T. Belman. “By moving to assert sovereignty right away, Netanyahu was pulling the rug out from under the entire “vision.”. I disagree. I will explain in my comment.
Two and a half years after the event, Jared Kushner finally explains how a carefully constructed effort ‘to improve the lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people’ was derailed
By DAVID HOROVITZ, TOI, 5 August 2022, 4:26 pm
A very strange thing happened in the East Room of the White House on January 28, 2020: US President Donald Trump unveiled a painstakingly constructed “Vision to improve the lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people,” much of which was music to the ears of the average Israeli. But then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, standing alongside him, immediately subverted it.
Overseen by the US president’s top aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner, the plan broke ground in taking seriously many Israeli concerns that had been marginalized, if not ignored, in previous peace efforts. “Critically,” as I wrote at the time, “it was predicated on the imperative that the rise of a Palestinian state in no way undermine or threaten Israel’s security, and that the US would only ask Israel to consider compromises that would make the country and its people ‘more secure in the short and long term.’” It also included numerous elements guaranteed to infuriate the Palestinians — radically constraining their future sovereign rights, denying them significant status in Jerusalem, and refusing their demand for a “right of return” for refugees.
It was not, however, good enough for Netanyahu. While warmly extolling the virtues of the plan, the prime minister instantly smashed headlong through its carefully delineated parameters and informed Trump that Israel would henceforth begin to “apply its laws to the Jordan Valley, to all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and to other areas that your plan designates as part of Israel and which the United States has agreed to recognize as part of Israel.”
The Trump plan had indeed designated areas of the West Bank that would come under Israeli sovereignty — but as part of a hoped-for negotiated process with the Palestinians that would give them their constrained state. Unilateral Israeli annexation was the fallback option, to apply only if that process failed. By moving to assert sovereignty right away, Netanyahu was pulling the rug out from under the entire “vision.”
What was unfolding before the very eyes of a watching world was absolutely incomprehensible. Again, as I wrote at the time, “Nowhere in the painstakingly compiled document is a promise made or even implied of any such immediate Israeli annexation. Why would there be? It makes no sense. Why would you unveil a plan, worked on for three years, designed to lead to an agreed-upon deal, carefully calibrated to both reassure Israel and avoid alienating key Arab allies, and then brutally contradict those goals by promising one side all of its spoils right away?”
And yet, no sooner was the East Room ceremony over than Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, was confirming to reporters that Netanyahu could indeed go ahead and annex the roughly 30% of West Bank territory that the plan allocated to Israel — largely comprising the Jordan Valley and all the settlements — with the further assurance that once Israel had applied its law to those areas, the US would recognize the move. Said Friedman: “Israel does not have to wait at all.”
As we know, of course, Netanyahu did not apply Israeli law to the settlements, the Jordan Valley or any other part of the West Bank — neither immediately after the White House ceremony nor since. In the days, weeks and months after the great unveiling, Kushner made it increasingly explicit that the Trump administration would not back unilateral annexation, and that Netanyahu understood and accepted this.
And after doubtless reassuring the leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, whose ambassadors were present at the East Room ceremony, that they need not believe their ears, Kushner and the Trump administration went on to broker the Abraham Accords, under which Netanyahu put aside annexation as a key prerequisite of peace treaties with the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco, with the promise of further regional normalization deals to come.
Netanyahu was widely credited for his statesmanship and wisdom in choosing a process of regional normalization for Israel over his and his political bloc’s interest in unilateral annexation. But as of this week, we can now finally understand more fully those bizarrely contradictory Trump and Netanyahu messages at the White House in January 2020, how tenaciously Netanyahu struggled to persuade Trump to back his annexation gambit, and why the then-prime minister was actually given no choice by the US administration but to go along with the Abraham Accords-for-no-annexation equation.
For Jared Kushner, in pre-publication excerpts of his forthcoming book, “A White House Memoir,” has made plain that Friedman — who firmly disputes Kushner’s account, as does Netanyahu’s Likud party — “had assured Bibi that he would get the White House to support annexation more immediately. He had not conveyed this to me or anyone on my team.”
When Netanyahu, in his East Room speech, specified that he would begin annexation, writes Kushner, “I grabbed my chair so intensely that my knuckles turned white, as if my grip could make Bibi stop.”
“This was not what we had negotiated,” Kushner elaborates. “Under our plan, we would eventually recognize Israel’s sovereignty over agreed upon areas if Israel took steps to advance Palestinian statehood within the territory we outlined.”
White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, center, listens during an event with US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House in Washington, January 28, 2020, announcing the Trump administration’s much-anticipated plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Kushner was furious because Netanyahu’s declaration had torpedoed his delicate negotiations with Israel’s potential new allies in the region and, centrally, because it had given Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas an easy way to escape the president’s vision and doom the initiative.
“Had the rollout gone according to plan, it would have put Abbas in an impossible position,” writes Kushner. “Reacting harshly against a credible proposal would further alienate him while exposing the hollowness of his position. But the Israeli prime minister had given Abbas exactly the kind of opening he needed to reject our plan.”
Not only was Kushner taken aback, but so too was Trump, in his account. “Bibi gave a campaign speech. I feel dirty,” the president told Kushner immediately after the ceremony.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks with US President Donald Trump during an event to unveil Trump’s Israeli-Palestinian peace plan in the East Room of the White House in Washington on January 28, 2020. (AP/Susan Walsh)
According to Likud, Kushner’s claim that Netanyahu had surprised Trump and undermined the peace plan with an uncoordinated annexation declaration is “utterly baseless.” Quite the contrary. A statement issued by Netanyahu’s party Thursday said the two leaders had exchanged letters in the days ahead of the ceremony, in which Netanyahu made clear that Israel would move forward with a declaration regarding sovereignty “in the coming days.” (More on the letters in this piece by our US correspondent Jacob Magid.)
Netanyahu certainly didn’t give up easily, Kushner vouchsafes, with the prime minister deploying his ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, to call in on Kushner with the demand that the administration back annexation now.
“I couldn’t believe it. Trump was still fuming over Bibi’s speech. In fact, he had asked me whether he should take the unusual step of endorsing the prime minister’s political rival, Benny Gantz,” Kushner writes. “Had I walked twenty feet down the hall to the Oval and asked Trump to go forward with annexation, the president would have thrown me out.”
Kushner says he told Dermer, “’Don’t take us for granted… We worked our asses off for three years to get to this point. For the first time, Israel has the moral high ground…. But now it’s all screwed up…. You guys think you have been so effective with this administration. I hate to break the reality to you, but we didn’t do any of these things because you convinced us to. We did them because we believe they were the right things to do.’”
It is worth recalling that Trump — who was and is beloved by much of the Israeli right, and abidingly reviled by much of the center-left — entered the presidency avowedly unenthusiastic about settlements. “They don’t help the process,” he told key backer Sheldon Adelson’s Israel Hayom in a jaw-dropping February 2017 interview. “Every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left… I am not somebody that believes that going forward with these settlements is a good thing for peace.”
US President Donald Trump (L) and PA President Mahmoud Abbas leave following a joint press conference at the presidential palace in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on May 23, 2017. (AFP/Mandel Ngan)
And he was openly at odds with Netanyahu, during his May 2017 visit to Israel and the West Bank, over the possibility of progress with Abbas, asserting in the visit’s final speech at the Israel Museum that the Palestinians “are ready to reach for peace.” Fresh from a meeting with Abbas in Bethlehem, the president departed from his prepared text to stress: “I know you’ve heard it before. I am telling you. That’s what I do. They are ready to reach for peace.”
The Trump “vision” it is now definitively clear, was an effort to meet just about all of Netanyahu’s demands with respect to the Palestinian conflict but ostensibly do so within the parameters of the framework he no longer endorses: the two-state solution on which Israel’s 1947 international re-legitimacy was founded; the only solution that enables Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic.
Drawn up by an administration demonstrably supportive of Israel, cognizant of its challenges, and working to widen Israel’s acceptance in the region, the plan set out terms the Palestinians were almost certain to reject. “A great plan for Israel,” as characterized by Netanyahu, even as he scuttled it.
@Reader
No, I said I seemed to recall a time when BB had pointed out the absurdity of the formula of a demilitarized Pal state.
@Sebastien Zorn
At the time it was Netanyahu who said he had been working on this sovereignty thing for 3 years.
Let him and Kushner fight it out.
As far as “states can do as they please” – I have never stated that they can’t.
Jewish settlements are scattered all over J&S and are not allowed to expand, and no new ones are allowed to be built.
That’s why any TSS/annexation decision will result in a really bloody and catastrophic expulsion of the Jews from the “West Bank”.
Of course, Netanyahu has built a great reputation among his followers by his resounding speeches and “adroit tricks”.
@Reader I think it was Kushner who said he had worked on it for 3 years as he accused Bibi of messing it up by announcing immediate sovereignty over the 30 percent in which Jews currently live in large towns, anyway.
I seem to recall that before the 1st Bar Ilan speech, at one point, Bibi had explained, accurately, that there is no such thing as a demilitarized state, unless it chooses to be like Costa Rica.. States can do as they please. That’s the whole point.
@peloni
He didn’t work to push Israel into the TSS, most likely, because:
1) it wouldn’t work;
2) because as a skilled politician he needs to preserve his (perfectly untrue) image of being “right-wing” to get the votes he needs.
What wasn’t done for cameras?
His misleading “30% sovereignty” presentation which he claimed he worked on for 3 years?
You are certainly correct that they are repetitive because I keep repeating the same things over and over hoping in vain that the FACTS that I post here finally get through to the readers of this blog.
These “poignant” questions that you keep asking of me are directed at the wrong person – I wasn’t there, Netanyahu was.
Any attempt to answer your questions (no matter who tries to answer them) can be dismissed as mere conjecture, so your best bet is to contact Bibi himself and ask him for clarification (whether he will tell you the truth is another “poignant” question – after all, he is a politician, and you know, of course, how to tell when a politician tells a lie).
@READER-
Why do you find it odd that a 72 year old Benjamin would be called “Bibi”?? When born, after registration as Benjamin, most likely was called “Bibele”, There may be 10,000 Benjamins” in Israel, but only ONE “Bibi” instantly known to be Benjamin Netanyahu. He doesn’t mind, why should you? “Grasping at straws”, comes to mind.
And, as Peloni rightly posts, “Bibi” is much easier to say (and write).
I knew a man aged 105 whose name was Jacob, but everybody had always called him “Yankel”.. Perfectly true; he was my granduncle.
I had an Auntie Bessie. Her REAL name was “Pesach”. Childhood friends called her “Pess”. which I always misheard to be “Bess’.
I even gave one of my children a middle name of Elisheba, in her honour, and when telling her (aged 84) she glared at me, said “Thanks for nothing”, and told me her name was Pesach.
@Sebastien
Quite apropos.
@Peloni @Reader I refer to Ganz and Lapide as Schwantz and Stupide. Besides the Yiddish I found this apt description of Schwanz in the urban dictionary:
“”A schwantz is an unidentifable person wandering aimlessly through life. They are not introspective. They do not know how they affect others by their actions …”
@Reader
I wish you would maintain your thoughts on less silly things. His name is Bibi. His friends call him Bibi, his enemies call him Bibi, and I call him Bibi. I call Biden President Hand Sock and I see no one objects, as the identity is well known who I mean, just as when I reference Bibi. Besides its easier to type than Netanyahu.
Wasn’t Herzog called Babyface? Nicknames are a thing, and they are used in place of formal names to identify the person upon whom you are referencing in a conversation. Using them doesn’t imply anything about the speaker or the subject of the conversation, just the identity of whom you are speaking. This is silly.
And yet if that were true, he would have worked with the Trump administration to push Israel to accept the initiating steps towards the TSS, with an increased level of autonomy by the Arabs. I did notice you do not explain why he would create such a potential problem with such a good ally by refusing to do something he was in favor of doing.
Also note that this was not done for the cameras, it was all quite secretive. So this was not for public consumption, ie it wasn’t a PR moment. When he snubbed Kushner, Kushner felt the snub and certainly made this known to Bibi. Why would he do this if the TSS was his implanted goal all along according to your very familiar thesis.
I find your argument to be repetitive of past statements and not really answering this poignant question, so I am not sure if you did not understand my statement or if you were just ignoring it since it doesn’t fit with your repeated thesis that Bibi is a TSSer.
@peloni
Granting “the Pals” increased authority has nothing to do with anything (and I don’t think Netanyahu has the authority to “grant” them anything), besides, they wouldn’t need any “authority” from anyone, including Netanyahu, because the blowback from the declaration of “sovereignty” by Israel (with the misleading map used by Netanyahu in his presentation) would be the declaration of the “Palestinian” state by the Arabs on the remaining 70% of J&S, a huge international scandal, a “disengagement” of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their J&S settlements with them pouring into the Green Line and causing a major crisis, etc.
Netanyahu has always been a supporter of the TSS, and he has never been too supportive of the settlers – recall that he voted for Gaza disengagement, gave away Hebron to the Arabs froze settlements, and allowed that the settlers in J&S stay under “Palestinian” control if they so wish (if a peace agreement with the Arabs is achieved).
BTW, I find it kind of odd when people call a 72 year old man “Bibi”.
@Ted But, as I pointed out, 4 years later, Israel has Biden not Trump to deal with.
Aside from taking the 30% off the table just as he did Jerusalem, he did one more thing.
He gave the PA fours years to get off the pot, one last chance, after which Israel was free to do what it wanted.
I knew, and perhaps Trump knew, that the PA would not do what was required of them. Trump was attempting to end the never ending cycle.
That’s the way I understood his plan.
@Reader
If this were true, why would Bibi have refused to grant the the Pals increased authority in exchange for the 30% extension of Sovereignty? Why would he risk creating an enemy out of Trump when accepting Trump’s demand would have worked to support your fantasy of Bibi’s support fro this TSS “trap”? Why would Bibi not take advantage of an opportunity to press the TSS on the Right in exchange for the Sovereignty deal. Bibi did not do so because he is no honest supporter of the TSS, and that had been Khushner’s concern, and that was why Kushner amended the arrangement to require Bibi make consecrations to the Arabs in the form of increased Arab autonomy, and it was alos why Kushner was, and still is, furious that Bibi had the temerity to upset the Kushner rehash of the TSS – albeit the Kushner rehash had significant qualifiers that made his version of the TSS a far more attractive opportunity to end the stalemate and end the TSS by forcing the Arabs to accept Israel or to forego their nationalist aspirations.
That’s not what happened.
Trump had in mind The Dream of the Century:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/revealed-trumps-deal-century-map-future-palestine-israel?fbclid=IwAR0FFI_hRI3w-5mtAYLoMhnYqobHJvyogxLIQskUch2LNGJqd1GWAg6y9D8
That wasn’t feasible.
Then Netanyahu made a presentation of another TSS trap, namely, the annexation of 30% of Judea & Samaria which would quickly lead to the creation of a “Palestinian” state on the remaining 70% of J&S “because justice demands it and for the sake of peace”.
Fortunately, the settlers recognized the poisoned bait and protested the “annexation” plan, and nothing came of it.
We had a discussion here about it then.
@2596 I mispoke. A&B don’t have an Arab majority. There are only Arabs because they are judenrein! That’s hardly a practical solution in accordance with the facts on the ground as Trump claimed to be aiming for.
@2596 The Pals have autonomy now and Israel needs Area C with its Jewish majority, Holy sites, proximity to Jerusalem, and strategic importance a lot more than parts of A&B with its ungovernable Arab majority. Moreover, as you pointed out, a plan without defined borders is still in the draft stage. If it took 3 years to get that far, as Kushner claimed, there’s no way it would be ready within Trump’s window of opportunity. Half-baked.
@2596 US presidents run for election every 4 years and can only serve 2 terms. There was less than 2 years until the election and presidents are not bound by the committments of previous administrations. But, Israel would be held to any agreement made and the fact that it was conditional conveniently forgotten or disregarded. We know this because it has happened again and again!
Theoratically not, but “the 30%” was fixed only as a “vision”, a concept (Jordan Valley + settlements + some roads), not with exactly defined borders.
You can not immediately annex a scattered territory without borders.
It was supposed that an Israeli – US group of specialist would draw the exact borders. According to some articles I read at that time this group started working…
I liked the whole concept, as a compromise* but – in agreement with some settler leaders from J&S – thought that a lot of the Israeli enclaves had not the necessary roads to function (e.g. 4 settlements of Northern Samaria had only roads to the JV. Actually a new road is being built connecting them to the Shilo-Block. I missed the current road to Eastern Gush Etzion, too, among others.)
The borders of most of the settlements has not been defined, too.
Trump also said that he waited for Arab and Palestinians ideas, small modification proposals but only inside the framework of the Vision.
* Compromise:
1. because formally it was depicted as a 2-state solution, acceptable for the world, but in the reality it gave only an autonomy for the Pals.
2. in reality it gave to Israel a lot of Area A and B territory by a Waist Enlargment – a wider Jerusalem corridor and A and B teritories North of Modi’In Illit).
3. it gave the Pals only 4 years to accept – after that they must have been take the full international responsibilty for not becoming a “state”.
Personally, when accepting the 30% for 4 years I wished more from J&S (as a minimum plus all the present roads) and in exchange a little bit less of the JV. But I am only an outsider.
@Sabasarge
I’m reminded of the scene in “Dick” (1999) when Nixon and Kissinger negotiate a peace treaty with Soviet representatives after he innocently shares the pot brownies the girls gave him as a gift.
“Betsy (Kirsten Dunst) and Arlene (Michelle Williams) are two 15-year-old girls in 1976. When Betsy visits Arlene at the Watergate Motel, the two accidentally stumble into the middle of the infamous Watergate robbery. In order to keep them quiet, Nixon (Dan Hedaya) appoints them as honorary dog walkers. As they travel in and out of the White House, their seemingly innocent actions start a chain of events that may eventually lead to Nixon’s resignation as president of the United States.”
trailer
https://youtu.be/K8eZ-QgITAA
These were in moderation since last night.
@Edgar @Ted
“Netanyahu denies Likud claim he’s backed away from two-state solution
w as Likud and the PM issue contradictory statements; PMO warns against relinquishing territory amid current dangers”
By TOI STAFF
9 March 2015, 2:12 am
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-denies-likud-claim-hes-backed-away-from-two-state-solution/
Everybody on the Right is calling everybody else a liar, have you noticed?
“Star Trek Liar Paradox”
53 seconds
https://youtu.be/BFy4zQlWECc
Dramatization of:
“In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar’s paradox or antinomy of the liar is the statement of a liar that they are lying: for instance, declaring that “I am lying”. If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied. In “this sentence is a lie” the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the “liar paradox” although abstraction is made precisely from the liar making the statement. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.
If “this sentence is false” is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
“So many questions. So many reports.” – Bertolt Brecht, last line of poem “Questions from a worker who reads.” (1935)
—
“The allegation that prime minister Netanyahu surprised Jared Kushner and [former] president [Donald] Trump by announcing Israel’s intention to apply Israeli law to the 30% of Judea and Samaria envisioned in the Trump plan as sovereign Israeli territory is completely false,” a spokesperson for Netanyahu said on Thursday
Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu denied that his plans to annex parts of the West Bank were not coordinated with the Trump administration, as former senior adviser to the president Jared Kushner maintains in his upcoming memoir.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-713909
Sebastien Zorn
AUGUST 6, 2022 AT 3:54 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“The important thing is that a third Arab state doesn’t emerge between us and Jordan. We don’t want it. We can’t allow it. Because it would come to be used as a dagger against us.”
Golda Meir ibid
p. 106
https://archive.org/details/InterviewWithHistoryByOrianaFallaciInterviewArtEbook
a far cry from (cry is the operative word here)
“Why are you not willing to recognize the Jewish state? We are willing to recognize your nation state, ”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-netanyahus-speech-at-bar-ilan/
reiterated by tweedlee dee and tweedle dum, schwanz and stupide.
Talk about snatching defear from the jaws of victory!
This book comprises many twists and turns, mostly twists. Kushner shows
his utter inexperience and lack of knowledge of the Arab mind re Israel, again and again. Netanyahu’s declaration had given Mahmood Abbas more than enough reason to reject”…. Abbas rejected BEFORE the Plan was even unfolded . He refused point blank.
What I REALLY learned from this self exculpating mishmash, is that Kushner, when listening to Netanyahu, was not really listening. He was looking at, and was fascinated by, his knuckles, their beautiful white, “shimmering” vision.
Blah…Blah. Netanyahu was RIGHT, they were asking far too much. And even when he agreed to their “Vision” the Mamzerim ignored it.
So if it depended on Abbas’ co-operation it was a non-starter immediately. a one sided play. Anything Israel did would have to be unilateral… A waste of time. The best Israel got from Netanyahu’s acceptance was the Abraham Accords with many Arab countries, already with undisclosed economic and other ties to Israel, to publicly emerge and proceed with normal relations. As had been happening.
And his enemies (of course) call him Selfscentred, egotistic, a non-Zionist, and much more. His patriotism ans Zionistic attributes showed up very sharply during the Trump Plan negotiations.
First: TOI loves to bash & undermine Netanyahu and Kushner’s publicist wants to hype and pre-sale his book main reasons for the ” scandal” to arise now. Kushner wanted a drawn out process w peace plan as described. Everyone knew it would be rejected like Barak”s & Olmert’s giveaways were. Bibi felt pressure to push through annexation bc Trump may not get re-elected and window of opportunity will close. In the end Bibi’s planned annexation would not have passed in Knesset even. It was used as bargaining chip for the UAE/Bahrain to sign Abraham Accords. Shelve annexation in exchange for the Accords deal which have expanded and benefited everyone nicely. Worked out brilliantly from political standpoint.
@Edgar @Ted
Netanyahu denies Likud claim he’s backed away from two-state solution
Confusion as Likud and the PM issue contradictory statements; PMO warns against relinquishing territory amid current dangers
By TOI STAFF
9 March 2015, 2:12 am
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-denies-likud-claim-hes-backed-away-from-two-state-solution/
Everybody on the Right is calling everybody else a liar, have you noticed?
Star Trek Liar Paradox
53 seconds
https://youtu.be/BFy4zQlWECc
Dramatization of:
“In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar’s paradox or antinomy of the liar is the statement of a liar that they are lying: for instance, declaring that “I am lying”. If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied. In “this sentence is a lie” the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the “liar paradox” although abstraction is made precisely from the liar making the statement. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.
If “this sentence is false” is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
“So many questions. So many reports.” – Bertolt Brecht, last line of poem “Questions from a worker who reads.” (1935)
“……For the first time, Israel has the moral high ground………”
Screw Kushner. There hasn’t been a moment when Israel didn’t hold the moral high ground. Regardless, it seems to me that if he has an issue with anyone it should be with Ambassador Friedman, who certainly gave Bibi the impression that it was good to go (annexation)…..”Israel does not have to wait at all.”
Personally I would not trust that backstabbing Kushner as far as I could throw him.
@ Ted
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-713909
Golda Meir ibid
p. 106
https://archive.org/details/InterviewWithHistoryByOrianaFallaciInterviewArtEbook
a far cry from (cry is the operative word here)
“Why are you not willing to recognize the Jewish state? We are willing to recognize your nation state, ”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-netanyahus-speech-at-bar-ilan/
reiterated by tweedlee dee and tweedle dum, schwanz and stupide.
Talk about snatching defear from the jaws of victory!
@Ted
Golda Meir in
by Orianna Fallaci, p. 106
https://archive.org/details/InterviewWithHistoryByOrianaFallaciInterviewArtEbook
Boom. Like that.
@Ted I agree with you about the 30 percent now, I say all of Area C, which used to be Yamina’s position, irrespective of Washington’s position. It’s the conditional committment to TSS in the rest that gave me pause.
Now, Ganz is gleefully sabotaging reclamation of the E1 corridor because it might interfere with a hypothetical TSS in the future!
It needs to be ruled out, in so many words, once and for all! Or just leave things ambiguous for now.
@Ted (cont.) can and will be used against us.
@Sabastien
You are looking at it the wrong way. No where did it say Israel couldn’t extend sovereignty immediately. Trump removed the 30% from negotiations. So why not do it right way
@Ted Probably, maybe, if Trump is still President in 4 years. So many examples of the fine print being ignored later on from San Remo, to UN resolution 242 to Oslo to Bush’s assurance to Sharon that he would support the large settlement blocs after successfully pressuring him to surrender Gaza and ethnically cleanse Gush Katif, which Obama refused to acknowledge. On the other hand, possession is nine tenths of the law, as the saying goes. Still on the other hand, the new Kushner bio leak, if true, says, Trump never promised a green light for immediate sovereignty over anything and was furious at Bibi for saying so based on Ambassador Friedman’s assurances. I think Trump is far better than any electable alternative but there is a limit to how far he can be trusted. Verbal committments to any kind of TSS a
Israel gets sovereignty over 30% of the land now and probably over the rest in 4 years.
By Ted Belman JAN 28/20
The Plan gives Israel about 30% of Judea and Samaria, including the Jordan Valley and the blocs, and permits Israel to extend Israel law to these lands. As sovereign, Israel can develope these lands as it pleases.
In exchange, Israel has agreed to freeze or hold the rest in trust for a potential Arab statelet for 4 years only.
The arabs have this much time to accept such a state providing they do a number of things: demilitarize the future state including Gaza, recognize Israel as nation state of the Jews, stop incitement and payments to terrorist, to name a few.
It is a fabulous deal for Israel because it allocates 30% of the land to Israel sovereignty now. The rest she must hold in trust for 4 years to give that much of a window for the Arabs to meet all the conditions demanded of them. After the 4 years, Israel will be able to do what they want with the rest if the Arabs have failed to meet the conditions.
After the plan was released, the US just reversed themselves and said:
That was not part of the original deal. Extending sovereignty to 30% of the land was not made conditional. It was not up for negotiations. In fact until such time as the PA accepted the conditions, there was nothing to negotiate. Israel’s only obligation was to apply a freeze to the other 70% for 4 years and then she could do what she wanted.