T. Belman. I certainly would not want to be subject to the same pressure as the PM of Israel is put under. This pressure can not be ignored. Why should Kushner or Trump expect concession to the Palestinians in exchange for support for annexation. How does Israel get out from under? Even for annexing the settlements , not including the Jordan Valley, we are expected to give gestures.
“[Benjamin Netanyahu] risked near-unanimous condemnation at the United Nations,” wrote Kushner.
By LAHAV HARKOV, JPOST Aug 2/22
U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after Trump’s address at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem
The Trump administration threatened not to block international sanctions on Israel if former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu unilaterally annexed parts of the West Bank, former White House senior advisor Jared Kushner wrote in his tell-all book set to be published later this month.
“With annexation, Bibi risked near-unanimous condemnation at the United Nations,” Kushner wrote of the efforts to convince Netanyahu to make concessions to the Palestinians along with extending sovereignty. “And if he went forward unilaterally, there was no guarantee that our administration would block the international sanctions against Israel that might follow.”
In June 2020, four months after the Trump administration presented its “Vision for Peace” between Israel and with the Palestinians, American and Israeli teams had prepared a detailed map of where Israel would extend its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Then-ambassador to Israel David Friedman sought former president Donald Trump’s approval to proceed, while Kushner felt that Netanyahu was not prepared to make sufficient concessions.
“If he went forward unilaterally, there was no guarantee that our administration would block the international sanctions against Israel that might follow.”
Jared Kushner
Kushner recounted that in 2017, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “assured me that if I could get a map out of Israel ‘we will be flexible and everything else will be easy.'” However, Kushner did not think the map alone was enough, and said the administration was “struggling to convince Bibi [Netanyahu], a master negotiator, to agree to a compromise that would give tangible life improvements to the Palestinians.”
Friedman and Kushner’s account
In Friedman’s memoir Sledgehammer, released earlier this year, he said that he thought Netanyahu agreeing to a four-year period in which Israel refrain from any construction outside of the zones detailed on the map “was the essential peace to the puzzle.” Kushner did not mention that arrangement in the excerpt provided to The Jerusalem Post.
“I told Friedman that I wasn’t going to bring the annexation issue to the president unless we had a fair proposal that advanced our peace plan,” Kushner wrote.
Friedman and Kushner met with Trump, and the ambassador asked the president if he was ready to support annexation. Trump said he had done plenty for Israel and had other priorities, but was willing to hear the opinions of the others in the room.
Kushner said, “I thought we could do it in a way that minimized backlash from the Arab world, but we had to ensure that the Israelis made concessions to materially improve the lives of the Palestinian people.”
At the end of the meeting, Trump told then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo to “do what you think is best.” Pompeo and Friedman wanted to move forward and while Kushner felt “inner turmoil about the implications,” they decided to move forward with annexation.
Friedman and then-special representative for international negotiations Avi Berkowitz told Netanyahu on June 25 that Israel could only annex areas with existing settlements, and in exchange, Palestinians would have greater civil control over some areas in which they lived. Two days later, Netanyahu refused.
“Our message resonated: Bibi wasn’t getting annexation for free. Israel needed to give something in return,” Kushner wrote. Trump would likely publicly speak out against annexation if Netanyahu did not compromise.
That was when Friedman made clear that Netanyahu was “hanging on a thread by Trump,” and “there was no guarantee that our administration would block the international sanctions against Israel that might follow” unilateral annexation, Kushner said.
Kushner’s first foray
Ironically, Kushner’s first major plunge into the waters of international relations came when president-elect Trump’s team tried to deal with the fallout of the Obama administration deciding not to block a UN resolution that was much less severe than sanctions.
Kushner called the Obama administration’s decision not to block UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which stated that Israeli claims in the West Bank had “no legal validity” and were “a flagrant violation of international law,” an “unprecedented abandonment of Israel” that would threaten future peace efforts.
In a chapter of his book focused mostly on Steve Bannon’s chaotic tenure as an adviser to Trump, Kushner described their intensive efforts to change the tide. Despite a 48-hour marathon of phone calls convincing other countries to change their votes, the resolution passed 14-0.
More excerpts of Kushner’s book will be released on JPost.com on Tuesday and Friday.
Kushner is a smart man no doubt. Unfortunately like many intellectuals on the left, they can’t be trusted. He is one such person. I love and admire president Trump but even I saw that he like most people on this small planet, he doesn’t understand the Middle East conflict. He is many things but a historian he is not. He is all about making deals. The only ‘deal’ the enemies of Israel understand is strength (like almost all terrorists). All of Judea and Samaria belong to Israel, period! No one has a right to give even an inch of it away.
@ Sabastien.
You’ll get no quarrel from me. I have great hopes for the future.. Once Mudar is the leader of Jordan, everything will change. Neither Israel nor Jordan will listen to the UN. Jordan will institute their version of the Fayaad Plan of winning by putting facts on the ground. No diplomacy necessary nor approval from anyone. Getting Palestinians to emigrate will be our facts on the ground.. After the mid-terms in the US and the election of a Right wing government in Israel,, Israel will be able to extend Israeli law to area C without worrying about sanctions because the new Republican Congress won’t sanction Israel.. Then Trump will become president, two years later at the latest and he will have our back. He will be followed up by 8 years with Pres DeSantis. All Good.
@Ted
Israel could and should apply civil law to Area C, tomorrow, but what does that even mean in Areas A & B? Israel should affirm sovereignty over all of Yesha and Gaza, for that matter. As a practical matter, implementation will obviously have to wait and certainly Israeli civil law. If war necessitates and makes possible the reconquest/liberation of these areas, surely the Arabs will have to go under military law just as Arabs in pre-1967 Israel were. You don’t give demicratic rights to people who are at war with you. That’s common sense, and it was Bush’s biggest mistake in Iraq.
But sovereignty should be stated firmly and clearly as a principle. If they don’t dare, for fear of sanctions and endangering the Abraham Accords, which are a valuable alliance, then ambiguity should be maintained while preventing Arab settlement, undoung illegal Arab settlement and facillitating Jewish settlement.
Arab rioters should be banished to Gaza, for the time being. Murderers should be executed promptly.
Gaza should gecome
https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-ben-gurion-legacy-independent-national-security-policy/
@Ted “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.” And I agree. Ben Gurion showed the truth of that more than once and when Israel was in a much weaker position.
@Ted I see. Well Israel needs to have a veto.
In any case, she would have a vote and the opportunity to try and persuade 8 others out of the 15 in the same room. Better odds than in the General Assembly and on resolutions that have teeth.
@Ted
https://www.un.org/en/ga/62/plenary/election_sc/bkg.shtml
Though I would argue that because of the unique problem of systemic antisemitism manifested as Israelophobia in the UN, Israel should be appointed a permanent member. It may not be possible right now but we should put it out there as a maximal demand.
The minimum demand should be for Israel to be elected.
@Sabastien.
Only the big 5 have a veto. The junior members of the
SC don’t have a veto.
I raised the issue of Israel taking the plunge in order to generate discussion..
Maybe Israel won’t be sanction particularly after the mid-terms. The Republicans won’t permit it. If the US refuses to sanction Israel, what will Europe do?
@Ted Belman
Shouldn’t Israel first at least try and prepare its economy to withstand the possible sanctions, i.e, try and do everything possible to make it self-sufficient?
Russia is reeling under the Western sanctions but is able to withstand them because it was able to redirect its huge gas and oil supplies to China and India (its revenues are still lower than expected), because of its gigantic size, the enormous amount of natural resources, the competent government, and the unity of its people.
Israel has none of the above and we are told not to rely on miracles.
All its start-ups and inventions Israel either sells to or shares with the US, it is dependent on the US for the supplies for its Iron Dome, etc.
How do you envision Israel not only tolerating the Russian-style sanctions but actually imposing its own sanctions on everybody else?
Especially that just about everything in Israel has been privatized and private businesses, especially foreign and foreign investors, will withdraw from Israel in fear of being hit with sanctions?
@Peloni I read an article in INN that said that the reason Bibi was wary when Trump offered to recognize Jerusalem was that he was worried about what Trump would demand in return.
Even the friendliest US presidents have at best, given with one hand and taken back with the other.
Israel needs to get on the UN Security council so it can veto sanctions. That’s the sword of Damocles being held overhead.
You know the old adage, “its easier to apologize after doing it them obtain approval”.
On balance I think Israel should go ahead and extend sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the settlements settlements and fight the backlash and sanctions. In response Israel can also apply sanctions on the US and the EU..Russia has shown that sanctions are a double edged sword. Under no conditions should they cut a deal where they give up any rights.
But they can always back off in exchange fo lifting of sanctions.
As far as I can make out, Israel has a trade surplus of about $15-16 billion.
And that extra to make up the 60% (actually a little over that), Ted, IS to North America, which includes Canada, whose Israeli imports are minimal, less than $700 mill. .
it also looks as if Israel’s largest single item is precious stones.
And , of course, I could be wrong, but I am quoting 2020, and 2021.
@ TED and PELONI-
Thank you both for your answering. Ted I was hoping that you would answer as it is a matter of Law. And that you both agree with me is very gratifying.
As for Israel exporting 60% of it’s production to the EU, yes, it’s a big stick, but Israel has been very active, at least, was under Netanyahu, in spreading out to the East, and could do even more.
I doubt if all the EU members would be unanimous, as I’ve seen that they go their own way from time to time, in accordance with their own interests.
But likely. perhaps 30%.
But I also feel that by doing so they would be “cutting off their noses to spite their faces”…in other words, they don’t deal with Israel because they support Zionism, or to repent for their vicious past towards Jews, but because the goods purchased are the best they can get for the money they pay. They do nothing from “pure goodwill”.
add;
TED, I just looked up the relative exports of Israel to the EU and Israel’s imports from the EU.
The exports of Israel to the EU amounted in 2020, to 29.3% of it’s trade in goods. Israel’s imports from the EU amounted to 34.4 of it’s total imports.
The total value of the trade both ways amounted to 31 billion Euros, of which the EU imported 11.5 billion Euros worth. So, according to this, Israel imports nearly twice as much from the EU, than what goes into Israel.
I found this in about 3 different reports, the amounts differed only slightly.
So perhaps there are other items which make up the 60%, but I don’t know what they can be. Perhaps the balance is to the US. But with a friendly {resident P.G. I doubt of the US would go so far as to put a trade halt in place. Even with an “impartial” adminsitration.
Thanks to all who revised the picture I was getting from this article. My faith in Trump and you has been restored. However, I still have some doubts about Kushner and his aspirations. OK, it may be that he was trying to appease Abbas (yet again) by trying to exhibit the impression that there was someone to deal with in Ramallah, but that only muddied the waters.
As we have seen over and over again, any attempt at appeasement only gives the Palestinians the idea that their efforts, on all fronts, are gaining traction and that they have to continue their terror. That was not the intended result.
Annexation is not what must be done. Israel just has to extend its sovereignty to the land which means apply Israeli law there just as it did after the ceasefire lines were agreed to in the War of Independence.
There is no question that The land belongs to Israel. (San Remo Res, Lof N Mandate. UN Charter Art 80)
The problem is that the UNSC ignores Israel’s legal rights and passes resolutions in defiance of it. The UN Charter requires all members to adhere to its resolutions. This they refer to as International Law but it isn’t. The UN doesn’t have the right to cancel Israel’s rights or dictate what Israel can and can not do on said lands but it does so anyway.
About 60% of Israel’s exports go to the EU and to the US. Thus they have enormous leverage over Israel. Plus the UN, the US or the EU can impose sanctions on Israel and Israel would have nobody to complain to.
@Edgar
I was looking forward to seeing some comments responding to the points you raised, but perhaps they will come in the following hours.
For myself, I dislike using the word annexation as it implies Israel needs to do more than is legitimately necessary to control their heartlands. Likewise, it implies that the Mandate did not include a specified boundary of the Jordan River, further implying that the lands were indeed stolen from the Arabs, that these Jewish heartlands are occupied Arab lands, and that Israel is a colonialist vestigial remnant of the Western powers awaiting to be pushed back to Europe.
In any event, my own understanding is quite in line with yours, that the land needs only to have sovereignty extended to it, with all that doing so implies for the people living there. The one thing that would complicate this is that Israel signed the bloody Oslo agreements but Oslo has been violated in so many ways it only needs to be stated as being voided for non-performance, or multiple violations, or both, on the part of the Arabs – heck, the bloody terrorists didn’t so much as amend their charter to disguise their intent, nor the reasons for their involvement, nor the reason for their unwillingness to accept all that Israel could ill afford to gift away even to a real peace partner.
@dreuveni
This is not a fair assessment of Trump, I believe. As the saying goes, it is not a pretty thing to watch the sausages being made, or something like that, and that is what the revelations discussed in these books relate. They also include the petty jealousies, the unresolved grudges, and new alliances, all of which might lead to a slanted interpretation of past events. I am not suggesting these stories be ignored, only that they be accepted carefully with a fair inspection of what others report and what policies were actually ultimately pursued by the administration. By doing so, I think that my critique of your comment here is fairly made.
Upon the stage where he announced the Trump plan, Trump stated that he had been very good to Israel, and I believe this was easily a true statement. I recall Trump also stating that for the parties to pursue peace, they must each be earnestly interested in pursuing peace and that the parties could/should not be pushed to accept peace. True to his word, Trump did not push the parties to accept his peace plan and ultimately shelved the plan in favor of pursuing the Abraham Accords.
In addition to this, Trump moved the Embassy, recognized Jerusalem, recognized the Golan, leveled the international playing field which has been well distorted against Israel, defunded UNWRA, defunded the PA, passed the Taylor Force Act, acted as a fair mediator of the Abraham Accords, adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, made serious moves against state terrorism, isolated Iran, withdrew from the JPOA, severely punished Iran for its violations of the JPOA, diced up Suleiman and al-Muhandis, pushed Israel to adopt her own policy to which the US could respond (as opposed to the US writing Israeli policy for Israel to adopt) and quit the UNHRC in protest to how it persecuted Israel without just cause. These are just some of the steps taken by the Trump administration that directly impacted Israel and don’t include domestic policies that directly impacted American Jews such as his reform of Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964, for example.
These are not actions taken by an unwilling partner, but fair evidence of a very strong friend of the Israeli people. In truth, I think that Israel will not soon see a man as openly disposed to supporting Israel in so many ways as Trump has done, and for a great many reasons, I think Israel will be very lucky to see Trump return to power as soon as possible.
WOT…!!! No ansers yit…..!!
And so much to say about just about everything else. Including the contents of books that no one seems to have read yet…….?? Only READER refuses to comment on the grounds that he hasn’t read the book.
Excerpts are mainly chosen by the publishers so as to stimulate interest and encourage sales They often don’t reflect the actual sense of the contents, leaving the readers not over happy.
I believe that there are some members here who can answer a question for me.
Why is there always talk of “annexation”. Is it not a FACT that Israel does not need to annex, because Art. 80 of The United Nations Charter, acknowledges it’s acceptance that the League of Nations agreements, devolved on them and were binding and irrevocable. They gave Israel the Authority to extend it’s settlements and cities all over Israel.
I mean All The Legal Agreements stemming from the San Remo Conference and every Agreement following that, up to and including the United Nations Art 80.
How can the USA and the United Nations legally penalise Israel for carrying out the terms of those agreements. They would have to BREAK their own Laws and commit illegal actions-which (legally) would not be binding, in fact which would make-could them liable to penalties.
Kushner’s excerpts only reinforce my already high opinion of Netanyahu’s skill and statescraft.
Kushner on the other hand, seemed to believe what Abbas told him, since he quotes it, which shows his lack of Arab dissimulation and political naevite
I guess I have been playing Rip van Winkel for a while. I was under the impression that Trump was the best thing for Israel since sliced bread. Now it sounds as if he was, at best, an unwilling partner. Sure, I agree that Kushner was very busy during the Trump administration but it seems that he was not very happy doing his job.
The only thing that looks worth while is the advancement of the Abraham Accords, but reading the Tanach tells us that these deals may not hold for very long. Can anyone point me to a useful summary of what is going on in the Jewish world in Israel and abroad?
Correct assessment by Peloni : Annexation was a thinly veiled threat but Abraham Accords were much more important on the strategic level . So Bibi pushed the annexation plan to its limit ( without improvements for the Palestinians ) in order to withdraw it the very moment the Abraham deal was done .
(2 of 2)
On a related note, it should be further recognized that this is the realm in which Bibi is a master of a game which he has come to play with such ease over the years. Bibi knew he could act with regards to Sovereignty and there would be no avenue by Kushner and company to block his actions. Albeit the consequence would be on a personal level and not nothing, but the issue of Sovereignty was worth the risk involved. I would suggest, quite strongly, that neither Bennett, nor any of the other Israeli princes in waiting would have had the temerity and strength to assess the situation and act on it while directly opposing the Trump administration, and so none of them would have succeeded in gaining what Bibi very nearly came to achieve, nor what he did achieve in its place. In fact, to block him from his intentions on Sovereignty, Bibi received the Abraham Accords. Should my belief that no one would have been so bold as to have directly challenged the US with the unilateral Sovereignty Declaration, it would further indicate that no one else would likely have gained the Abraham Accords to displace the Sovereignty issue, at least not at that time, which means it would still today not have taken place, and this is something to consider when assessing Kushner’s words.
Another thing, Bibi was willing to pay a price to bring Sovereignty to Yesha, and refused to bargain for what he recognized he could achieve for nothing. For those who believe that Bibi might be a true supporter of the TSS, they should consider this fact carefully. No supporter of the TSS would have been so bold to do this if they held any support for the TSS, as it would be counterintuitive for him personally, as well as being counterproductive at forcing the Israeli Right – both the politicians and the public – to begin to accept the TSS as being an inevitable fact. Hence, whereas it may be as surprise to some and old news to others, Bibi is no supporter of the TSS, and I would suggest that he proved this fact quite definitively in the quiet of backroom negotiations, away from any public view, indicating that it was certainly not motivated to mislead the public of his true nature, which Kushner’s book relates quite well.
And as a final point, no one else would have hesitated to agree to what Kushner wanted. It takes real talent to assess a situation, and relate that to the strengths and weaknesses of the parties involved, as well as their motivations for responding or accepting the defeat handed to them. Furthermore, it also takes a great deal of personal gravitas, chutzpah if you will, to act upon this knowledge, while not placing yourself at a disadvantage. I would suggest that none of these eager beaver princes of the Right, (ignoring all the Left simply due to their TSS contamination) would have the ability and personal strength to have so completely stymied such a request from a strong ally such as Trump proved himself to be.
Imagine how he might act with a less friendly administration…Oh, wait, no need to imagine, as he demonstrated how he would act in such a case, during the Obama years.
As I said, some important things to consider.
/2
(1 of 2)
There are many important topics to speak about here, and most of it relates to the following passage from Kushner’s book:
This is a dubious claim to have been made by Kushner, and even the way in which Kushner has phrased it supports this belief. Kushner would have us believe that in an election year, Trump would have supported or abstained from international condemnation against Israel for doing what the Trump administration acknowledged was part of their own plan, for want of Bibi acknowledging they were going to have to pay a price for considering the sovereignty of the cities in Yesha (which everyone likes to describe as ‘settlements’). No, there would have been no US abstention, and certainly no US support for the resulting international condemnation that would have followed the unilateral declaration of sovereignty. Perhaps tempers might have flared, and perhaps Trump might have actually made a statement supporting his son-in-laws position, but even this is unlikely. Trump is not a politician, but he is also not completely stupid, and taking any of these steps in the midst of the 2020 election season would have been certain folly, and Trump would have certainly resisted the urge of committing such an unforced error. Kushner’s own words, using the phrase
indicates the fact that Kushner, himself, recognized that the chance of this backlash actually taking place was not very great, and more likely, that it was quite an obscure chance at best. The resulting resentment that Kushner still holds over this unresolved war of personalities was no doubt the reason that Kushner still harbors a great animus against Bibi.
/1
Full of bs very sice mean ???