely enclosed by another State. There are several of them in the world.)

How can we give Palestine this control while STILL ensuring Israel's security? (And also protecting the lives of Palestinians by ensuring Israel never has to defend itself.)

I would propose a reversal of the fundamental premise of the clauses in the Trump Framework. The current Framework prioritizes Israel's security, creates a normalization of Israeli security control and conditions removal of security on "good behaviour" by the Palestinians. I suggest we reverse this and make Palestine's sovereignty the default and expect its normalization at some point in the future. Its a subtle shift in attitude, and won't make much difference in practical terms for the near future, but its a necessary step for full Palestinian sovereignty.

That said, any peace deal will HAVE to confront Israeli need for security.

The whole "swiss cheezy" thing becomes a lot more palatable if governance of the Palestinians is largely on a LOCAL level.. Meaning there is no "top heavy" concentration of power at the federal level.. This is the "govt interface" that is MOST stable and offers the maximum CHOICE for Arabs that know all too well how "nation states" in the Mid East all become shotgun toting totalitarian dictatorships in short order..

It's STILL a 2 state solution if you don't press them for ceding their choices and freedom to a bulky fractured centralized govt that all the Intl 3rd party 'peace makers" expect. The "Federation of Palestine" under an Emirate plan would be composed of selected leadership from the City States or Emirates. And ONLY have the powers required to front an internationally recognized team for diplomacy, deal with immigration and customs and borders, trade disputes, issue currency and passports, deliver the mail, etc..

But what the current plan LACKS (among other details) is the CONNECTIVITY of these Emirates and the neighboring Arab states for trade. This is another feature of the "idea catalogue" I'm pushing right now to folks to DC..

The military protection aspect for Palestine in the short term would better be solved by having Palis negotiate with Egypt and Jordan and yes ISRAEL for mutual defense.. They would be lunch meat for decades expecting to hold off Iran or Caliphate determined radicals with their own armed forces. And it's not wildly unreasonable for Jordan and Egypt to agree given the progress made from "mutual defense" talks with Israel in the past years..

ALSO -- land is fungible.. And it's reasonable to ask Jordan and Egypt to kick in some to the "Federation of Palestine".. Have them give THEIR Pali refugees a choice between the limbo "non citizen status" they have there now or relocate to areas ADJACENT to the borders of the new "federation" and connected for transit and trade...

 

[Coyote]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.

At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.

So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?

 

[Indeependent]

So why wouldn't there be a reason they might want to end this conflict given the more urgent and destabilizing issues emerging in the area?

Yep. The Arab world is choosing up sides whether they are going to be part of the "destabilizing" or the "stabilizing". They present a nice united front for the most part, but when Iran comes knocking ...

The sad part is that Abbas seems to be choosing the wrong side, and ultimately what I believe to be the losing side. And its going to hurt.

Abbas' leadership is not very strong and he is not very popular.

I think parts of the Arab world is maturing in the area of world wide geo-politics and economies. I think they realize making peace with Israel is in everyone's best interest. IMO only. But seeing the refugees from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, the growth of much more sophisticated terrorist ideologies that are destabilizing to themselves. I don't know...

It is possible that Syria invading and taking over Lebanon encouraged Iraq to invade Syria.
In either case, no one seems to care.
Why doesn’t anyone care?
Because no other nation wants to upset them and be invaded.
It’s a cause/effect that had been apparent for over 70 years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For example, discuss control of borders, territorial waters, airspace.

I agree these things are NECESSARY for sovereignty and thus, Palestine should have them. (Note its perfectly fine for one State to be completely enclosed by another State. There are several of them in the world.)

How can we give Palestine this control while STILL ensuring Israel's security? (And also protecting the lives of Palestinians by ensuring Israel never has to defend itself.)


Palestinians

I would propose a reversal of the fundamental premise of the clauses in the Trump Framework. The current Framework prioritizes Israel's security, creates a normalization of Israeli security control and conditions removal of security on "good behaviour" by the Palestinians. I suggest we reverse this and make Palestine's sovereignty the default and expect its normalization at some point in the future. Its a subtle shift in attitude, and won't make much difference in practical terms for the near future, but its a necessary step for full Palestinian sovereignty.

That is interesting and intrigues me, but I'm having a hard time visualizing it. Can you expand on this one thing?

That said, any peace deal will HAVE to confront Israeli need for security.

I agree on that point.

If I understand you correctly about what you want clarification on...

The wording of the Plan as it stand now is:

1. The State of Palestine shall be fully demilitarized and remain so.
2. The State of Palestine will have security forces capable of managing internal security and preventing terrorist attacks within the State of Palestine and against the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt ... These specific capabilities may not violate the principle that the State of Palestine shall remain fully demilitarized, derogate the State of Israel's over-riding security responsibility and will be agreed upon by the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
3. This security protocol is intended to continue unless and until there is a different agreement by both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

I would argue that, in principle, this needs to be reframed.

It is recognized that the State of Palestine, having attained full and recognized sovereignty and agreeing to live in peace with her neighbors and abide by the principles as laid out in the Charter of the United Nations, shall embrace the responsibility of retaining military forces for the explicit purpose of protecting her citizens and territorial integrity from aggression. This principle will be temporarily mitigated by voluntary compliance of supervision by the State of Israel.

1. The State of Palestine shall be fully demilitarized for a period of not less than 50 years.
2. The State of Palestine and the State of Israel will have a mutual defense pact in all cases of external aggression.
3. The State of Palestine will have security forces capable of managing internal security and preventing terrorist attacks within the State of Palestine and against the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt. These security forces will work closely with supervising forces from the State of Israel, especially with respect to border security.
4. Should the State of Palestine, or its security forces, violate the principles of peaceful co-existence with her neighbors, the State of Israel shall have the immediate and unilateral responsibility for the over-riding security for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel.
5. Following the period of demilitarization an international Committee consisting of the State of Israel, the United States, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Arab Republic of Egypt and five member States agreed upon by the four permanent Committee members will agree to either release the State of Palestine from this requirement, or to renew it for a period of time at their discretion.

(The above its perfect, but I had 15 minutes to work on it instead of 3 years).

The principle is just a shift in attitude. The State of Palestine has a right to a military force and to defend itself. That right has been temporarily restricted but will be restored with co-operation and continued peace in the best interests of both nations.

I also feel like there should be a really big stick here, but can't for the life of me figure out what it should be.

So, what would be different than what we have now?