Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
Well, I have, quite a bunch of times at this point. I have argued against its value though showing whether it made a difference before or not, not that whether it happened or not. I do understand why you'd misrepresent what I argued though.
Of course it made a difference, allow me to repeat for the 3rd time the point which you've addressed 0 times: Israel's announcement of annexation and the US's green-lighting of it meant that someone else has to offer Israel something in return for cancelling those plans.
No lie there, not that you're able to show it there. The only thing I stated there as your statement is you asking me to name a peace deal in question. You did ask me as you yourself demonstrate. So, what you're referring to when you say "that's now that I've said" is an enigma to me. I do understand why you'd distort my statements though.
No. I asked you to name a deal in which Israel would "largely annex the west bank", as you've said. Not a deal in which Israel annexes some territory as you now falsely claim.
The peace process that happened under Obama and Clinton had vast majority of settlers stay put in exchange for land elsewhere. None of the deals had minor annexations. I'm giving that example since people compared Trump with Obama. Trump's plan doesn't cover all settlements in the West Bank by the way.
Majority of settlers, yes. But that is not a large amount of territory at all. Here's the Clinton proposal:
As for during the Obama administration, I assume you mean Ehud Olmert's proposal:
Are you seriously comparing them in amount of territory annexed in the Trump plan?
The previous deals don't even come close. It covers all settlements (you say not all, which aren't?) and it includes the entire Jordan river valley that neither of the previous plans did.