Meet the "Trump peace plan" for the Israel-Palestinian conflict

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The Allies missed the chance to form a Jewish homeland from a portion of former Germany. All this trouble could've been avoided.

Implying that the Jews would have wanted that.

Not exactly. WW1 was more like they humiliated and punished Germany too much. They weren't conquered but given a bad peace deal. They still had their own country they govern themselves. WW2 wasn't was bad as the Allies learned the lessons of a bad humiliating peace deal and the problems it brings. Though i'm just talking about the endings of both wars.

I do basically agree with you though.

Perhaps Austria-Hungary after WW1 would be a more fitting example then. It was completely demolished, every demand they tried to make to keep at least some of their territory (the attempted state of German Austria) was refused, the terms were simply forced on to them.

[PointOfViewGun]

There was actually a Soviet project to give the Jews a homeland. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast was set up around Birobidzhan in 1934. It remains to this day though with little Jewish population. If the Jewish struggle was to find a homeland then they would have been settling there.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

There was actually a Soviet project to give the Jews a homeland. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast was set up around Birobidzhan in 1934. It remains to this day though with little Jewish population. If the Jewish struggle was to find a homeland then they would have been settling there.

I'll answer this with a quote from the article Sumskilz linked on page 2:

When Chaim Weizmann was asked, “why do you Jews insist on Palestine when there are so many undeveloped countries you could settle in?” he famously responded “that is like my asking you why you drove 20 miles to visit your mother last Sunday when there are so many old ladies living on your street.”

[Vanoi]

Perhaps Austria-Hungary after WW1 would be a more fitting example then. It was completely demolished, every demand they tried to make to keep at least some of their territory (the attempted state of German Austria) was refused, the terms were simply forced on to them.

Same Austria that goes on to unite with Hitler and the same Hungary who joins the Axis powers and their war in Europe? Total success.

Imagine if Germany demanded that Russia return Kalingrad to them. How likely would it be that any mediator could get the Russians to do so? Now imagine that Germany had carried out a sustained terror campaign against Russian civilians for several decades beforehand. Would that make Russia more likely or less likely to concede to returning it? Obviously, I consider these rhetorical questions.

Hard but this is Stalin they'd have to negotiate with so no surprise. Now imagine if Russia decided to continue taking German land and then sending settlers into that land while kicking the Germans out. Those terror attacks continue. Who's fault is it?

[sumskilz]

Hard but this is Stalin they'd have to negotiate with so no surprise. Now imagine if Russia decided to continue taking German land and then sending settlers into that land while kicking the Germans out. Those terror attacks continue. Who's fault is it?

I could have easily used Poland as an example, I'm sure they couldn't be convinced to give any land back to the Germany either. There was no moral argument in my post, since it is essentially irrelevant to what is or isn't plausible. Both sides believe they are morally justified, but one side has a much less realistic picture of their negotiating position than the other does.

As far as whose fault the terror attacks are? I tend to assign most blame to the individuals committing them since they are most responsible for their own actions. Anything else just leads to an infinite regress of blame. Back in 1930, al-Kaff al-Aswad started killing Jewish immigrants for having the audacity to live in Palestine on land they legally purchased. That was certainly not a response to Israeli government policy. With very few exceptions, Palestinians never owned the land in Area C where settlements are being built. It was all public Ottoman lands appropriated by the British, then appropriated by the Jordanians, then appropriated by Israel. I'm not saying Palestinians don't have a valid reason to think it should belong to them, but if Mexican immigrants were building towns on US public lands, I would hardly think the appropriate response would be to go to Mexico and blow up a little kid's birthday party or a bus full of commuters, regardless of whether or not the Mexican government was facilitating it, so I don't consider that type of behavior an inevitable response. I'd further say it sabotages the Palestinians case if they do hope for some sort of diplomatic solution, because they tend to target civilians in the bigger cities, where the main segment of the Israeli voting population who might have otherwise had some sympathy for them tend to live.

[Yayattasa]

Abbas announced Palestine has cut diplomatic ties indefinitely with both the US and Israel due to the outrageous "peace plan".

[Vanoi]

I could have easily used Poland as an example, I'm sure they couldn't be convinced to give any land back to the Germany either. There was no moral argument in my post, since it is essentially irrelevant to what is or isn't plausible. Both sides believe they are morally justified, but one side has a much less realistic picture of their negotiating position than the other does.

Mentioned it for a reason. Palestinians are well aware of their current position. I'm not even advocating the Palestinian position on negotiations. You can't expect any real progress though if one side is making all of the demands but no concessions. And of course the Palestinians and Israelis continue to poke and prod each other which isn't making the situation any better.

As far as whose fault the terror attacks are? I tend to assign most blame to the individuals committing them since they are most responsible for their own actions. Anything else just leads to an infinite regress of blame.

You can fault the attacker and you'd be right. There is however a cause and effect to things. If you provoke them then something like this could happen. And in Israel's case its settlements alone are provocation. That they continue to build. Regardless of their legality of the problems they cause. And then a Palestinian rams a car into an Israeli soldier. He gets called a terrorist for what he did. And the cycle continues.

Get it? Israel helps cause some of its own trouble. Its going to have to realize that eventually if Israel actually wants a viable two-state solution. I'm too cynical at this point to believe any two state solution would work anymore.

Back in 1930, al-Kaff al-Aswad started killing Jewish immigrants for having the audacity to live in Palestine on land they legally purchased. That was certainly not a response to Israeli government policy. With very few exceptions, Palestinians never owned the land in Area C where settlements are being built. It was all public Ottoman lands appropriated by the British, then appropriated by the Jordanians, then appropriated by Israel. I'm not saying Palestinians don't have a valid reason to think it should belong to them, but if Mexican immigrants were building towns on US public lands, I would hardly think the appropriate response would be to go to Mexico and blow up a little kid's birthday party or a bus full of commuters, regardless of whether or not the Mexican government was facilitating it, so I don't consider that type of behavior an inevitable response. I'd further say it sabotages the Palestinians case if they do hope for some sort of diplomatic solution, because they tend to target civilians in the bigger cities, where the main segment of the Israeli voting population who might have otherwise had some sympathy for them tend to live.

If Mexico is occupying all of America in this hypothetical scenario and you think there wouldn't be attacks against the occupying force or even the occupier itself your naive. Ever heard of the Troubles? Not the same exact situation but similar. Axis occupation of Yugoslavia. I could go on and on. I don't condone attacks on civilians but people do crazy things when they feel their way of life is being taken away or threatened.

It can sabotage their public image. Doesn't matter. Neither side wants to maintain the status quo. If the Israelis want to live in their country without fear of attacks or constantly having to spend billions of dollars in defense just trying to contain the Palestinian problem at home they'll have to make real compromise. Palestinians don't give a . They'll shoot rockets and blow themselves up as long as they can. What do they honestly have to lose at this point? More land thats already being taken? This is Israel's problem to let live on. Or solve. Their choice.

[Papay]

I could have easily used Poland as an example, I'm sure they couldn't be convinced to give any land back to the Germany either. There was no moral argument in my post, since it is essentially irrelevant to what is or isn't plausible. Both sides believe they are morally justified, but one side has a much less realistic picture of their negotiating position than the other does.

As far as whose fault the terror attacks are? I tend to assign most blame to the individuals committing them since they are most responsible for their own actions. Anything else just leads to an infinite regress of blame. Back in 1930, al-Kaff al-Aswad started killing Jewish immigrants for having the audacity to live in Palestine on land they legally purchased. That was certainly not a response to Israeli government policy. With very few exceptions, Palestinians never owned the land in Area C where settlements are being built. It was all public Ottoman lands appropriated by the British, then appropriated by the Jordanians, then appropriated by Israel. I'm not saying Palestinians don't have a valid reason to think it should belong to them, but if Mexican immigrants were building towns on US public lands, I would hardly think the appropriate response would be to go to Mexico and blow up a little kid's birthday party or a bus full of commuters, regardless of whether or not the Mexican government was facilitating it, so I don't consider that type of behavior an inevitable response. I'd further say it sabotages the Palestinians case if they do hope for some sort of diplomatic solution, because they tend to target civilians in the bigger cities, where the main segment of the Israeli voting population who might have otherwise had some sympathy for them tend to live.

If the Mexicans were armed and took money from Mexico, committing ethnic cleansing against local Americans, yes resistance would be valid

[Aexodus]

If the Mexicans were armed and took money from Mexico, committing ethnic cleansing against local Americans, yes resistance would be valid

Is massacring civilians a legitimate form of ‘resistance’?

Ever heard of the Troubles? Not the same exact situation but similar.

It’s not similar. Northern Ireland is not occupied any more than Cornwall.

[sumskilz]

Palestinians are well aware of their current position.

I think they believe they will win in the long run, one way or another.

Palestinians don't give a . They'll shoot rockets and blow themselves up as long as they can. What do they honestly have to lose at this point? More land thats already being taken? This is Israel's problem to let live on. Or solve. Their choice.

Palestinians have little to lose as far as their national aspirations, but plenty to lose as far as their quality of life as individuals. I'm not sure how you imagine the West Bank, but it isn't much different than Israel.

Here:



If you think that area in the intro he's walking through looks bad, that's the only part of the video shot in Israel.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Same Austria that goes on to unite with Hitler and the same Hungary who joins the Axis powers and their war in Europe? Total success.

A treaty is useless when there's no one willing to enforce it.

If the Mexicans were armed and took money from Mexico, committing ethnic cleansing against local Americans, yes resistance would be valid

That's.. not at all what's happening here. The only ones being paid to kill people are Jihadists recieving a monthly salary from the Palestinian Authority proportionate to how many Jews they killed.

[Vanoi]

It’s not similar. Northern Ireland is not occupied any more than Cornwall.

I'm sure the Nationalists thought that way too right?

I think they believe they will win in the long run, one way or another.

Everyone has dreams.

Palestinians have little to lose as far as their national aspirations, but plenty to lose as far as their quality of life as individuals. I'm not sure how you imagine the West Bank, but it isn't much different than Israel.

The Palestinians manage in Gaza. West Bank becoming a battlefield would be as bad for the Israelis as it would for the Palestinians at this point. All the while still having to deal with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has much more to lose than the Palestinians do. And they know that.

That youtube video was funny. How can there be an occupation here? We have zoos! Funny enough that video doesn't mention how restricted Palestinians are in West Bank nor does it show all the walls in West Bank dividing the Palestinians from the Israelis.

We can always ask the opinions of the Palestinians. i wonder what they answer would be.

A treaty is useless when there's no one willing to enforce it.

Still ends up with war. Better to avoid the bad peace.

[sumskilz]

That youtube video was funny. How can their be an occupation here? We have zoos! Funny enough that video doesn't mention how restricted Palestinians are in West Bank nor does it show all the walls in West Bank dividing the Palestinians from the Israelis.

We can always ask the opinions of the Palestinians. i wonder what they answer would be.

Most of the video actually is him asking Palestinians about how much they suffer under the occupation and what specifically they suffer from.

[Vanoi]

Most of the video actually is him asking Palestinians about how much they suffer under the occupation and what specifically they suffer from.

I was more referring to a poll regarding the occupation than asking people on the street. Hope your not really suggesting the Palestinians don't think they are under occupation. You know with the whole settlement issue, West Bank walls, and such?

[sumskilz]

I was more referring to a poll regarding the occupation than asking people on the street. Hope your not really suggesting the Palestinians don't think they are under occupation. You know with the whole settlement issue, West Bank walls, and such?

Of course, the video is all them complaining about how terrible it is, it's just telling when you actually hear what they themselves say is so terrible. For example, the barista he and his Arabic translator talk to says his suffering is 8 or 9 out of 10, one time when he was a kid his school was even closed for a week. Others keep complaining about checkpoints, but they are the checkpoints on a highway where it goes through West Jerusalem so that will be the case even if there is a two state solution. Evidently it's also hard to afford a house in the West Bank on one income when when you have 8 kids. All this in places that don't look any different than Israel. The first time I visited the West Bank, I was actually quite surprised to see how little it differed from Israel. I don't doubt that they have some extra annoyances, but remember my original point was that they have a lot to lose as far as quality of life, and that's evident objectively by the numbers if you compare them to Gaza.

[Yayattasa]

You're just ignoring several other "chronic" issues which hurt Palestinians the most: they can't effectively use all their fishing waters in Gaza because Israel blockaded it, they can't import and export freely, they can't move between the West Bank and Gaza to see family, extended families often have family members living in refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan, and these are not allowed back into Palestine. You also have the "acute" examples, such as settlers invading and stealing homes, settlers building on private Palestinian land, IDF capturing kids, detention without trial, and the occasional settler mob invading Islamic holy places. If the IDF actually made something about it and did not allow settlers to run rampant I think Palestinians would be waaay more persuaded by peace plans.

[sumskilz]

You're just ignoring several other "chronic" issues which hurt Palestinians the most: they can't effectively use all their fishing waters in Gaza because Israel blockaded it, they can't import and export freely, they can't move between the West Bank and Gaza to see family, extended families often have family members living in refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan, and these are not allowed back into Palestine. You also have the "acute" examples, such as settlers invading and stealing homes, settlers building on private Palestinian land, IDF capturing kids, detention without trial, and the occasional settler mob invading Islamic holy places. If the IDF actually made something about it and did not allow settlers to run rampant I think Palestinians would be waaay more persuaded by peace plans.

I haven't read every bit of the full text, but from cursory look through, it appears Trump's plan addresses all those issues.

[Yayattasa]

I haven't read every bit of the full text, but from cursory look through, it appears Trump's plan addresses all those issues.

I was talking about life under occupation. Palestinians would be well served by several terms of the "peace" plan, but territorial integrity, border with Jordan and East Jerusalem are, at the national level, their most important demands.

I think they could give away East Jerusalem in exchange for the rest, including the end of the blockade, the removal of IDF from Palestinian territory, territorial integrity (settlers can remain under the Palestinian State, but we know they wouldn't), border with Jordan and right of return*.

That's the reason Abbas keep saying East Jerusalem is nonnegotiable, it's because it actually is! He can't let go of this bargaining chip, which hurts Israel the most.

*to Palestine, we know Israeli wouldn't ever welcome Palestinians en masse, the ones with property within Israel should be compensated, or could live with residency perhaps, not citizenship. Their citizenship would be (and I actually it already is) Palestine.

[Ludicus]

It is the deal of the century only as far as it is the best deal the Palestinians are likely to be offered this century.

Well considering the fact that the 21th century begins in 2001...that's a bold statement.

Let's keep in mind that Sanders, a self-hating Jew and the US next President will change that. Btw, he isn't fearful of assassination attempts, and says: it is time to end the Israeli occupation.

It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump's so-called 'peace deal' doesn't come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable.

Progressive Democrats condemn ...the theft of the century.
--

Jewish groups in US blast Trump's Mideast peace plan

Trump's 'deal of the century' was written in a way so Palestinians would reject it. May be that was the plan. The Haaretz

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Well considering the fact that the 21th century begins in 2001...that's a bold statement.

Let's keep in mind that Sanders, a self-hating Jew and the US next President will change that. Btw, he isn't fearful of assassination attempts, and says: it is time to end the Israeli occupation.

Progressive Democrats condemn ...the theft of the century.
--

Jewish groups in US blast Trump's Mideast peace plan

Trump's 'deal of the century' was written in a way so Palestinians would reject it. May be that was the plan. The Haaretz

What Sanders wants is unacceptable to Israel, and would never come to be.