Trump unveils plan for Palestinian subjugation

[Worgen]

Seems like a way to falsely claim, "See? We tried" before killing a bunch more Palestinians.

It'd hardly be the first time someone pretended to play nice if the other side would agree to impossible demands.

I think arguing that Israel wants to kill the Palestinians is going too far. I don't think Israel institutionally cares much about the lives of Palestinians, but that's not the same thing as actively trying to kill them.

I think it's much more likely to be an Overton window sort of calculation. If one person says 7 and the other 3, the mid-point and what a lot of the moderates duly plod to as supposedly reasonable) is 5. If one side then moves their position to 10, the mid-point becomes ~7. Thus you can justify a great deal more not by changing any facts or the actual situation, but people's perception of it.

I don't know. Israel really does seem to view the Palestinians as undesirable. Doesn't take much to push a population into agreeing to abuse other people that are bad, look what we are doing on the border

 

[Thaluikhain]

Seems like a way to falsely claim, "See? We tried" before killing a bunch more Palestinians.

It'd hardly be the first time someone pretended to play nice if the other side would agree to impossible demands.

I think arguing that Israel wants to kill the Palestinians is going too far. I don't think Israel institutionally cares much about the lives of Palestinians, but that's not the same thing as actively trying to kill them.

True, I was interpreting "killing a bunch more Palestinians" as "making sure the peace process doesn't get anywhere" and ensuring things don't change.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

This is Swiss cheese. Not a viable plan for a nation-state.

Looking through the plan, it's not even intended to be a viable nation state.

It will not be permitted a military, which effectively means it cannot enforce its sovereignty against any other state. The Palestinian state is non-contiguous, which means it can be cut-up and bits isolated at will. It is effectively isolated from any state other than Israel, which means if Israel chooses to shut the border, it is instantly crippled. It will depend utterly on Israel for key resources. This makes it politically and economically subservient to Israel.

It will be, de facto, a modern form of vassal state.

This is undoubtedly the intent. Israel wants the Palestinians' land, resources, etc. but cannot absorb the Palestinian population without either destroying its status as a Jewish state or enacting apartheid (although I'd argue the current state of the Palestinians is effectively apartheid now). If Israel cannot have this land for the Jews because it cannot just wholesale evict the occupants, then what it can do is exercise such control over it that it works for them anyway. Even in a "happy" scenario where such a Palestine flourished, a very large amount of its bounty would just flow straight into the pockets of Israel.

It's at the point where I don't think a two state solution is viable due to too many red lines that have been drawn. That said, I also don't think a one state solution is viable. It's perceived as demographic suicide by Israelis.

So the status quo, of a situation that I would agree is apartheid, will remain.

 

[generals3]

Trump should really fire his son in law. He basically spent 3 years to document the as-is situation and than proposes a plan which consists of officiating it... This simply won't work and will probably cause a lot of ire in the Arab world.

 

[Agema]

It's at the point where I don't think a two state solution is viable due to too many red lines that have been drawn. That said, I also don't think a one state solution is viable. It's perceived as demographic suicide by Israelis.

I don't entirely disagree. You're right that nothing will work unless some of red lines are broken: but I think it could be done by leaders with the wit, courage and charisma to carry it through, and/or sufficient preparation and dedication. No such leaders are in evidence on either side.

Honestly I mostly just like the West Bank and Gaza out of Israeli control and into the hands of a neutral party - the problem then being which neutral party is prepared to take on the headache, because it's time and effort for no reward. This would at least stabilise the potential viability of a Palestinian state before Israel whittles it down to total impracticality.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's at the point where I don't think a two state solution is viable due to too many red lines that have been drawn. That said, I also don't think a one state solution is viable. It's perceived as demographic suicide by Israelis.

I don't entirely disagree. You're right that nothing will work unless some of red lines are broken: but I think it could be done by leaders with the wit, courage and charisma to carry it through, and/or sufficient preparation and dedication. No such leaders are in evidence on either side.

Honestly I mostly just like the West Bank and Gaza out of Israeli control and into the hands of a neutral party - the problem then being which neutral party is prepared to take on the headache, because it's time and effort for no reward. This would at least stabilise the potential viability of a Palestinian state before Israel whittles it down to total impracticality.

I've been kicking around ideas for possible peace settlements in my head for a while now. I agree with your statement about better leadership. I also think certain things need to change and be accepted as fact.

For Israel, I think there needs to be an understanding that the status quo cannot be sustained. And that eventually, the world may tire of them.

For Palestinians, I think that they need to realize that Israel existing as an ethnostate for the Jewish people is a fait accompli. Israel will not agree to any deal that endangers that. Additionally, any peace settlement will have to be final. Hamas cannot simply use the Gaza Strip as it's own base to keep launching failed attacks into Israel.

Does that make sense? I don't know if what I'm typing makes sense, here.

 

[Trunkage]

So... just a uncomfortable question. Is the Israeli government just follow Deuteronomy 7?

 

[Agema]

I've been kicking around ideas for possible peace settlements in my head for a while now. I agree with your statement about better leadership. I also think certain things need to change and be accepted as fact.

For Israel, I think there needs to be an understanding that the status quo cannot be sustained. And that eventually, the world may tire of them.

For Palestinians, I think that they need to realize that Israel existing as an ethnostate for the Jewish people is a fait accompli. Israel will not agree to any deal that endangers that. Additionally, any peace settlement will have to be final. Hamas cannot simply use the Gaza Strip as it's own base to keep launching failed attacks into Israel.

Does that make sense? I don't know if what I'm typing makes sense, here.

No, that all makes sense. I think Palestinians have to drop right of return. I believe some claim to still have documentation of property rights and perhaps they could be looked at or gain restitution. I think this needs to be understood as a massive concession. Right of return of refugees has been an major established global principle since WW2. Excusing Israel from that is a massive deal. (As an approximate comparison, imagine we turned round and said Jews dispossessed by he Nazis had no rights to reclaim their assets: there'd be howls of rage and protest.) I think post-1967 Israeli settlements have to viewed in this frame as well. It is extraordinarily difficult to imagine Palestinians are told to suck up loss of land both ways.

Something we all have to accept is that violence will persist for a long time even after a peace settlement. Terrorists don't just drop their weapons, all those decades of hate, anger and sense of injustice don't go away. What we need are Palestinian authorities who are committed to peace and accepting Israel's right to exist, and that they actively seek to pursue and prevent militants who attack Israeli targets. (It seems to me that a lot of the demands for terrorism to stop are loaded so that Palestinian politicians and people can be igorned over the actions of independent criminal organisations.)

 

[Overhead]

It's at the point where I don't think a two state solution is viable due to too many red lines that have been drawn. That said, I also don't think a one state solution is viable. It's perceived as demographic suicide by Israelis.

I don't entirely disagree. You're right that nothing will work unless some of red lines are broken: but I think it could be done by leaders with the wit, courage and charisma to carry it through, and/or sufficient preparation and dedication. No such leaders are in evidence on either side.

Honestly I mostly just like the West Bank and Gaza out of Israeli control and into the hands of a neutral party - the problem then being which neutral party is prepared to take on the headache, because it's time and effort for no reward. This would at least stabilise the potential viability of a Palestinian state before Israel whittles it down to total impracticality.

I've been kicking around ideas for possible peace settlements in my head for a while now. I agree with your statement about better leadership. I also think certain things need to change and be accepted as fact.

For Israel, I think there needs to be an understanding that the status quo cannot be sustained. And that eventually, the world may tire of them.

For Palestinians, I think that they need to realize that Israel existing as an ethnostate for the Jewish people is a fait accompli. Israel will not agree to any deal that endangers that. Additionally, any peace settlement will have to be final. Hamas cannot simply use the Gaza Strip as it's own base to keep launching failed attacks into Israel.

Does that make sense? I don't know if what I'm typing makes sense, here.

The refugee issue is one that the Palestine side has been willing to compromise on previously, accepting a relatively token level of refugees returning to Israel on the basis that the majority of the rest would be absorbed into Palestine when it became a full self-sustaining state. Palestine as a state is no longer on the table in any meaningful way at the moment, so Palestine isn't going to offer those types of concessions.

Hamas isn't an easily solvable issue at the moment because in past conflicts like this like the IRA in Ireland, the Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa, etc it's been a case of engaging with the terrorists/freedom fighter (delete as appropriate) and bringing them to the table to arrange a peaceful outcome. I don't know how it's possible to get Hamas to agree to a peaceful solution when most of the parties interested and involved in the conflict refuse to communicate with Hamas.


For the solution which combines the key qualities of "Just", "Realistic" and "Minimum amount of war crimes" I'd say ~2% land swaps to give Israel it's biggest settlement enclaves, status quo at the Haram Al-sharif/Temple Mount maintained with a commitment to making it as open as possible to other faiths while respecting that it is a Muslim mosque, East Jerusalem going to the Palestinians and west Jerusalem to the Israelis along the green line, the permanent restrictions that Israel is looking to place on Palestine that make it more of a quasi-state to be implemented on a temporary basis only lasting several years and a mostly token resettlement of sub 100,000 refugees in Israel with the rest being made citizens of their countries of residence or returning to Palestine..

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I think this needs to be understood as a massive concession. Right of return of refugees has been an major established global principle since WW2. Excusing Israel from that is a massive deal.

I agree but I'd also like to add that there have been exceptions. Pakistanis/Indians displaced by the partition weren't given a right of return, nor were the Ethnic Germans in post-WWII Eastern Europe (to be clear, I'm talking about groups like the German Silesians)

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'd say ~2% land swaps to give Israel it's biggest settlement enclaves

Yes, reward them for land theft, by all means.

 

[Agema]

Yes, reward them for land theft, by all means.

Unless the international community threatens Israel with dire ramifications, realistically any agreement is going to be based around the territory held at the time, not the 1967 borders. It might not be just, but politics often isn't.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I wonder, if this farce has any sincerity behind it whatsoever, what building contracts Trump has in mind with Israel amongst these plans.

 

[Overhead]

I'd say ~2% land swaps to give Israel it's biggest settlement enclaves

Yes, reward them for land theft, by all means.

It's not my dream scenario. I think the act of continual illegal settlements is part of a process of ethnic cleansing that should never be allowed and all settlers should be immediately removed regardless of the continuation or outcome of the peace process because their very presence constitutes a war crime.

The thing is, wishing doesn't make things so.

Unless there is a drastic political realignment in either the EU or USA, I frankly think my hypothetical peace deal is probably naively pro-Palestinian compared to what will actually be decided on but I could see it as potentially feasible. It's not good, but it may represent a realistic minimum level of what needs to be conceded for peace. It's also a level of land-swaps that the Palestinians themselves have been previously willing to offer themselves in return for a comprehensive peace deal.

 

[Agema]

I wonder, if this farce has any sincerity behind it whatsoever, what building contracts Trump has in mind with Israel amongst these plans.

No, I don't think it did have any sincerity.

This plan is basically an Israeli wish list, as might be expected from a plan that was only hashed out with one side. In fact, I could imagine it's sort of like a pre-negotiation start point, where a side asks for the best case scenario, the other side asks for their best case scenario, and they end up meeting somewhere inbetween.

From what I could gather, it's quite old - it was sitting on a shelf for up to two years. I would suggest it's been sitting on the shelf for quite a while because it was actually sort of buried, as patently a load of utter shite that was never going to get anywhere. It suddenly got dusted off and released because it was politically expedient for Trump and Netanyahu who were both under a lot of pressure.