Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

[Coyote]

Is it difficult for Muslims to visit muslim shrines in that area?

To be fair, I've never tried to visit the Muslim shrines as a Muslim. So...I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that. Grin.

When I was in Israel two years ago, if I wanted to go to the Kotel, I walked through the Old City (easily accessible by taxi if you aren't lucky enough to be staying there) and down the stairs and through a simple security screen (bag on conveyor belt, walk through scanner) and I was there with free access to the Wall for as long as I wanted to be there. Free to touch the Wall, free to pray, free to watch people with glittering "JC loves you"! T-shirts take selfies. The Kotel is available 24 hours a day. I went down at noon, or at 9:00 at night or at 4:00 in the morning and it was the same. There was never a sense of being out of place, let alone unwelcome. And that seemed to be the experience of everyone. There were people there from all over the world, it was obvious. And people who lived in the Old City who came daily or weekly, also obvious. And everyone in between.

You can walk from the Jewish Quarter of the Old City to the Christian Quarter to the Muslim Quarter, and its pretty much the same in terms of welcome and its perfectly safe and no one will accost you other than aggressively wanting your tourist $$. And, as a woman alone, some of the shopkeepers are a little say, over enthusiastic, but the majority are lovely, lovely, warm people who will bring you strong coffee and ask about life in Canada. (Though I will say that at some places in the Muslim Quarter I did wish I had brought a head scarf.)

I didn't visit the Temple Mount on my last trip. I will say it seems to be a chore to do so. Have to be in line early in the morning on certain days. And limited numbers are allowed up (if you are not Muslim). I would like to attempt it on my next trip (which is in two weeks YAY!) but like my last work trip there, its work, not sure I will have the chance.

Anyway, not really what you asked, but I thought it was important to (long-windedly) share my experience.

I *think* that its really, really easy for Muslims to access the Temple Mount. Basically, the same experience as I just explained above with visiting the Kotel. You go through a gate and maybe a simple security check and then you are there.

The difference is that the Kotel experience is the same for everyone. The Temple Mount experience has different rules for Muslims and non-Muslims.

If I have this wrong or misunderstand this, please anyone let me know.

That is fascinating - thank you for your direct perspective on it

 

[Olde Europe]

Actually Haifa and Tel Aviv were "uninhabitable" sand dunes when they were started 100 years ago by the Israelis.

Haifa (ca. 3000 years old), in 1898, a few years before it was "started" by the "Israelis":

And no, I am not seriously debating outsiders, no matter who they happen to be, redrawing maps in the Middle East. Again. That is supposed to be a matter left to the peoples there, with, at best, the international community looking on to guarantee a modicum of fairness and to urge everybody to follow the law.

That piece-of-shit Trump plan, ludicrous and atrocious in about equal measure, is the exact opposite thereof. Small wonder that, as far as I have seen, hardly anyone outside a small circle of hasbara peddlers and U.S. sycophants endorsed it.

Ah, perhaps I should explain myself: Anyone who would deny, or so much as to cast doubt on, the fact of the occupation of the West Bank is a hasbara peddler. Anyone who would deny, or so much as to cast doubt on, the illegality of the Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank is a hasbara peddler. Anyone who would so much as imply the equation of Palestinians to terrorists is a hasbara peddler. The hasbara peddlers' mendacity and misrepresentations have as much grounding in fact or law as the climate change denialingdongs' delusions have in natural laws. That is, none. Neither group is worth the time and effort to debate. Life is way too short for such.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

In some ways she's right, but the Palestinians have done this to themselves by rejecting 98% of the West Bank and a shared Old City of Jerusalem in the past. So the deals will keep getting worse and worse for them. Whoever doesn't learn from the past is condemned to repeat those mistakes. Or make even worse mistakes.

The Palestinians have always rejected the "opportunity" to surrender.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

In some ways she's right, but the Palestinians have done this to themselves by rejecting 98% of the West Bank and a shared Old City of Jerusalem in the past. So the deals will keep getting worse and worse for them. Whoever doesn't learn from the past is condemned to repeat those mistakes. Or make even worse mistakes.

The Palestinians have always rejected the "opportunity" to surrender.

Oh, how macho! Surrender isn't the same thing as compromise. Interestingly, there's a word for Compromise in Hebrew--"peshara"--but none in Arabic.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan. They surrendered, and yet they are still a very prosperous nation today. Let's see how far the so-called Palestinians get with their stubborness! They might wind up at the bottom of the Read Sea, like the Pharaoh and Egyptians of old.

 

[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.

Indeed, Israel must secure its settler, colonial Project.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

Indeed, Israel must secure its settler, colonial Project.

You mean secure their ancestral, biblical and historic homeland.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

In some ways she's right, but the Palestinians have done this to themselves by rejecting 98% of the West Bank and a shared Old City of Jerusalem in the past. So the deals will keep getting worse and worse for them. Whoever doesn't learn from the past is condemned to repeat those mistakes. Or make even worse mistakes.

The Palestinians have always rejected the "opportunity" to surrender.

Oh, how macho! Surrender isn't the same thing as compromise. Interestingly, there's a word for Compromise in Hebrew--"peshara"--but none in Arabic.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan. They surrendered, and yet they are still a very prosperous nation today. Let's see how far the so-called Palestinians get with their stubborness! They might wind up at the bottom of the Read Sea, like the Pharaoh and Egyptians of old.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan.

Japan was not subject to settler colonialism. There is no comparison.

 

[Hollie]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

In some ways she's right, but the Palestinians have done this to themselves by rejecting 98% of the West Bank and a shared Old City of Jerusalem in the past. So the deals will keep getting worse and worse for them. Whoever doesn't learn from the past is condemned to repeat those mistakes. Or make even worse mistakes.

The Palestinians have always rejected the "opportunity" to surrender.

Oh, how macho! Surrender isn't the same thing as compromise. Interestingly, there's a word for Compromise in Hebrew--"peshara"--but none in Arabic.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan. They surrendered, and yet they are still a very prosperous nation today. Let's see how far the so-called Palestinians get with their stubborness! They might wind up at the bottom of the Read Sea, like the Pharaoh and Egyptians of old.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan.

Japan was not subject to settler colonialism. There is no comparison.

Indeed, no Arab-Moslem invaders.

 

[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.

This principle will be temporarily mitigated by voluntary compliance of supervision by the State of Israel.

The supervision of Israel is the conflict.

Until that ends there will be no peace.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

In some ways she's right, but the Palestinians have done this to themselves by rejecting 98% of the West Bank and a shared Old City of Jerusalem in the past. So the deals will keep getting worse and worse for them. Whoever doesn't learn from the past is condemned to repeat those mistakes. Or make even worse mistakes.

The Palestinians have always rejected the "opportunity" to surrender.

Oh, how macho! Surrender isn't the same thing as compromise. Interestingly, there's a word for Compromise in Hebrew--"peshara"--but none in Arabic.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan. They surrendered, and yet they are still a very prosperous nation today. Let's see how far the so-called Palestinians get with their stubborness! They might wind up at the bottom of the Read Sea, like the Pharaoh and Egyptians of old.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan.

Japan was not subject to settler colonialism. There is no comparison.

Indeed, no Arab-Moslem invaders.

Actually, the word "Palestinians" comes from the Hebrew word "Pelishtim" which means..."invaders!"

Not that the so-called Palestinians can even pronounce their own name. There's no P sound in Arabic.

 

[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.

This principle will be temporarily mitigated by voluntary compliance of supervision by the State of Israel.

The supervision of Israel is the conflict.

Until that ends there will be no peace.

Yet it didn't end when they withdrew from Gaza. Not even reduced.

 

[Coyote]

In some ways she's right, but the Palestinians have done this to themselves by rejecting 98% of the West Bank and a shared Old City of Jerusalem in the past. So the deals will keep getting worse and worse for them. Whoever doesn't learn from the past is condemned to repeat those mistakes. Or make even worse mistakes.

The Palestinians have always rejected the "opportunity" to surrender.

Oh, how macho! Surrender isn't the same thing as compromise. Interestingly, there's a word for Compromise in Hebrew--"peshara"--but none in Arabic.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan. They surrendered, and yet they are still a very prosperous nation today. Let's see how far the so-called Palestinians get with their stubborness! They might wind up at the bottom of the Read Sea, like the Pharaoh and Egyptians of old.

And even if you look at it as a "surrender", which is inaccurate, then check out Japan.

Japan was not subject to settler colonialism. There is no comparison.

Indeed, no Arab-Moslem invaders.

Actually, the word "Palestinians" comes from the Hebrew word "Pelishtim" which means..."invaders!"

Not that the so-called Palestinians can even pronounce their own name. There's no P sound in Arabic.

Not this again.

 

[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?

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?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Common Israeli talking point.

Zionist militias attacked and expelled Palestinians before the start of the 1948 war.

The Arab armies did not attack Israel. They fought Israeli troops in Palestine.

A UN Security Council resolution ended the fighting in the 1948 war. Nobody won or lost that war.

However, the attacks and expulsions of the Palestinians continue to today.

 

[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.

This principle will be temporarily mitigated by voluntary compliance of supervision by the State of Israel.

The supervision of Israel is the conflict.

Until that ends there will be no peace.

Yet it didn't end when they withdrew from Gaza. Not even reduced.

Gaza is only a small part of the problem. Israel still occupies Gaza.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.

Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?

Tricky question. Who is defined as "native" and at what point did they or do they become "native"?

I think the land belongs to many people - and certainly the Jewish people and the Palestinian people qualify in that regard.

Is there really a point in rehashing this?

When one of those people are excluded from their land by military force, that is the problem.

 

[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?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Common Israeli talking point.

Zionist militias attacked and expelled Palestinians before the start of the 1948 war.

The Arab armies did not attack Israel. They fought Israeli troops in Palestine.

A UN Security Council resolution ended the fighting in the 1948 war. Nobody won or lost that war.

However, the attacks and expulsions of the Palestinians continue to today.

This probably is better discussed in one of the historic threads - we will end up derailing this one (yes guilty).

The conflicts that started all those are coming up on 80 years ago, or more depending on the exact beginning.

Regardless of how we feel about the events, and who's narrative is the right one - that omelette will not be unscrambled. So we have the situation as it is now, and going back to history and rehashing the rights and wrongs of what was essentially the ending of colonial and foreign control of the Mid East, and the multiple fights for self determination among the peoples there that resulted in what we have now, won't change it.

In my view - what can be done to end the conflict in such a way that both people's essential rights, as a people, in that land, are recognized and upheld?

It seems to me there are some basic fundamental principles we could agree on.

1. Any solution must recognize the rights of both peoples in this conflict to exist and inhabit their ancestral lands in peace.
2. No solution can allow for the murder of civilians, in fact any solution must seek to prevent that from happening and must address the security of civilian populations.
3. No solution can allow for the forced involuntary expulsions of people or involuntary loss of citizenship to their state.

Would you agree on those as fundamental underlying principles as a baseline for any sort of proposal?

 

[Coyote]

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.

Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?

Tricky question. Who is defined as "native" and at what point did they or do they become "native"?

I think the land belongs to many people - and certainly the Jewish people and the Palestinian people qualify in that regard.

Is there really a point in rehashing this?

When one of those people are excluded from their land by military force, that is the problem.

At this point, they largely control Gaza, I would agree. But at the time - they withdrew from Gaza, they did present an opportunity for Gaza to gain independence. Not perfect - but a significant step. What did Gaza do?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Common Israeli talking point.

Zionist militias attacked and expelled Palestinians before the start of the 1948 war.

The Arab armies did not attack Israel. They fought Israeli troops in Palestine.

A UN Security Council resolution ended the fighting in the 1948 war. Nobody won or lost that war.

However, the attacks and expulsions of the Palestinians continue to today.

This probably is better discussed in one of the historic threads - we will end up derailing this one (yes guilty).

The conflicts that started all those are coming up on 80 years ago, or more depending on the exact beginning.

Regardless of how we feel about the events, and who's narrative is the right one - that omelette will not be unscrambled. So we have the situation as it is now, and going back to history and rehashing the rights and wrongs of what was essentially the ending of colonial and foreign control of the Mid East, and the multiple fights for self determination among the peoples there that resulted in what we have now, won't change it.

In my view - what can be done to end the conflict in such a way that both people's essential rights, as a people, in that land, are recognized and upheld?

It seems to me there are some basic fundamental principles we could agree on.

1. Any solution must recognize the rights of both peoples in this conflict to exist and inhabit their ancestral lands in peace.
2. No solution can allow for the murder of civilians, in fact any solution must seek to prevent that from happening and must address the security of civilian populations.
3. No solution can allow for the forced involuntary expulsions of people or involuntary loss of citizenship to their state.

Would you agree on those as fundamental underlying principles as a baseline for any sort of proposal?

Sure, that is BDS in a nutshell.

 

[Coyote]

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?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Common Israeli talking point.

Zionist militias attacked and expelled Palestinians before the start of the 1948 war.

The Arab armies did not attack Israel. They fought Israeli troops in Palestine.

A UN Security Council resolution ended the fighting in the 1948 war. Nobody won or lost that war.

However, the attacks and expulsions of the Palestinians continue to today.

This probably is better discussed in one of the historic threads - we will end up derailing this one (yes guilty).

The conflicts that started all those are coming up on 80 years ago, or more depending on the exact beginning.

Regardless of how we feel about the events, and who's narrative is the right one - that omelette will not be unscrambled. So we have the situation as it is now, and going back to history and rehashing the rights and wrongs of what was essentially the ending of colonial and foreign control of the Mid East, and the multiple fights for self determination among the peoples there that resulted in what we have now, won't change it.

In my view - what can be done to end the conflict in such a way that both people's essential rights, as a people, in that land, are recognized and upheld?

It seems to me there are some basic fundamental principles we could agree on.

1. Any solution must recognize the rights of both peoples in this conflict to exist and inhabit their ancestral lands in peace.
2. No solution can allow for the murder of civilians, in fact any solution must seek to prevent that from happening and must address the security of civilian populations.
3. No solution can allow for the forced involuntary expulsions of people or involuntary loss of citizenship to their state.

Would you agree on those as fundamental underlying principles as a baseline for any sort of proposal?

Sure, that is BDS in a nutshell.

That sounds like you only support those principles for ONE set of players.

 

[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.

This principle will be temporarily mitigated by voluntary compliance of supervision by the State of Israel.

The supervision of Israel is the conflict.

Until that ends there will be no peace.

Okay. Let's go with that.

Above, I've outlined a framework for how that supervision ends. What are your thoughts on this as a framework for ending the conflict?