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

[Lord Thesaurian]

You have. You're trying to dilute the actual discussion by making a non-existent connections. It's asinine. You don't own the discussion so that you can frame it anyway you want to create a defensible position for yourself.

I am not reframing any discussion. You are apparently running from your own comments about the creation of Israel which I referenced in my post. Again: What is there to criticize about “the creation of Israel?” Why would a Jewish homeland be in Europe? Why wouldn’t a Jewish homeland be in the Levant? Why would Jews living in Europe confer less legitimacy on a Jewish state than would Jews living in the Levant?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Arabs compromise on recognizing Israel from the get go.

I'm sorry, but recognising that the entity you are signing a peace with even exists is not a compromise.

There is no "we want 100%" demand that some here seems to claim.

I've said 100% of the disputed territory. There's no dispute about Israel's pre-67 territory being part of Israel.

Arabs compromise on Jerusalem and propose a West Jerusalem for Israel and East Jerusalem for Palestine.

This isn't a compromise, this is the existing internationally recognised situation. They know they won't have any backing from the international community if they tried to demand west Jerusalem.

Arabs compromise and recognize 1967 borders while Israel wants most of illegal settlements as its land.

That's not a compromise. Imagine if post ww2 Germany went "okay, fine, let's just make a peace and return to the borders we had just before we invaded Poland!", it's about as reasonable. Wars have been fought, blood has been shed, we are not returning to the 1948 armistice line. That ship has sailed a couple decades ago, and was refused.

Arabs wants a solution to the refugee problem. Israel does not and wants to avoid addressing it all together.

Sure, as soon as the Arab world addresses the Jewish refugees it created by expelling them. The "solution" they want to the refugee problem is that their terms be accepted, and refuse to agree to any alternative, such as compensation.

The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative was a simple step in the right direction:

Like I said, this boils down to: accept 100% of palestinian demands, and in return we promise to stop trying to kill you.

[PointOfViewGun]

I am not reframing any discussion. You are apparently running from your own comments about the creation of Israel which I referenced in my post. Again: What is there to criticize about “the creation of Israel?” Why would a Jewish homeland be in Europe? Why wouldn’t a Jewish homeland be in the Levant? Why would Jews living in Europe confer less legitimacy on a Jewish state than would Jews living in the Levant?

You tried to tie people pointing out how Israel was mostly established by European Jews to anti-Semitism and white supremacy or to the idea that European Jews were not real Jews without anyone here making any argument coming close to them. To avoid highlighting how idiotic such arguments you're trying to shift the topic. Carry on.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You tried to tie people pointing out how Israel was mostly established by European Jews to anti-Semitism and white supremacy or to the idea that European Jews were not real Jews without anyone here making any argument coming close to them. To avoid highlighting how idiotic such arguments you're trying to shift the topic. Carry on.

I have not shifted anything from the topic you raised:

It's a fact that the masterminds behind creation of Israel was European Jews as opposed to Jews who were actually living there. Whats so hard about acknowledging the fact that the almost all the signatories to the declaration of independence of Israel was not born in the lands Israel resided on? There was a straggle for a safe homeland in Europe for Jews and they did brought that struggle to Palestine and set up Israel over that.

The decision to run from rather than justify your comments is yours. Again: What is there to criticize about “the creation of Israel?” Why would a Jewish homeland be in Europe? Why wouldn’t a Jewish homeland be in the Levant? Why would Jews living in Europe confer less legitimacy on a Jewish state than would Jews living in the Levant?

[Cyclops]

Europe did not export any Jews, and many Israeli Jews have roots in Middle Eastern countries which they left due to expulsions, pogroms, confiscation of property and detention camps.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers...b_antisemitism

Europe didn’t export its Jews as Cyclops claimed, save for Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Additionally, Jews aren’t just of European origin.

Just keep thinking it over and you'll get there. Most European states were happy to sit back while Hitler "took out the trash", smashing communists and tormenting Jews. Palestine was promised to a number of groups but one of them was Zionists, as (in my view) during WWI "ze Jews" were seen as a fifth column in many countries favouring the Kaiser over the Tsar (small wonder if some were).

A bunch of pragmatic and ruthless left wing Jews founded Israel as a safe haven. That suited many Europeans and others as a solution to the Jewish Question in Europe.

If that's the approach then there can be no peace process in any conflict...

You seem upset and if so I share your feelings. Its highly emotive. I have a somewhat Lockean view of the state as violence against the individual, but its also violence against entire groups. I believe that no state exists without something like the sort of injustice Israel metes to Palestinians.

The standard you're utilizing there renders any effort invalid. It's wrong. A peace process is not something that washes away history for any party. Each party can cite past desires of the other party. It's supposed to be a move forward. Just we don't talk about Israel's past statements or desires about the region when they propose a peace offer and we judge it on its own merits, we need to do the same for the other party. ..

I think have mentioned the existence of Israel is inherently an act of violence against the rights of Palestinians. I definitely mentioned the drift toward something like apartheid in Israel. I feel like maybe in your strong emotional response you've overlooked valid points I've made but I think you're arguing in good faith so I urge you to reconsider.

The feeling of despair can be overwhelming, especially given the powerlessness of Palestinians. There's historical irony in Jewish people organising a state that does the sort of violence to the rights of others although as can be fairly asserted Israel is not Nazi Germany or Trastameran Spain. I mention that because 1. idiotic accusations get made about Israel along those lines (either "Israel is literally Hitler" or "anyone against Israel is literally Hitler") and 2. although they are actually irrelevant the pain those references bring up is a real part of the process.

The stupidly intransigent rhetoric of the parties can be contrasted with the incremental change over time. its very much been two steps forward, two steps back (sometimes 2.1 steps sometimes 3.4 steps back etc). Occasionally external parties have intervened positively. I recall an interview with Jimmy Carter's advisor Brzeszhinski when he mapped out the lurching process of peace in the region, and how parties suddenly reversed seemingly irrevocable positions. For Israel to even accept a Palestinian presence at Camp David had seemed unthinkable, but it happened. Israel's uneasy peace with the Saudis has been the work of decades.

So I can't rule out a genuine Hamas peace offer, although its worth recognising Hamas has relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran that make it unlikely a genuine offer would be made.

It is possible. The conflict in Palestine is but flower sprung this morning compared to the hoary ethnic and religious violence entrenched in Northern Ireland (where I also have relatives on many sides of the many divides). With good will and external forbearance the Good Friday agreement has established a fragile peace unthinkable a decade before it was established. Horrendous rhetoric was placed with cautious, grubby, pragmatic and realistic deal making. Its an ugly process at best and in some way when I make peace with my enemy I let them win, and the purity of anger becomes a soiled surrender of self. I think its worth it.

[Aexodus]

2008 is the most detailed and worked up one. That's the one most people would understand people are referring to when they hear about a 10-year-truce from Hamas. I linked to Netanyahu saying that they would never allow a Palestinian state before in this thread. Now, he's saying something different. Somehow your petty argumentation does not cover that. Why is that you ignore such discrepancies from a few years ago when its coming from the Israeli side but prefer to look at a text from decades ago?

Just wanted to point out Hamas has never endorsed the 10 year truce, in fact they committed the passover massacre the day it was adopted in 2002.

It was drawn up and endorsed by the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab League. Doesn’t make a huge difference but afaik Hamas doesn’t endorse it.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Just wanted to point out Hamas has never endorsed the 10 year truce, in fact they committed the passover massacre the day it was adopted in 2002.

It was drawn up and endorsed by the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab League. Doesn’t make a huge difference but afaik Hamas doesn’t endorse it.

You're conflating two different things here. The 10 year truce is only between Israel and Hamas. The Arab league's plan is between Fatah and Israel (and was actually drawn up without the PA, as they didn't attend the meeting, but since it's literally just 100% of their demands..)

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm sorry, but recognising that the entity you are signing a peace with even exists is not a compromise.
I've said 100% of the disputed territory. There's no dispute about Israel's pre-67 territory being part of Israel.
This isn't a compromise, this is the existing internationally recognised situation. They know they won't have any backing from the international community if they tried to demand west Jerusalem.
That's not a compromise. Imagine if post ww2 Germany went "okay, fine, let's just make a peace and return to the borders we had just before we invaded Poland!", it's about as reasonable. Wars have been fought, blood has been shed, we are not returning to the 1948 armistice line. That ship has sailed a couple decades ago, and was refused.
Sure, as soon as the Arab world addresses the Jewish refugees it created by expelling them. The "solution" they want to the refugee problem is that their terms be accepted, and refuse to agree to any alternative, such as compensation.
Like I said, this boils down to: accept 100% of palestinian demands, and in return we promise to stop trying to kill you.

You don't seem to utilize a basic understanding of what "compromise" or "reality" is. You're basically framing any fact thats inconvenient for you to your liking. Such a worldview must be bliss.

Just wanted to point out Hamas has never endorsed the 10 year truce, in fact they committed the passover massacre the day it was adopted in 2002.
It was drawn up and endorsed by the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab League. Doesn’t make a huge difference but afaik Hamas doesn’t endorse it.

Hamas never endorsed the 10 year truce? The same truce they themselves proposed? You're confusing Arab Peace Initiative with Hamas' truce offer. Hamas's attack in 2002 or its reluctance to accept the initiative says little about Israel's take on the whole process. Hamas simply bothers a small portion of Palestine. Israel simply uses Hamas as the boogeyman to keep on expanding. Hamas' conduct has no bearing on illegal settlements, borders with West Bank and Jerusalem, or the refugee problem. It's no coincidence that Israel helped Hamas to fight off Fatah.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You don't seem to utilize a basic understanding of what "compromise" or "reality" is. You're basically framing any fact thats inconvenient for you to your liking. Such a worldview must be bliss.

It's interesting that you seem to think that negotiations between two sides are about just how one side is going to meet 100% of the other sides demands, rather than, you know, negotiating a middle ground where each side gets something in return for something.
The things you listed as compromises in no way are. Recognition of Israel is the bare minimum to even have a negotiation, not some praise worthy compromise, peace would be impossible without that. The palestinians are the side that lost the war(s) yet they are the ones making demands.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's interesting that you seem to think that negotiations between two sides are about just how one side is going to meet 100% of the other sides demands, rather than, you know, negotiating a middle ground where each side gets something in return for something.
The things you listed as compromises in no way are. Recognition of Israel is the bare minimum to even have a negotiation, not some praise worthy compromise, peace would be impossible without that. The palestinians are the side that lost the war(s) yet they are the ones making demands.

You don't seem to understand what's the middle ground or how any of this works either. The demands we're talking about was not the starting point of the Arabs. That's where you're trying to frame the discussion so that you actually have a case to defend. What they demanded was a compromise. If they could get 100% of what they initially wanted there would be no Israel. There would be just Palestine. Why do I even need to point this?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You don't seem to understand what's the middle ground or how any of this works either. The demands we're talking about was not the starting point of the Arabs. That's where you're trying to frame the discussion so that you actually have a case to defend. What they demanded was a compromise. If they could get 100% of what they initially wanted there would be no Israel. There would be just Palestine. Why do I even need to point this?

Yes, and they attempted to enforce their initial demands, multiple times. There are consequences to that.
Again, recognition of Israel isn't a compromise, it's the bare minimum. Imagine signing a peace deal but not recognising Israel. And if you're so insistent on it being a compromise, then it is cancelled out by Israel recognising palestine after a peace is concluded. It's a 1 for 1.

[Aexodus]

You're conflating two different things here. The 10 year truce is only between Israel and Hamas. The Arab league's plan is between Fatah and Israel (and was actually drawn up without the PA, as they didn't attend the meeting, but since it's literally just 100% of their demands..)

Hamas never endorsed the 10 year truce? The same truce they themselves proposed? You're confusing Arab Peace Initiative with Hamas' truce offer. Hamas's attack in 2002 or its reluctance to accept the initiative says little about Israel's take on the whole process. Hamas simply bothers a small portion of Palestine. Israel simply uses Hamas as the boogeyman to keep on expanding. Hamas' conduct has no bearing on illegal settlements, borders with West Bank and Jerusalem, or the refugee problem. It's no coincidence that Israel helped Hamas to fight off Fatah.

Ah thanks for correcting me. I got confused after the Arab League truce was mentioned in a response to a question about Hamas.

Depending on when the truce is offered there are specific demands but in general these are what they demand:

Arabs compromise on recognizing Israel from the get go. There is no "we want 100%" demand that some here seems to claim. Arabs compromise on Jerusalem and propose a West Jerusalem for Israel and East Jerusalem for Palestine. Israel does not and wants the entirety of the city. Arabs compromise and recognize 1967 borders while Israel wants most of illegal settlements as its land. Arabs wants a solution to the refugee problem. Israel does not and wants to avoid addressing it all together.

The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative was a simple step in the right direction:

[Vanoi]

Terrible plan. Pretty one-sided in Israel's favor. Never actually expected Trump to come up with a real plan that could work though. Looks like the status quo remains.

[Axalon]

... ... The palestinians are the side that lost the war(s) yet they are the ones making demands.

This, a thousand times this... You don't get to dictate and demand terms for anything as a conquered people. In addition, losing multiple wars (which you started, with few exceptions) does not provide any excuses or benefits in such regards either. It typically works the other way around, the victor (yup, the Israelis) gets to make the demands and dictate terms, not the loser... Furthermore, having been conquered and ruled, again and again by others - for centuries, mind you - does not make your supposed case of sudden mastery of relevant lands any stronger either - it makes your case weaker. World history is rather crystal clear on that - it simply does not work that way, it never has. High time these local Arabs acted accordingly and humbled down. They (the local Arabs) certainly have plenty to be humble about...

- A

[Vanoi]

This, a thousand times this... You don't get to dictate and demand terms for anything as a conquered people.

Isn't that kind of the problem? Treating them like conquered peoples and not listening to any of their demands?

Past negociations that helped bring about positive results were when both sides compromised. Not one side simply dictating terms to the other. A viable two state solution requires compromise by both sides. Otherwise the status quo remains or the situation gets worse.

[Aexodus]

Isn't that kind of the problem? Treating them like conquered peoples and not listening to any of their demands?

Isn’t that what normally happens? At the ends of for example, WWI and WWII.

[Vanoi]

Isn’t that what normally happens? At the ends of for example, WWI and WWII.

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.

[Aexodus]

I think I get what you’re saying. That is what normally happens, but there’s a better way to do it.

[Gromovnik]

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

[sumskilz]

It’s understandable why Palestinians would feel like the green line as a border and allowing Israel to exist is already a compromise, but their feelings are completely detached from the reality of their negotiating position, for the following reasons:

• Israel exists and is internationally recognized. They don’t need the Palestinian Authority’s recognition, and thus recognizing Israel is worth nothing to them.
• The green line is internationally recognized as Israel’s de facto border. They have no need for the Palestinian Authority to recognize it, thus this is worth nothing.
• According to the Oslo Accords, recognized by most of the International community, Israel has security control over Areas B and C in the West Bank. This allows Israel better protection for its core population areas than any security guarantees offered by the Palestinian Authority could (even if sincere, due to the difficulty they have in controlling their own extremists). Thus, any security guarantees the Palestinians may offer can at best be seen as partial compensation for Israel relinquishing much more dependable security control. This then is a net negative for the Israelis. In reality, the Palestinian Authority can’t even protect itself from its own people without Israeli assistance.

Consequently, the Palestinian Authority’s compromise offer consists entirely of "giving" Israel what Israel already has in exchange for ending the conflict which the PA doesn’t actually have the power to do.

There is only one thing that the Palestinian Authority can give to Israel that Israel actually wants, and that is recognition of some of Israel’s claims to disputed territory, since a Palestinian signature would make annexation legal in the eyes of the international community.

The main problem for any mediator in this case is the lack of plausibility of getting anything like what the Palestinians consider to be their bare minimum.

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.