Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

[Olde Europe]

No solution can allow for the forced involuntary expulsions of people or involuntary loss of citizenship to their state.

There should be no expulsion or involuntary loss of citizenship.

Israel, bringing back illegal West Bank settlers on her own territory, is not an "expulsion". That would be Israel, at long last, enforcing the law she has violated for decades.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

 

[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.

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?

Are you really asking Tnmore for a solution? He's not interested in that, only in going over what happened 70 years ago. If really pressed, he might provide the destruction of Israel as a solution, but he won't say that outright...he'll only hint at it.

 

[Shusha]

No solution can allow for the forced involuntary expulsions of people or involuntary loss of citizenship to their state.

There should be no expulsion or involuntary loss of citizenship.

Israel, bringing back illegal West Bank settlers on her own territory, is not an "expulsion". That would be Israel, at long last, enforcing the law she has violated for decades.

No. Its expulsion of Israelis from sovereign Israeli territory.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

 

[Shusha]

Are you really asking Tnmore for a solution? He's not interested in that, only in going over what happened 70 years ago. If really pressed, he might provide the destruction of Israel as a solution, but he won't say that outright...he'll only hint at it.

Well, I imagine he will say that Arabs have the right to keep "resisting".

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

On the other hand, what would the US have a right to say about "hacking off" pieces of the US for First Nations sovereignty and self-determination. No one is buying your crap about "foreign settlers".

Nice dodge. Conquest was not illegal back then.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

 

[Coyote]

No solution can allow for the forced involuntary expulsions of people or involuntary loss of citizenship to their state.

There should be no expulsion or involuntary loss of citizenship.

Israel, bringing back illegal West Bank settlers on her own territory, is not an "expulsion". That would be Israel, at long last, enforcing the law she has violated for decades.

I don't care for the settlements, some of which were built on land that was very questionably taken, but some of these settlements were built in the 70's - with populations of 6000-8000 people and several generations of life. You would be uprooting entire established communities of civilians for things the government did 50 years ago.

I see this as a human rights issue, in much the same way I would view proposals to expel Arab populations from Israel. I totally oppose the forced expulsions of civilians whether Palestinian or Jewish. It would seem to be a form of collective punishment. I do think, that where land was wrongly taken, there should be some sort of compensation via courts, and the continuing acquisition of land should be strictly monitored. But I can't support expelling innocent people.

You are talking about expelling some 400,000 or more people.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

Security from violent attacks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure, that is BDS in a nutshell.

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

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

Security from violent attacks.

Attacks are unprovoked violence. Palestinians defense is not unprovoked.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

Security from violent attacks.

Attacks are unprovoked violence. Palestinians defense is not unprovoked.

Sounds like these Palestinians are dangerous.
Maybe Israel should move them into Syria?

 

[Coyote]

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

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

Security from violent attacks.

Attacks are unprovoked violence. Palestinians defense is not unprovoked.

What kind of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

 

[Coyote]

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

Security from violent attacks.

Attacks are unprovoked violence. Palestinians defense is not unprovoked.

Sounds like these Palestinians are dangerous.
Maybe Israel should move them into Syria?

Another loon opting for forced expulsions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not so. Nothing in BDS would violate the legitimate rights of any Israelis.

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

Security from violent attacks.

Attacks are unprovoked violence. Palestinians defense is not unprovoked.

What kind of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

An unsuccessful one...…….

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it only address' one side's concerns.

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What about applying this to the Israeli civilians?

What rights of theirs are being violated?

Security from violent attacks.

Attacks are unprovoked violence. Palestinians defense is not unprovoked.

Sounds like these Palestinians are dangerous.
Maybe Israel should move them into Syria?

Another loon opting for forced expulsions.

Tinny says they're justified in attacking Israeli civilians.

 

[Coyote]

The US took territory from Mexico in the Mexican American War...does Mexico have the right to lob rockets into our civilian towns?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities. They are not "native" to the land or descended from the now-defunct Canaanites. On the other hand, Israelis speak the same language that was spoken 2,000 years ago, as well as use the same currency (proven by archaeology), and celebrate the same national holidays. Most Arabacized names of the cities and towns in Israel and Judea (or the West Bank) come from the Hebrew. So Jews aren't "foreign" to Israel.

Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities.

Israeli bullshit, of course. The Zionists kept economic improvements to themselves.

Aint BullShit TInmore.. Or like a local talk show host says "Bovine Scatology"....

One of the largest sources of income for middle class Palis in the West Bank are jobs and trade with Israel..

The jobs part is more than fair and mutually beneficial... But the trade part is quite unfair under military occupation and policing right now...

Who you think has the MONEY to build new fancy cities and settlements in the Pali WB? It aint coming from spice carts or falafel stands...

One of the largest sources of income for middle class Palis in the West Bank are jobs and trade with Israel..

And Israel throttles those any time it wants.

The Palestinians want to be free from that.

 

[Mindful]

Israeli’s Case for the U.S. Peace Plan

FEB. 4 2020
As an active member of Israel’s moderate left, Einat Wilf would have preferred the new U.S. peace proposal to make additional concessions to the Palestinians on various issues. She argues, however, that quibbles over details make little difference. Palestinian leaders will not make peace under any circumstances:

Much of the genuine criticism of Donald Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan for the Middle East emerges from the assumption that there is another plan to be found; a better, more just, and fairer one, to which the Palestinians would say yes, and which would then truly bring about peace. I wish it were so, but sadly there is no evidence for such an assumption.

[D]ecades of determined words and actions have made it very clear that the Palestinian leadership will say yes only to plans that bring about the end of Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people. [In their view], if the price of an Arab state of Palestine is that the Jewish people will be allowed to retain a sovereign state and self-rule in another part of the land, whichever part that is, then that is too high a price to pay.

This is a painful realization which for many left-wing Israelis, like myself, was purchased in decades of dashed hopes watching Palestinian leaders walk away from opportunity after opportunity, and in the blood of families blown to bits by suicide bombers days after Palestinians could have had a state. Yet it is the reason the Trump plan has been embraced by the vast majority of Israel’s Jews, left and right.

The plan of the current administration will bring neither peace nor prosperity for the Palestinians, as they will continue consistently and predictably to say no—but it could just bring greater peace between Israel and the Arab world, who hopefully will come one day to recognize Israel and the sovereign Jews as a legitimate presence in the region.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Israel, withdrawing their criminally occupying settlers from the occupied West Bank (except in cases of mutually agreed land swaps), would not only be not criminal, it would be enforcing the law. Moreover, without that, there will be no peaceful, lasting agreement.

So you're STILL ignoring the fact that Israel TRIED that approach with the PA when they TOTALLY VACATED GAZA are ya????

That plan can go to the shredder... It's Einstein's definition of insanity... Learn from history...

Say, Flac, how is it that a few harmless rockets (by Israel's standards) flying from Gaza justify crimes in the West Bank?

Moreover, have you ever asked yourself why Israel, despite overwhelming military and intelligence superiority, and several large-scale, mass murderous military incursions, couldn't get a ragtag militia in a tiny speck of land under control? If you did, what was your answer?

I'm going to add something here...it's not really a "few harmless rockets" - it's the fact that any state has obligation to protect it's citizens, and those rockets do go into civilian areas and have caused damage and injury.

Would the US accept that if Mexico started flinging rockets over our border? Not likely. No state would.

The US is not occupying Mexico. Apples and oranges.