Trump Peace Plan

[snakestretcher]

Huh? Remember when he lost the election and Israel had a few pragmatist centrist pms in power offering the Palestinians deals?

And remember how the Palestinians responded to that by blowing up children and dancing in the streets at their “achievements”?

It’s all on them, and they deserve no more than the situation they find themselves in.

You, sir, remain utterly clueless about the situation; probably deliberately. Most pro-Israel zealots are no different. Netanyahu ADMITTED PUBLICLY to derailing Oslo for his own purposes, but according to you it was Palestine which "walked away". Unbelievable. Wake the **** up!

 

[CJ 2.0]

Don't be stupid. Is that the best you can come up with? Laughable. Who, aside from you, said anything about Israel losing sovereignty or capitulation? Do you have these fantasies often?

Wut? You just said the Palestinians are right to reject a deal that doesn’t allow for “return” of “refugees”.

Do you not understand how that would work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ 2.0]

You, sir, remain utterly clueless about the situation; probably deliberately. Most pro-Israel zealots are no different. Netanyahu ADMITTED PUBLICLY to derailing Oslo for his own purposes, but according to you it was Palestine which "walked away". Unbelievable. Wake the **** up!

He boasted for political purposes. I, unlike you, understand what he said, why he said it, and what actually happened.

And despite all the anti-Israel animus dripping from your posts combined with support for the most extremist anti-Israel positions, you actually think OTHERS are the zealots.

It’s laughable.

 

[snakestretcher]

Wut? You just said the Palestinians are right to reject a deal that doesn’t allow for “return” of “refugees”.

Do you not understand how that would work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I did say that. Prohibiting Palestinian refugees the right to return is wholly unacceptable. What's your argument, again?

 

[snakestretcher]

He boasted for political purposes. I, unlike you, understand what he said, why he said it, and what actually happened.

And despite all the anti-Israel animus dripping from your posts combined with support for the most extremist anti-Israel positions, you actually think OTHERS are the zealots.

It’s laughable.

WTF? So, you feel you have the right to re-interpret Netanyahu's own words in a way that you find acceptable? Are you serious? He said what he said, not knowing cameras were rolling and were recording his every word. So yes, own your own zealotry.
"There are none so blind as those who won't see"

 

[Rogue Valley]

I don't have a dog in the interminable I/P fight, but this hot garbage from Trump/Kushner should rightfully be DOA.

I believe it will be quickly jettisoned when Trump is gone. The US embassy will also be moved back to Tel Aviv.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Yes, I did say that. Prohibiting Palestinian refugees the right to return is wholly unacceptable. What's your argument, again?

That besides the fact that is nonsense since this imaginary right for fake refugees doesn’t exist anywhere else, advocating that the Palestinians are right to reject peace if it doesn’t also involve an ability to flood Israel with Palestinians so as to take over the state means that you are not even remotely interested in peace, you are interested in the jews losing.

The “right of return” has always been about Israel’s destruction. If you support it that’s your prerogative, but not only does jt make you a radical extremist it also means that you place the destruction of Israel above Palestinian self determination or independence.

Presumably you know this

 

[CJ 2.0]

WTF? So, you feel you have the right to re-interpret Netanyahu's own words in a way that you find acceptable? Are you serious? He said what he said, not knowing cameras were rolling and were recording his every word. So yes, own your own zealotry.
"There are none so blind as those who won't see"

It isn’t a reinterpretation.

He was right then and he is right now.

How would you assess the front end of the discussion, where he accurately set out Palestinian intentions and attitudes and the fact the Palestinian signing of Oslo was a sham and they never abided by any of their commitments.

If you signed a sham deal with someone who had no intention of aboding by it and never abided by it for a second, would you have a different view of what should be done about your own commitments?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oneworld2]

How was the refusal by Israel to compromise over one of the most basic of Palestinian demands-a halt to illegal 'settlement' expansion-a "better deal"?
Israel won't allow Palestine an army for self-defense, won't allow refugees to return. Two more wholly unacceptable conditions insisted upon by Israel-among many others. No, a one-sided 'deal' favouring Israel while offering Palestine nothing in return will never happen, and that's what Netanyahu is banking on.

"At that moment I destroyed Oslo" Binyamin Netanyahu.

" If I were an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country...They see but one thing. We have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" David Ben Gurion, founder of modern Israel.

Of course the refusal to stop building settlements within the Oslo agreement was just an enormous giveaway that process was a farce. It offered the PA the chance to serve as co collaborators to the occupation by having them keep the Palestinian resistance to Israeli domination suppressed. A commentator I have much respect for commented that there was more time and thought given to negotiations surrounding who counted as a vip in the PA than was spent on the fate of the millions of Palestinian refugees living as second class citizens around the ME.

And we shouldn't be surprised about the lack of comment here regarding the admission/boast by Netanyahu about his scuppering of Oslo. The only rejectionists are to be found amongst the Arabs and that's the consensus here imo.

It's like the resort to the percentage game we are accustomed to seeing. The small percentages the Israeli state demands include virtually all of the illegal settlers , some of the most valuable land in the WB along with much control over the water supply .

People could wish to divide the likes of Algeria and cry about someone or other refusing 80% of the territory !! without understanding that the 80% being offered is entirely made up of desert.

I know I am already speaking to a poster aware of this but still feel it needs mentioning

 

[Jack Hays]

What was there to "accept" when Netanyahu walked away after admitting derailing the entire process? Sorry, but the failure of Oslo was a deliberate and cynical act, and ALL on Israel.

Nope. All the Palestinians had to do was stay. The point is not that Oslo was a perfect deal, but it was foreseeable then that no future deal would be better, and that has come to pass. The Palestinians have no leverage.

 

[Fledermaus]

the so called deal of the century was highly offensive thy didn't involve the Palestinians, it means no land borders with any other country , lose 40% of it's internationally recognised 1967 borders, their territory they control will be enclaves, not allowed to have their own army etc in effect Israel will still control it ... lose it's capital East Jerusalem ... it's basically given Israel the green light to annex the occupied areas of the West Bank ... no wonder Netanyahu was so pleased standing beside his fellow corrupt scoundrel the floating fat man ... apparently Israelis army intends to annex the territories it claims in the west bank on Sunday if this happens the International community must do more than condemn Israel they must hammer them with sanctions

The 1967 borders?

Prior to 1967 the West Bank was under Jordanian command and control. Gaza was Egyptian.

 

[Evilroddy]

I don't have a dog in the interminable I/P fight, but this hot garbage from Trump/Kushner should rightfully be DOA.

I believe it will be quickly jettisoned when Trump is gone. The US embassy will also be moved back to Tel Aviv.

Rogue Valley:

I agree with your two points (jettison the Trump Deal and relocate the Embassy back out of Jerusalem) and would also add my aspiration that the next US Congress and Administration should cut the lavish military aid flowing to Israel until it begins to negotiate in good faith with Palestinian and international authorities in order to create a viable Palestinian State in the Levant between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea based on the pre-1967 borders of Israel. As several posters here have said, Palestinians have no leverage to force a deal and the State of Israel has no incentive to come to a deal. So economically throttle the State of Israel and give the Palestinians political leverage, then a real deal between the State of Israel and the Palestinians which both groups can live with begrudgingly will follow.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[snakestretcher]

That besides the fact that is nonsense since this imaginary right for fake refugees doesn’t exist anywhere else, advocating that the Palestinians are right to reject peace if it doesn’t also involve an ability to flood Israel with Palestinians so as to take over the state means that you are not even remotely interested in peace, you are interested in the jews losing.

The “right of return” has always been about Israel’s destruction. If you support it that’s your prerogative, but not only does jt make you a radical extremist it also means that you place the destruction of Israel above Palestinian self determination or independence.

Presumably you know this

Your posts, replete with fabrication, supposition and entirely lacking in substance are typical of the response I expect from committed zealots. I'm just amazed you haven't resorted to calling anyone even vaguely critical of Israel's policies vis-a-vis Palestine, an 'anti-Semite'. I expect that will come; it usually does when you can't sustain an argument.

 

[Jean-s]

The Trump Plan looks to have been written by the settlers in the West Bank. It is brazenly pro-Israeli and the Palestinians get nothing. It is a non-starter.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Rogue Valley:

I agree with your two points (jettison the Trump Deal and relocate the Embassy back out of Jerusalem) and would also add my aspiration that the next US Congress and Administration should cut the lavish military aid flowing to Israel until it begins to negotiate in good faith with Palestinian and international authorities in order to create a viable Palestinian State in the Levant between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea based on the pre-1967 borders of Israel. As several posters here have said, Palestinians have no leverage to force a deal and the State of Israel has no incentive to come to a deal. So economically throttle the State of Israel and give the Palestinians political leverage, then a real deal between the State of Israel and the Palestinians which both groups can live with begrudgingly will follow.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Literally the worst approach possible. The Palestinians have never had creation of their own state as a priority, and this guarantees they will continue to cling to their original objective of Israel’s destruction. This Trump plan os the right one. The Palestinians need to be abandoned before they can be helped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ 2.0]

Your posts, replete with fabrication, supposition and entirely lacking in substance are typical of the response I expect from committed zealots. I'm just amazed you haven't resorted to calling anyone even vaguely critical of Israel's policies vis-a-vis Palestine, an 'anti-Semite'. I expect that will come; it usually does when you can't sustain an argument.

What are you on about?

If you support the “right of return” you oppose Israel continuing under Jewish sovereignty. This is a closed system with necessary relationships.

You can dance on your pinhead all you like and cry that folks are being mean to you (or might be mean in the future) but it’s all evasion and semantics. Anyone who supports the right of return is a radical extremist who supports the destruction of the State of Israel. By definition, since one cannot support one without supporting the other.

This isn’t hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ 2.0]

The Trump Plan looks to have been written by the settlers in the West Bank. It is brazenly pro-Israeli and the Palestinians get nothing. It is a non-starter.

Except it seems to be starting a whole lot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snakestretcher]

What are you on about?

If you support the “right of return” you oppose Israel continuing under Jewish sovereignty. This is a closed system with necessary relationships.

You can dance on your pinhead all you like and cry that folks are being mean to you (or might be mean in the future) but it’s all evasion and semantics. Anyone who supports the right of return is a radical extremist who supports the destruction of the State of Israel. By definition, since one cannot support one without supporting the other.

This isn’t hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please, don't be stupid. Have I ever questioned Israeli sovereignty? No, I have not. In addition why do you believe Israeli sovereignty would be in any way threatened by returning refugees? Your concept of logic is absurdly infantile.

 

[Jack Hays]

Please, don't be stupid. Have I ever questioned Israeli sovereignty? No, I have not. In addition why do you believe Israeli sovereignty would be in any way threatened by returning refugees? Your concept of logic is absurdly infantile.

Israel won the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any plan has to reflect that.

• By Eylon Levy

​Between the lines of the White House peace plan, behind the flowery language about solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is an unspoken but subversive question: What if the conflict cannot be solved? That’s the logical conclusion of calling it intractable. Doing nothing is not an option. But neither is trying to impose a utopian plan that seeks to transform reality rather than deal with the reality that exists.

President Trump’s plan is an attempt — a seriously flawed one that may be doomed to fail, but at least an attempt — to work within the reality that decades of Israeli and Palestinian actions and decisions have created. That reality is that Israel has effectively won the confrontation, and the two sides are too far apart for big, sweeping negotiations to succeed.

So instead of dreams, the plan has three big notions. It recognizes that any solution has to acknowledge the fact that Israel has basically won, instead of denying it or attempting to reverse it. In light of that, the plan primarily tries to shrink the standoff, rather than solve it, which may be a more manageable goal. And it paves the way for a U.S. ally to protect its vital interests and wriggle out of an existential bind. Some of the plan’s unspoken principles offer pragmatic and realistic ways to think about the conflict. . . .

 

[Evilroddy]

Literally the worst approach possible. The Palestinians have never had creation of their own state as a priority, and this guarantees they will continue to cling to their original objective of Israel’s destruction. This Trump plan os the right one. The Palestinians need to be abandoned before they can be helped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CJ 2.0:

You will excuse me if I discount your ability and authority to speak for the Palestinian people about what they want and need. The only way to bring about a settlement which is fair to both the Israelis and the Palestinians is to increase Palestinian political leverage and decrease the State of Israel's indifference to Palestinian needs is by squeezing the State of Israel until it begins to make real concessions in order to allow a fully functional Palestinian state to come into being. Economic, political and military pressure from the international community must be brought to bear against the State of Israel until Israel sits down with the Palestinians and hammers out a deal which both nations and eventually both states can live with. Until then the State of Israel should be a pariah state and should be isolated in order to move the festering sore of Palestinian-Israeli relations out of the septic state it has been looked in for a century.

Negotiations will only happen when both sides realise there is something worse than the status quo. A symmetrical system of coercive incentivisation should be brought to bear against the Palestinian militants until they stop using physical force to attack the State of Israel and their own people and begin to come to terms with the State of Israel's right to exist in the Levant.

The world must start cracking both Palestinian and Israeli heads together until they are both ready to settle their differences. I know you will strongly disagree with this approach as the State of Israel is in the much stronger position, but in my opinion that is what must happen. I will spare you the details of how to do this because it will just upset you, but there is a way to do it that will bring both sides to the negotiating table in good time and eventually in good faith. It will however be very painful for both sides, as it should be.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Please, don't be stupid. Have I ever questioned Israeli sovereignty? No, I have not. In addition why do you believe Israeli sovereignty would be in any way threatened by returning refugees? Your concept of logic is absurdly infantile.

I can only assume you are being purposely obtuse. By the nonsense definition of refugees applies to the Palestinians there are how many of them now? And you think they all have a right to “return” to Israel? And don’t want to actually think about what that means?

For real?

 

[Evilroddy]

Israel won the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any plan has to reflect that.

• By Eylon Levy

​Between the lines of the White House peace plan, behind the flowery language about solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is an unspoken but subversive question: What if the conflict cannot be solved? That’s the logical conclusion of calling it intractable. Doing nothing is not an option. But neither is trying to impose a utopian plan that seeks to transform reality rather than deal with the reality that exists.

President Trump’s plan is an attempt — a seriously flawed one that may be doomed to fail, but at least an attempt — to work within the reality that decades of Israeli and Palestinian actions and decisions have created. That reality is that Israel has effectively won the confrontation, and the two sides are too far apart for big, sweeping negotiations to succeed.

So instead of dreams, the plan has three big notions. It recognizes that any solution has to acknowledge the fact that Israel has basically won, instead of denying it or attempting to reverse it. In light of that, the plan primarily tries to shrink the standoff, rather than solve it, which may be a more manageable goal. And it paves the way for a U.S. ally to protect its vital interests and wriggle out of an existential bind. Some of the plan’s unspoken principles offer pragmatic and realistic ways to think about the conflict. . . .

Jack Hays:

Or a new plan might set up the conditions that both the State of Israel and the Palestinian nation lost the conflict and thus the only way forward must be negotiated coexistence rather than unidirectional diktat. Make the conflict so costly to both the State of Israel and the Palestinian nation that they will both settle rather than having to deal with a world which is turning against them both.

The presumption that Israel won the conflict assumes that Israel is in the position to declare the conflict over. It is not.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack Hays:

Or a new plan might set up the conditions that both the State of Israel and the Palestinian nation lost the conflict and thus the only way forward must be negotiated coexistence rather than unidirectional diktat. Make the conflict so costly to both the State of Israel and the Palestinian nation that they will both settle rather than having to deal with a world which is turning against them both.

The presumption that Israel won the conflict assumes that Israel is in the position to declare the conflict over. It is not.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

On the contrary. Israel is in a position to dictate terms. This deal is not as good as Oslo was. The next one will not be as good as this one.

 

[Evilroddy]

On the contrary. Israel is in a position to dictate terms. This deal is not as good as Oslo was. The next one will not be as good as this one.

Jack Hays.

That assumes that effective international pressure is not brought to bear on the State of Israel in order to degrade its dominance which will change the power dynamic and make negotiation more palatable than dictation. The State of Israel must be squeezed hard until it comes to terms. This squeezing can be done by states, organisations and individuals and should involve economic, political, military and informational vectors. These vectors should target the State of Israel's capacity to trade, to finance, to bank and its government leaders' abilities to travel and move their money freely. It should also be directed at Israeli citizens in order to give them other points of view than the ethno-religious nationalism and Zionism which they are being saturated with by the Israeli right-wing agenda and hasbara programme at home. Finally it should be directed at the USA and Saudi Arabia which are enabling and shielding the State of Israel from the consequences of its refusal to negotiate a fair and equitable solution process to the conflict.

Squeeze the State of Israel and the Palestinians both until they both break and come to terms.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Apocalypse]

On the contrary. Israel is in a position to dictate terms. This deal is not as good as Oslo was. The next one will not be as good as this one.

And that's the very essence of what the Palestinians are missing. They think they have the upper hand and they can squeeze everything they want from Israel by saying no to everything. They don't and they can't.

Just to think of what they could have had they accepted the idiotic Ehud Barack proposal or the no less idiotic one of Olmert.