Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

[Coyote]

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.

And that is actually one thing flacaltenn tries to address...so...what are your thoughts on how he addresses that instead of complaining Israel throttles it? I like the trade ideas, and I really like opening up direct trade between Palestine and other Arab states. That part is a win win for development of an independent Palestinian economy.

 

[Mindful]

A Left Wing 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.

A Left-Wing Israeli’s Case for the U.S. Peace Plan

 

[Coyote]

#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.

The principle is the same.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it? Part of a function of a state is to protect it's citizens. There shouldn't be a double standard here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

2. The Old City of Jerusalem and the holy places.

While I feel slightly bad saying so, I think this is also a non-starter. Israel just can't let the Old City and the holy places go. The Trump Plan is absolutely correct in stating that the Old City and the holy and archaeological places are doing very well under the stewardship of Israel. I can't say that we can expect that of the Palestinians.

That said, some sort of fast-track for Muslims to visit the Muslim shrines would be the right thing to do.

I think the Trump Plan got this one right. But I know this is going to be a hard place for the Arabs to give up.

I would agree that as long as the status quo for Muslims and access to the Temple Mount is retained (but I would agree to allowing Jewish prayer ) then I think it should remain in Israeli control. They have shown a respect for the archeology, religious significance for multiple faiths for decades now, and that is important. They have done nothing to make me think that would change so I think it's time for trust.

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

Muslims and Christians have a lot of difficulty visiting their holy sites in Jerusalem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The principle is the same.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it? Part of a function of a state is to protect it's citizens. There shouldn't be a double standard here.

It is Israel's war. It can stop it any time it wants.

 

[Mindful]

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.

The principle is the same.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it? Part of a function of a state is to protect it's citizens. There shouldn't be a double standard here.

It is Israel's war. It can stop it any time it wants.

By ceasing to exist?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well...I view it like this: as part of the Marshall plan we required the demilitarization of Japan. In fact much of the Marshal plan was also an economic development plan as well. The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace. While I don't consider Israel a total angel in this, much of their military actions against the Palestinians have been in response to these attacks which no other state would be expected to tolerate. I don't think it would be fair to expect Israel to accept a militerized state as part of the deal, particularly one within it's own borders, until that state has shown itself capable of showing it can stop these attacks and then some, given the long history of conflict. I don't think any other nation would be expected to tolerate that.

The more I think of it...the more I think we should view the peace plan, somewhat, along the lines of the martial plan.

With all due respect, Coyote, the Israeli population is suffering the attacks Israel is causing by acts of war, including the Gaza blockade. Then turning around and arguing for more indignities visited upon Palestinians doesn't look very compelling where I sit. A Marshall Plan would be fine, but it is no replacement for a population determined to achieve self-determination, and that's why this atrocity of a Trump plan will fail.

Israel, it should be clearly stated, also isn't interested in solving this, except in case annexation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights while getting out as many Arabs as they can, counts as a "solution". As long as there is a conflict brewing, with occasional eruptions of violence, Israel can claim they are merely defending themselves, and squeeze the Palestinians some more. In case there is a solution, the Israeli land grab is to stop. Isn't that obvious?

I'm curious - what would you propose? Because in my view - it's not a one sided problem.

Israel has suffered attacks even when it's adhered to peace plan strategies of the past. Prior to the blockade.

What is a win win solution for both sides?

Settler colonialism is one sided.

 

[Shusha]

Muslims and Christians have a lot of difficulty visiting their holy sites in Jerusalem.

Not true.

Christians have the same restrictions as Jews. Muslims have free access. Except where there are security concerns. But hey, if you want the right to "resist" (and by that we know you mean commit violence against LEOs and civilians) then you have to accept the security restrictions. You can't have it both ways.

 

[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.

They didn't withdraw from Gaza.

 

[Shusha]

The principle is the same.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it? Part of a function of a state is to protect it's citizens. There shouldn't be a double standard here.

The irony is in P F Tinmore 's insistence that there be an end-of-conflict agreement in which Arab Palestinians continue to have the right to "resist".

 

[Coyote]

2. The Old City of Jerusalem and the holy places.

While I feel slightly bad saying so, I think this is also a non-starter. Israel just can't let the Old City and the holy places go. The Trump Plan is absolutely correct in stating that the Old City and the holy and archaeological places are doing very well under the stewardship of Israel. I can't say that we can expect that of the Palestinians.

That said, some sort of fast-track for Muslims to visit the Muslim shrines would be the right thing to do.

I think the Trump Plan got this one right. But I know this is going to be a hard place for the Arabs to give up.

I would agree that as long as the status quo for Muslims and access to the Temple Mount is retained (but I would agree to allowing Jewish prayer ) then I think it should remain in Israeli control. They have shown a respect for the archeology, religious significance for multiple faiths for decades now, and that is important. They have done nothing to make me think that would change so I think it's time for trust.

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

Muslims and Christians have a lot of difficulty visiting their holy sites in Jerusalem.

If so - how can it be resolved? Shusha mentioned expedited access in one of her posts. That would help wouldn't it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

Israel attacks civilian areas all the time.

Why the double standard?

 

[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.

They didn't withdraw from Gaza.

Not completely, but they did give Gaza and window of opportunity didn't they?

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

I would be ending an ongoing crime by settlers, facilitated and subsidized by Israel, while she also tacitly declared open season on Palestinians. Without an end to that crime, there will be no peace, and no peaceful solution to the conflict. "Human rights" stand in no way athwart ending that crime.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Israel attacks civilian areas all the time.

Why the double standard?

What double standard?

I oppose targeting civilians.

I agree that in some of Israel's actions (Operation Cast Lead) - there were a lot of wrong things done. But most of the times, Israel's actions are targeting areas that are launching rockets into Israel. So it comes down to this:

Does a state have the right to defend it's civilians?

What is Hamas doing to defend it's civilians? (since most of this is coming from Gaza).

You can't argue that some states can and some states can not. It's an essential function of a state.

It is either ok to target civilians or it's not. And that has to apply to all.

 

[Coyote]

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.

I would be ending an ongoing crime by settlers, facilitated and subsidized by Israel, while she also tacitly declared open season on Palestinians. Without an end to that crime, there will be no peace, and no peaceful solution to the conflict. "Human rights" stand in no way athwart ending that crime.

You would be punishing civilian settlers for the acts of their government and expelling 400,000 established people. How viable is that?

What "open season" on Palestinians?

 

[Coyote]

Well...I view it like this: as part of the Marshall plan we required the demilitarization of Japan. In fact much of the Marshal plan was also an economic development plan as well. The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace. While I don't consider Israel a total angel in this, much of their military actions against the Palestinians have been in response to these attacks which no other state would be expected to tolerate. I don't think it would be fair to expect Israel to accept a militerized state as part of the deal, particularly one within it's own borders, until that state has shown itself capable of showing it can stop these attacks and then some, given the long history of conflict. I don't think any other nation would be expected to tolerate that.

The more I think of it...the more I think we should view the peace plan, somewhat, along the lines of the martial plan.

With all due respect, Coyote, the Israeli population is suffering the attacks Israel is causing by acts of war, including the Gaza blockade. Then turning around and arguing for more indignities visited upon Palestinians doesn't look very compelling where I sit. A Marshall Plan would be fine, but it is no replacement for a population determined to achieve self-determination, and that's why this atrocity of a Trump plan will fail.

Israel, it should be clearly stated, also isn't interested in solving this, except in case annexation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights while getting out as many Arabs as they can, counts as a "solution". As long as there is a conflict brewing, with occasional eruptions of violence, Israel can claim they are merely defending themselves, and squeeze the Palestinians some more. In case there is a solution, the Israeli land grab is to stop. Isn't that obvious?

I'm curious - what would you propose? Because in my view - it's not a one sided problem.

Israel has suffered attacks even when it's adhered to peace plan strategies of the past. Prior to the blockade.

What is a win win solution for both sides?

Settler colonialism is one sided.

Not in this case because you keep leaving out a key FACT.

Both the Palestinians and Jews are NATIVE to this land. Jews have maintained a continuous presence there since their inception. When the mandate dissolved, it wasn't just the Arabs calling for self determination, it was the Jewish people also. What a mess huh?

This doesn't match colonialism (apples and oranges) - because Europeans were never native to the countries they "settled". If you want to argument that the Jews who immigrated to the region shouldn't have done so, that doesn't mitigate at all the right of the Jewish people there to have their self determination and a state.

The issue is two peoples, one land, how to coexist peacefully. Agree? Disagree?

 

[Coyote]

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.

And that is actually one thing flacaltenn tries to address...so...what are your thoughts on how he addresses that instead of complaining Israel throttles it? I like the trade ideas, and I really like opening up direct trade between Palestine and other Arab states. That part is a win win for development of an independent Palestinian economy.

P F Tinmore

Let's come back to this - at least it's looking at something that could be win win for both people.

Trade. Creating opportunities for free trade for the Palestinians. Independent economic growth is one of the the things that would greatly benefit their drive for self determination. There are a lot of entrepenueral Palestinians trying to make a go at innovate tech in the current unstable environment where unemployment is so high.

 

[P F Tinmore]

2. The Old City of Jerusalem and the holy places.

While I feel slightly bad saying so, I think this is also a non-starter. Israel just can't let the Old City and the holy places go. The Trump Plan is absolutely correct in stating that the Old City and the holy and archaeological places are doing very well under the stewardship of Israel. I can't say that we can expect that of the Palestinians.

That said, some sort of fast-track for Muslims to visit the Muslim shrines would be the right thing to do.

I think the Trump Plan got this one right. But I know this is going to be a hard place for the Arabs to give up.

I would agree that as long as the status quo for Muslims and access to the Temple Mount is retained (but I would agree to allowing Jewish prayer ) then I think it should remain in Israeli control. They have shown a respect for the archeology, religious significance for multiple faiths for decades now, and that is important. They have done nothing to make me think that would change so I think it's time for trust.

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

Muslims and Christians have a lot of difficulty visiting their holy sites in Jerusalem.

If so - how can it be resolved? Shusha mentioned expedited access in one of her posts. That would help wouldn't it?

UN Resolution 1514

United Nations Official Document

 

[P F Tinmore]

The principle is the same.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it? Part of a function of a state is to protect it's citizens. There shouldn't be a double standard here.

The irony is in P F Tinmore 's insistence that there be an end-of-conflict agreement in which Arab Palestinians continue to have the right to "resist".

Resist what if the conflict ends?