• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Peace Plan

oneworld2 said:
You would have to explain the above in more detail but it still smacks of the illogical blaming the Palestinians for something an Israeli admits to doing all by himself and proudly so.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t.

Only to partisans who think the Palestinians were actually engaging in any sort of good faith effort to compromise and make peace. Or those who will lie about it even though they know better.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
No, it doesn’t.

Only to partisans who think the Palestinians were actually engaging in any sort of good faith effort to compromise and make peace. Or those who will lie about it even though they know better.
Click to expand...

It absolutely does

The Palestinians that were engaging in it/agreeing to it were doing so for their own personal gain and didn't give a thought to the plight of the Palestinians generally. When that registered with the Palestinian people the rejection was inevitable
 
snakestretcher said:
What a pitifully inadequate excuse. Netanyahu walked; what were the Palestinians supposed to do?
Click to expand...

The Palestinians were "supposed to" stay. First, they (unlike Netanyahu) had no viable alternative, as the present situation makes abundantly clear. Second, by staying they would have made Netanyahu's withdrawal untenable.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Palestinians were "supposed to" stay. First, they (unlike Netanyahu) had no viable alternative, as the present situation makes abundantly clear. Second, by staying they would have made Netanyahu's withdrawal untenable.
Click to expand...

Stay and negotiate with an empty chair? Yes, I can see how that would work...
 
snakestretcher said:
Stay and negotiate with an empty chair? Yes, I can see how that would work...
Click to expand...

Yes. As I said, that would have compelled Netanyahu's return. The Palestinians' great error (that time) was acting like they had an alternative. They did not.
 
Nickyjo said:
First, when did they reject a plan that they were part of forming? And tell me, why are Palestinians second class citizens in Israel? Read up on it. Make the comparisons with old South Africa. And populating settlements on invaded territories is a war crime, among the things Germany was guilty of. You remember liebensraum. Israel is a democracy worthy of our support, but will have to become more repressive in the future due to demographics, unless it changes its policies. We do not hear much in our media about the non-Arab Jewish population that dissents from Bibi’s policies, but they are there, and are it’s best hope.

Suggest you read the Human Rights Watch report on Israel, which also noted abuses by Palestinian authorities.
Click to expand...
They rejected every plan, read up on it.
The Arab citizens of Israel were fuming after Trump plan which suggested that part of them will be citizens of the future plastine state, wonder why?
So you used the anti-Israel slogan "apartheid" and now you are using Nazi Germany in order to underline the legitimacy of Israel... Well that's just BS.
 
NO1 said:
They rejected every plan, read up on it.
The Arab citizens of Israel were fuming after Trump plan which suggested that part of them will be citizens of the future plastine state, wonder why?

++ Again, which plans that Palestinians were part of forming have they rejected? I presume there must be one or two, but can’t think of any.

So you used the anti-Israel slogan "apartheid" and now you are using Nazi Germany in order to underline the legitimacy of Israel... Well that's just BS.
Click to expand...

++ Wrong, Israel is legitimate. But it is wrong when it sets up different rules depending on ethnicity or religion. Much as old South Africa and Rhodesia were wrong. I am sure there are differences between in the various systems. Why don’t you explain them? My fear for Israel is that it is setting up a dangerous future for itself that will require more extreme double standards in the treatment of its people. As to the Nazi comparison, it is apparently a violation of international law to build settlements on territory conquered by war, from which residents have been moved or deprived of rights, which was the German plan for parts of Europe. Israelis reportedly can get building permits easily in the OT, for example, Palestinians not so much. If you don’t like the South African or German comparisons, you can look to Malaysia, I believe, where ethnic Chinese were treated differently. But I am willing to consider how the shoe doesn’t fit.

++ There is hope in Israel, however. I just read that a checkpoint guard spent two weeks in jail for denying a pregnant Palestinian passage. She miscarried at the checkpoint. Bibi N is not Israel. It includes Jews at odds with his short-sighted policies.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
Stay and negotiate with an empty chair? Yes, I can see how that would work...
Click to expand...

Worked for Israel. Look where we are now. The Palestinians probably shouldn't have disengaged from discussions with Trump's team, should they?

In any event, the Israelis spent a decade "negotiating" with someone sitting in the other chair who was lying about everything and only participating in the process to weaken Israel and better position himself to attack its people.

So the Palestinians' political positions and behaviour is now finally coming home to roost.

Good.
 
Rogue Valley said:
EU Takes A Dim View Of Trump's Controversial Mideast Peace Plan

Also coming out against the Trump/Kushner 'settlement plan' is the [55 member-states] African Union.
Click to expand...

Except this is misleading. It isn't the EU coming out against the plan, it is the EU's unelected Bureaucrat (another "expert") stating his persoal opinion because the EU did not support it.

A good illustration of why the UK left the EU, since you have unelected hacks spouting off their personal views so that dupes and an agenda driven compliant media can assert that this was an EU statement, but not much more than that.

EU reportedly blocked from resolution condemning Trump plan, annexation | The Times of Israel

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell tried to convince the 27 European foreign ministers who are members of the union’s Foreign Affairs Council to issue a shared resolution criticizing the peace plan proposed by the Trump administration last week, and warning against Israeli leaders’ declared intention to annex significant parts of the West Bank within weeks.

...

At least six European member states apparently agreed and decided to oppose the resolution. They included Italy, Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, and at least two other unnamed nations, the reports said. That opposition killed the joint statement, as EU foreign policy declarations must have the agreement of all 27 member nations.

Borrell then issued a statement in his own name ...


How you can allow a bureaucrat to misuse his office to put out personal opinions where the organization h is purporting to work for tells him they do not support his statement is beyond me. If he doesn't agree with the EU's position, that's fine. He can resign. But to spout off his own personal opinion pretending to speak for the EU, and to have the "media" parrot his nonsense since he is the sort of "expert" they agree with who has the same objectively wrong opinion on this that they do, is an example of why people don't trust, in no particular order, the media, the EU, and anti-Israel propagandists.

The EU should fire him. And the NPR and other organizations that parrot this "EU statement" as if it came from the EU should be called out for either purposely lying or for not having a clue about the things they are purporting to report about.
 
Last edited:
Yasureoktoo said:
They need to let the Jews have their last piece of land they have left.
The international community needs to relocate the arabs.
Click to expand...

Except this deal gives them more land. The hell you talking about?
 
bomberfox said:
Except this deal gives them more land. The hell you talking about?
Click to expand...

From what I can see, he believes that the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria should be relocated. Not my opinion, but would note it is the mirror of the view of various folks who believe that Jews living in Judea and Samaria should be relocated.

In reality, the deal takes land away from Israel that is in its possession and to which no other country has any valid claim and gives it to the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria in which to begin for the first time ever exercising self determination and sovereignty. All the while minimizing the number of people who would need to be moved as suggested by either Yasereoktoo or those who advocate that Jews need to be removed from Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians have nothing and could gain a whole lot compared to what they have now. The Israelis have it all and would be giving up territory to make it happen. So his understanding of events is accurate and yours is not. Difference is you are first projecting your opinion on what ought to be and then assessing this deal against your opinion, while others are looking at reality as it exists and understanding how the deal would change that.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Lol ok. So on e again YOU are the one who constantly talks about international law. Not me.

So yes, you conveniently ignoring it here says everything about your principles, while me bringing it up doesn’t mean anything because you know my views on the whole structure of international law.

And 2006 was 15 years ago chief. “Defending” against an occupation that resulted from PLO terrorist attacks in the 1970s and 1980s doesn’t make any sense in 2020. And (again) if you were actually honest with yourself and recognized what Hezbollah is and what it’s doing, you would be ashamed of your position if your lefty world view about human rights was even remotely genuine.
Click to expand...

All that matters apparently is playing the victim.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
From what I can see, he believes that the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria should be relocated. Not my opinion, but would note it is the mirror of the view of various folks who believe that Jews living in Judea and Samaria should be relocated.

In reality, the deal takes land away from Israel that is in its possession and to which no other country has any valid claim and gives it to the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria in which to begin for the first time ever exercising self determination and sovereignty. All the while minimizing the number of people who would need to be moved as suggested by either Yasereoktoo or those who advocate that Jews need to be removed from Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians have nothing and could gain a whole lot compared to what they have now. The Israelis have it all and would be giving up territory to make it happen. So his understanding of events is accurate and yours is not. Difference is you are first projecting your opinion on what ought to be and then assessing this deal against your opinion, while others are looking at reality as it exists and understanding how the deal would change that.
Click to expand...

I think ill take your judgment with a grain of salt... ive seen you openly reject information that goes against your claims based on your own wacky conspiracy theories as well as your own personal attacks and baseless character assassinations.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
From what I can see, he believes that the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria should be relocated. Not my opinion, but would note it is the mirror of the view of various folks who believe that Jews living in Judea and Samaria should be relocated.

In reality, the deal takes land away from Israel that is in its possession and to which no other country has any valid claim and gives it to the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria in which to begin for the first time ever exercising self determination and sovereignty. All the while minimizing the number of people who would need to be moved as suggested by either Yasereoktoo or those who advocate that Jews need to be removed from Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians have nothing and could gain a whole lot compared to what they have now. The Israelis have it all and would be giving up territory to make it happen. So his understanding of events is accurate and yours is not. Difference is you are first projecting your opinion on what ought to be and then assessing this deal against your opinion, while others are looking at reality as it exists and understanding how the deal would change that.
Click to expand...
The border of United Nations member state Israel is already recognized and, according to international law, the Israelis cannot add land by military conquest. For this reason the Israeli-Trump deal of the century is dead in the water.
 
bomberfox said:
I think ill take your judgment with a grain of salt... ive seen you openly reject information that goes against your claims based on your own wacky conspiracy theories as well as your own personal attacks and baseless character assassinations.
Click to expand...

That seems kinda judgey.
 
Jean-s said:
The border of United Nations member state Israel is already recognized and, according to international law, the Israelis cannot add land by military conquest. For this reason the Israeli-Trump deal of the century is dead in the water.
Click to expand...

That is of course international law made by countries whose own borders were established by conquest.
If the parties agree, the treaty will be legal. If they don't agree, the Israelis will go on about their business and their next offer to the Palestinians will be even worse than this one.
 
Jack Hays said:
That is of course international law made by countries whose own borders were established by conquest.
If the parties agree, the treaty will be legal. If they don't agree, the Israelis will go on about their business and their next offer to the Palestinians will be even worse than this one.
Click to expand...
There is no treaty.
 
Jack Hays said:
Then the Palestinians will have missed another opportunity, and the next offer will be worse for them.
Click to expand...

Not surprising at all with ahealthy dose of whataboutery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom