T. Belman. When Trump became the Republican nominee for President, Pipes quit the GOP and said, “Trump’s boorish, selfish, puerile, and repulsive character, combined with his prideful ignorance, his off-the-cuff policy making, and his neo-fascistic tendencies make him the most divisive and scary of any serious presidential candidate in American history.” WOW.
That sweeping rejection of Trump is even stupider than his embrace of the moderate Muslims as the solution.
Perhaps on the same level is his belief that the “Deal of the Century” is “misbegotten”. In fact the Deal of the Century will be the biggest game-changer since the Six Day War.
His plan is a closely held secret, but the signals look worrying for supporters of the Jewish state.
President Trump has spoken repeatedly about his desire to find the “deal of the century” to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the president’s specific plan remains a tightly held secret, he and several aides occasionally drop hints about it. From what one can tell, it doesn’t sound good.
The first theme of Mr. Trump’s comments is neutrality toward Israel and the Palestinians. He had already expressed that in December 2015, when he insisted both sides “are going to have to make sacrifices” to achieve peace, and he has made many similar comments since. Mr. Trump seems not to recall that Israel has repeatedly made concessions since 1993, including turning over land and permitting a Palestinian police corps, only to be met with heightened Palestinian intransigence and violence.
A tilt toward the Palestinians emerged as the second theme of Mr. Trump’s comments in December 2017. Speaking with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Trump described himself, in the New Yorker’s words, as “committed to getting the Palestinians the best possible deal” and emphasized that “Israel would make real concessions.” Mr. Abbas would get a better deal from him than from President Obama, Mr. Trump reportedly said more than once.
That same month, Mr. Trump announced he would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. But this was not a gift to the Jewish state. “Israel will pay for that,” Mr. Trump explained publicly; indeed, in a future deal Israel “would have . . . to pay more” than the Palestinians.
In February 2018 Mr. Trump was back to equivalence: “Both sides will have to make hard compromises,” he said, and while “the Palestinians are not looking to make peace . . . I am not necessarily sure that Israel is looking to make peace.”
Then in August 2018 Mr. Trump said, “In the negotiation, Israel will have to pay a higher price because they won a very big thing,” an allusion to the embassy move. The Palestinians, however, will “get something very good, because it’s their turn next.”
Also in September, according to Israel’s Channel 10, Mr. Trump emphasized this point to France’s President Emmanuel Macron: “I can be tough with Netanyahu on the peace plan, just like I’ve been tough on the Palestinians.” When Mr. Macron suggested the Israeli prime minister prefers the status quo to a peace deal, Mr. Trump reportedly replied, “I’m very close to reaching that same conclusion.”
Significantly, Mr. Trump portrayed harsh U.S. steps against the Palestinian Authority, such as cutting its funding, not as principled pro-Israel moves but as pressure on the Palestinians to negotiate: “I was tough on the Palestinians because they wouldn’t talk to us,” he told Mr. Macron. Presumably these steps would be reversed once Mr. Abbas or a successor comes to the table, as seems inevitable given how much the Palestinians stand to gain.
Jason Greenblatt, Mr. Trump’s special representative for international negotiations, reverted in October 2018 to the theme of neutrality, announcing that the deal will “be heavily focused on Israeli security needs, but we also want to be fair to the Palestinians.” “Each side will find things in this plan that they don’t like,” he said.
Nikki Haley, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, alluded to the pro-Palestinian tilt in December 2018, noting that “both sides would benefit greatly from a peace agreement, but the Palestinians would benefit more, and the Israelis would risk more.”
This drumbeat of comments—about neutrality, suspicion of Netanyahu and expecting Israel to make the larger concessions—signals a potential crisis in U.S.-Israel relations, perhaps the most intense since 1975, when Gerald Ford began his “reassessment” of the relationship, or possibly even 1957, when Dwight Eisenhower coerced Israel to evacuate the Sinai Peninsula.
Should Israel reject a U.S. plan, the full weight of Mr. Trump’s wrath could well follow. As he recently showed with Turkey, when displeased the president can radically shift relations: He pivoted from a warm and trusting conversation with the Turkish president on Dec. 14, 2018, to a threat to “devastate Turkey economically” on Jan. 13. Likewise, Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Israel may call him “the most pro-Israel president ever,” but he could become Israel’s chief adversary if its leaders anger him. Were this to happen, the Palestinians would become great beneficiaries of Mr. Trump’s favor.
So far the administration’s hints have aroused minimal concern in the American pro-Israel community, which blithely but wrongly trusts Mr. Trump as one of their own. But a plan as inimical to Israel as Mr. Trump’s appears to be will have major negative implications not only for the Jewish state but for Mr. Trump’s re-election hopes.Therefore, Americans who support Israel and Republicans hoping for the president’s re-election both need to protest and obstruct the prospect of this misbegotten “deal of the century.”
Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum.
@ Edgar G.:
Pelosi gave in yesterday (Monday) and invited the President to address a joint session of Congress on Feb. 5 in the House Chambers.
I’m really tired of politics. Here’s some really good news:
https://nypost.com/2019/01/28/north-carolina-boy-hung-out-with-a-bear-while-lost-in-woods/
Bear, maybe you would be interested in that article too — it mentions a friendly bear.
State of the Union will be were it always is! I heard Trump say this live!
@ Michael S:
Maybe you have that info. The last I heard yesterday was that Trump had decided that the proper and only place to hold the State of the Union Address was from the House Chamber and keep up the tradition. I hope you’re right, which would mean that he’d take another look at holding it right at the border where all the trouble is, and where the attention of all Americans is focused these days. It would be a brilliant political move, and could go down in World and American history as “The Border Speech” (from the floor of the “House”;maybe as pointed sarcasm)…..
@ yamit82:
The reason against this is that both Trump and his late father were and are strong financial supporters of a variety of Israel charities and kibbutzim. I have seen this reported several times and has endured for over 50 years.
But…..the wording of that answer by the Trump rep is ambiguous to say the least, and means a lot more than it says…undoubtedly. !!
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar,
President Trump has weathered several bankruptcies, and has lost and re-made large fortunes. You’re a boxer. You know that every punch isn’t a knockout. Most of them are jabs. There’s no KO here — Orange Man is still in the ring.
As far as I know, the President hasn’t settled on a venue for the SOTU speech. Nancy won’t let him use “her” House for it, like some kid who stops a ball game by taking her ball home. It’s all Hollywood stuff.
@ Edgar G.:
I don’t trust Trump or his 3 court Jews…. Reminds me of the Tsar making Jews Tax collectors
@ yamit82:
Your last highlight is exactly what came to my mind when I read it originally;especially the careful wording. I believe I even mentioned something about it in a post.
It tells us something without saying it. Typical political doublespeak.
Time To Be Honest: Trump’s Plan Is Dangerous
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I hope so… if it in the end,it produces a result like the eventual building of Trump’s Wall. Political chicanery is like nothing else -except second-hand car dealing.. between second-hand car salesmen.
Here’s a “brilliant” suggestion……straight from the fertile mind of Edgar G… When the Repubs talk about the Dems platform in scorn…. the background music should be “Promises Promises”……
@ Michael S:
Trump made the suggestion last week that he should probably hold the Address right at the border, which would attract a world wide audience (already much under scrutiny) as well as almost all Americans. But he’s had second thoughts , saying that he didn’t want to break with precedent… that the House Chamber was the proper place to have the State of the Union address. I think he slipped up here-badly. I don’t think the place is important, but at the Border it is right under the spotlights at the major trouble spot, which ,,s causing the shutdown, and will focus everyone’s attention right on it. No TV spectators will see anything more than the podium and speaker, plus an occasional scanning around the crowd. A massive political publicity advantage lost.
HUGE Mistake….??
@ adamdalgliesh:
Actually only about 750 Jews made it. The community grew for quite a while through natural growth. Eventually in the 1950s & 60s people started leaving moving to NY, Miami and LA mostly. A few stayed and actually got very rich. A few men married local women.
It was quite complicated getting across the Ocean. My parents left from Portugal with others and went on a small boat across the Ocean. Most were from Germany and Austria. One Dutch Jew knew how to make cheeses and started a Dairy that I believe still exists today and is the largest Dairy in the Caribbean.
https://www.sosuanews.com/index.php?id=1055
@ Bear Klein: One of the arguments that Grant used in his unsuccessful bid to get Congress to annex Santo Domingo was the fact that a European power would annex it if the US refused. So he was aware that Baez would in one or another of the European powers i Congress refused to ratify the annexation treaty. In fact, Baez told Grant all this openly in the letters that he wrote him.
The dictator Trujillo, alone among the word’s leaders, did offer to admit some Jews, 25,000 I believe, at the Evien conference of 1938 where all of the other countries, including the United States and Britain, absolutely refused to help. However, only about 10,000 Jews learned about the Dominican offer and actually made it to the DR. Obviously, your parents and you were among these lucky few survivors.
Trujillo has been criticized for not publicizing his asylum order sufficiently, with the result that the quota of 25,000 was 60 per cent unfilled. However, I don’t know what the Dominicans could have done to publicize its offer.
The Philippines also offered to admit Jewish refugee when the U.S. officially granted the country independence in late 1944. However, few Jews were able to get to the Phillipines in time to escape the last stages of the Holocaust. As a result, only a few dozen Jews made it to the Phillipines before the war ended. After the war ended, some Holocaust survivors did make it to the Phillipines, where they were able to wait for admission to the U.S, or Israel in more comfortable environments than the European DP camps. A few did decide to stay in the Phillipines, and as a result I think that the Phillipines does have a few dozen Jewish citizens today. There is a small Chabad house that serves as the only synogogue in Manila.
@ Ted Belman:
“It is possible that the conference committee will not be able to come up with anything that satisfies both parties, in which case the partial shutdown resumes, but this time with the Democrats shown to be willing to shut down the government in order to prevent a border barrier. Trump will have met their demand to resume government funding, and they will have refused to meet him halfway. And President Trump will be delivering the State of the Union address at a date to be determined, but before the shutdown might resume. This will allow the highest possible platform for President Trump to comment on the negotiations, with Nancy Pelosi sitting behind him.”
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/why_trump_went_for_a_21day_suspension_of_the_partial_shutdown_and_what_happens_next.html#ixzz5dw2iux6k
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
I like that part. Get ready for a show, written and directed by the great showman.
@ adamdalgliesh:
Just as a tidbit Baez (Dominican leader) also tried to get France and Spain and not just the USA to annex the Dominican Republic. They also refused.
I was born there and the country has an interesting history.
During the Holocaust it actually took in European Jews to rescue them with the financial assistance of HAIS (about $5K per person). So if the USA had annexed it perhaps none of the Jews saved or born there would have been alive as FDR refused to accept Jews and neither did other countries.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/dominican-republic-as-haven-for-jewish-refugees
Trump clearly has been acting as working in the best interests of the USA. Clearly Pelosi has been only working to beat Trump. Moderate Dems & Independents are also for strong border security.
Trump is acting in the best interests of the USA. Something he understands. He does not understand the conflict with Israel and the Arabs.
Trump will still work on behalf of the best interests of the USA when he gets involved in Middle Eastern Affairs. He should he is the POTUS.
There is NO negotiated peace deal with the Pal-Arabs that can work for Israel.
@ Edgar G.: Brilliant insight. Pehaps he is doing something similar with the Palestinians?
@ adamdalgliesh:
I believe that there are long term strategic implications in what Trump is doing. He is showing that he is willing to sit down and talk with the Dems at any time. He makes all kinds of proposals that give them more than before.-some very creative. Yet, no matter what he offers, before they even have studied it they refuse. This is becoming more and more obvious to the American Public. Those who vote Rep. and those who voted for Clinton too.
A mew poll, with marks that start at zero and can go ether plus or minus, has emerged, and shows that just today it registered that Pelosi had a -19 score -the lowest of any politician in modern history. And the number of Dems who have been calling for her to resign has been growing steadily…. This is all because of how Trump has been handling the matter…..Clever guy.
@ Ted Belman:Ted, I just posted something in response to the Lifson article you referred me to. But it didn’t get printed on the site here Can you please retrieve it for me? Among other things I said that Lifson’s article helped me to better understand Trump’s actions. Thanks.
Edgar, I post I sent just tonight disappeared immediately. I have asked Ted to investigate.
@ yamit82:
In my opinion Trump chose to finance the military as a priority. Now he is focused on the wall. I think he will succeed. I even support his latest move to end the shutdown. Let’s see what he has up his sleeve.
So we differ. We’ll see.
I have recently been reading a biography of Ulysses S. Grant. When he was president, in 1870, the government of Santo Domingo (now known as the Dominican Republic) begged the United States to annex their country. Grant and the Dominican president jointly drew up a treaty of annexation. The Dominican legislature ratified it almost unanimously. But the U.S. Congress refused to ratify it, and Grant’s own Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, refused to support it. Grant pushed the treaty for months, and did everything in his power to pressure the Senate to ratify it. He threatened to deny patronage and “earmarks” to Senators who opposed it, and even brought about a partial shutdown of the USG, just like Trump. But when nothing worked, and congress wouldn’t even give him a cent to fund the army, he finally gave up and went on to the next items on his agenda. Nearly every U.S. president has had at least one similar experience with our chronically do-nothing Congress.
Ted, I just posted something in response to the Lifson article you referred me to. But it didn’t get printed on the site here Can you please retrieve it for me? Among other things I said that Lifson’s article helped me to better understand Trump’s actions. Thanks.
@ Ted Belman: Lifson’s article is fascinating and very informative.. Trump has suffered a tactical defeat and as made a wise decision to make a tactical retreat. But he has not given up on his committment to border security. All U.S. presidents have at some point in their administration failed to push through Congress, even after a strnuous push, some legislation that they believed to be in the national interest, and that actually was in the national interest.
Congress has been a do-nothing institution going all the way back to 1776, when George Washington couldn’t get it to appropriate eve one cent to fund the American Revolution! For the entire war Washington had to rely on loans to support the Revolutionary effort, many of them from the tiny but super-patriotic American Jewish community.
In 1870 the government of Santo Domingo( now known as the Dominican Republic) actually begged the United States to annex their country, because it was in dire economic straights, and they saw American annexation as the only way to pay off their debts and provide employment for their people. President Ulysses Grant and the Dominican President jointly drew up a treaty of union, which the Dominican people passed almost unanimously in a plebiscite. But the U.S. Congress stubornly refused to ratify the treaty. President Grant pulled out all the stops in an effort to badger Congress to ratify the treaty, even forcing what amounted to a government shutdown for several weeks, just as Trump did. But when nothing worked, after several months of effort he gave up and moved on to the next items on his agenda. Grant was probably right that if the u.S. had made Santo Domingo an American commonwealth in 1870, the result would have been beneficial to both countries. But no president wins every single battle.
I posted a response to Adam’s Jan. 27th 2.50 a.m. comment above in which I said that was just checking in, to see what was happening with Michael’s computer problem, and that as I was in the middle of another project, I would respond to him (Adam) either later or “tomorrow”. I did the Captcha “dance” and I saw my message printed…… and now as I check, I find that it has disappeared.
Ted……??? Your computer problem is about 19/20th fixed……
@ Ted Belman:
Back up a bit.
Trump could have had 25 $$ Billion for the wall and border security in his first deal with Chuck and Nancy for a legal path to citizenship for 1.8 million DACA kids, He bailed at the last min.
Trump approved 2 MEGA deficit omnibus spending bills with no money for a wall specifically only repairs of existing walls and no money for hiring additional border police or ICE police..
The current spending bill was approved by both houses with understanding Tump would sign… Here again, he bailed at the last moment because his base, social media, and conservative talk show hosts were blasting him for no wall.
All along his last 2 years except for rallies and pontificating he has done next to nothing to get financing for the wall. For Trump, it seems the wall concept is just red meat to be thrown to his most ardent supporters but like most populist demagogues he has to date, failed to match campaign slogan Jinggosims to results.
He lost the house because he couldn’t get repeal and replace Obama care through Congress leaving health care issue to the Dems and they beat Trump bad mostly on that issue..
My conclusion is there will not be a wall standing before 2020.
Not sure Trump was really that interested in a wall other than campaign sloganeering. He could have had as I said, about full funding for his wall in Jan 2018.
He looked and still looks stupid by announcing in full public view on TV to the whole nation that he was prepared to shut the Gov down if he doesn’t get only $5.7 billion for a wall and would take full responsibility for the shutdown… How dumb can ya get… Then he tried and didn’t succeed in shifting the blame to the Dems and Chuck and Nancy,,,
Hard to see what he expected to happen when the Gov shut down??? Looks like he had no idea beforehand and just winged it till the negative consequences like the air controllers and his FBI director began to threaten him. YES, he caved because he had no choice, He got 0 from the Shutdown bravado and seasoned political hacks ate his lunch. Everything else is spin trying to cover his ass. Even if the joint bipartisan conf committee gives him some money it will be so little as to not make much difference at the border and his base not so stupid to buy any more BS and spin he will try to sell. To get some $$$ crumbs he will have to give up a llot to the Dems further weakening his position. If he goes the way of decaling a national emergency he will be tied up in litigation for a least a year or more if he wins? In any case, he will not have a wall to show before the 2020 elections and will lose…
It’s the Trumpian version of “READ MY LIPS”
With a Dem House, Much of the GOP Senate unreliable and the GOP party really not backing him I don’t see him running in 2020 especially if he believes he will lose. That’s why I believe Romney is back in the picture and he will be a Trump nemesis to the end. Whoever has been advising Trump should be canned and id they gave him good advice and he ignored their advice Trump should be canned.
@ adamdalgliesh:
Why Trump went for a 21-day suspension of the partial shutdown, and what happens next
@ Ted Belman: Ted, I wish to discuss some news in Mr. Tobin’s article that is not directly related to the Trump-Kushner peace plan.
The existence of some sort of Middle East Petroleum Organization that includes both Israel and the PLO as well as Egypt, Cyprus, etc, as well as the Red-Med pipeline project going through Israel, explains a great deal about Bibi Netanyahu’s policies. Central to his vision of Israel’s interests is his belief that promoting Israeli commerce and wealth is more important to Israel than a military or even a diplomatic victory over Israel’s enemies. He believes that Israel’s prosperity and trade expansion. requires him to appease Israel’s enemies, or at least some of them. The PLOs cooperation in helping Israel to join and oil and natural gas cartel that could bring great revenues to Israel is one major reason he refuses to crack down on Palestinian terrorism, and tolarates the huge salaries that the PLO pays terrorists. In addition to thinking he may need Palestinian participation to organize the oil-natural gas cartel with Israeli participation, he thinks that cracking down on the Arab terrorists would interfere with his efforts to development economic and at least minimal diplomatic ties with the wealthy Gulf states, and perhaps in forming an anti_Iran alliance with them, since he considers Iran to be a much more dangerous enemy than the Palestinian terrorists. Also, he believes that a crackdown on the terrorists and a crackdown on illegal Arab settlements in Judea-Samaria will damage Israel’s trade relations with the EU countries, who are Israel’s biggest trading partners after the UNited States, and with Russia, another major Israeli trade partner. Of course, he also thinks that a crackdown on the Palestinians will anger Russia and make it more difficult for him to obtain Russian cooperation in reducing the Iranian footprint in Syria. Whether these assumptions are right or wrong (I believe that they are wrong), they are clearly what Bibi believes, he thinks tolerating a few dozen murders of Israel-Jewishi citizens a year by Arab terrorists–far fewer than what the Israelis lose yearly from car accidents and “ordinary” criminal murders– is a small price to pay for making Israelis rich and assuring them, or at least Israel’s upper and middle classes, a high standard of living. I believe this is a very short-sighted and self-destructive policy, but Bibi’s actions and speeches prove that that is his policy.
It is only indirectly related to this issue, but can someone explain to me why the ______Trump made a partial shutdown of the government for 35 days over the border wall issue. Seems irrational to me. Surely he must have known that the Democrats would never agree to fund the wall, no matter how long he kept the government shut down, since a) their “base” is committed to unfettered, unregulated immigration, and b) the shutdown and the problems it would inevitably cause to ordinary people would be blamed on Trump and the Republicans, since they were the ones who was refusing to authorize releasing the money that was needed to keep the government open. At least, it was easy to make it look that way, which the press of course did. The way the President handled the matter raises doubts about his judgment, and contrasts strangely with the shrewd way he has handled foreign policy and trade negotiations.
There was a simple way that he could have forced the Democrats to do what he wanted concerning the wall or nearly anything else he wanted. He could have announced that he would sign whatever budget they wanted, but if they didn’tthe projects he regarded as essential, he would sign off on the budget only if it included a 50 per cent cut in Congressional salaries, the removal of all medical coverage and retirement from their salary package, and a 50 per cent cut in funding for the Congressional staff. The Democrats and for that matter the Republican congreemen as well would have then given him anything he wanted, because they are utterly incapable of making personal sacrifices for what they claim to believe in. Congressmen are overwhelmingly mercenary and self-centered. However, once they caved, their corruption and selfishness would be exposed. And if they did hold out for any length of time, public pressure on them to accept the pay cuts would have been overwhelming, since all polls reveal that the entire electorate of both parties despise Congress and know they are mercenary bastards. It would have been a win-win situation for the President. If the Democratic majority held out against this demand, (unlikely), most of them would not have stood for reelection, claiming they needed to earn more money with other jobs. Fewer Republicans would have dropped out, because more of them are independently wealthy and could live comfortably without their Congressional salaries. A win-win situation for Trump. Why didn’t he think of that ploy? Any comments or answers from Israpundit readers will be greatly appreciated.@ Ted Belman:
@ yamit82:
I completely concur with this article and the view of Gershon Hacohen. Israel had left a lot of Judea & Samaria after Oslo had ended up with terror attacks on constant basis. Since retaking control of it the regular occurrences of buses and cafes blowing up has ceased and terror attacks are far less frequent and less severe.
Many of us predicted that if the IDF left Gaza it would become a serious security issue. Three wars and counting and the problem has grown and could still become worse. Leaving land for terrorists to take a hold of and use against Israel is a massive mistake and should never be repeated.
EXCLUSIVE – Former Israeli War Colleges Commander: ‘Without Judea and Samaria, Israel Cannot Defend Tel Aviv’
President Donald Trump’s negotiating team may unveil its “deal of the century” peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians soon after Israel’s April 9 elections.
Gershon Hacohen, a recently retired Israeli major general and former commander of Israel’s war colleges, now serves as a senior researcher at Bar Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Affairs, where he writes prolifically on the military significance of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians.
Hacohen is considered one of Israel’s most brilliant strategists. He is also something of a voice in the wilderness among his fellow generals, who almost unanimously identify with the left side of the political and ideological spectrum.
It is only indirectly related to this issue, but can someone explain to me why the ______Trump made a partial shutdown of the government for 35 days over the border wall issue. Seems irrational to me. Surely he must have known that the Democrats would never agree to fund the wall, no matter how long he kept the government shut down, since a) their “base” is committed to unfettered, unregulated immigration, and b) the shutdown and the problems it would inevitably cause to ordinary people would be blamed on Trump and the Republicans, since they were the ones who was refusing to authorize releasing the money that was needed to keep the government open. At least, it was easy to make it look that way, which the press of course did. The way the President handled the matter raises doubts about his judgment, and contrasts strangely with the shrewd way he has handled foreign policy and trade negotiations.
There was a simple way that he could have forced the Democrats to do what he wanted concerning the wall or nearly anything else he wanted. He could have announced that he would sign whatever budget they wanted, but if they didn’ approve the projects he regarded as essential, he would sign off on the budget only if it included a 50 per cent cut in Congressional salaries, the removal of all medical coverage and retirement from their salary package, and a 50 per cent cut in funding for the Congressional staff. The Democrats and for that matter the Republican congreemen as well would have then given him anything he wanted, because they are utterly incapable of making personal sacrifices for what they claim to believe in. Congressmen are overwhelmingly mercenary and self-centered. However, once they caved, their corruption and selfishness would be exposed. And if they did hold out for any length of time, public pressure on them to accept the pay cuts would have been overwhelming, since all polls reveal that the entire electorate of both parties despise Congress and know they are mercenary bastards. It would have been a win-win situation for the President. If the Democratic majority held out against this demand, (unlikely), most of them would not have stood for reelection, claiming they needed to earn more money with other jobs. Fewer Republicans would have dropped out, because more of them are independently wealthy and could live comfortably without their Congressional salaries. A win-win situation for Trump. Why didn’t he think of that ploy? Any comments or answers from Israpundit readers will be greatly appreciated.
@ Colorado Rose:
Peace cannot be imposed by the USA. Peace is obtained though force. Problem is Israel is no longer respected. Too much to lose economically.?
Colorado Rose Said:
Where is the Wall?
Colorado Rose Said:
Who invited Trump to get involved in our internal business? We didn’t the Palis didn’t… Nobody wants s peace deal here… Before you discuss peace define what you mean by peace first. There is no economic or security reason for Israel to buy into any plan today; the Arabs are in a state of disintegration and we are still strong. There is no imperative for Israel not only to agree to Trump’s plan or even to consider it.
Colorado Rose Said:
Yep, a wall might well succeed but there first must be a wall… I don’t see any wall do you? Most of the existing wall is next to useless and there is no new wall being built only repairing or replacing existing walls and fences providing there is no concrete involved…. Trump wants now only 234 miles of the border a far cry from what is really necessary. Texas alone has over a 1000 miles of border with Mexico. Trump will be forced to go where he should have gone a year ago to executive directives and fight it out in the 9th Fed District court…. where he will lose and wait for a decision of the high court… that process can take a year or more…Assuming he wins there will be no wall standing before 2020 and Trump will face certain loss in 2020 election as much of his base will sit it out. If he gives anything construed to be amnesty or a path to amnesty for the Dreamers he loses the 2020 elections…
The Dems will never give Trump a victory and he had a chance when he controlled the House. He blew that up all on his own.
If he forces upon Israel a plan that a majority here in Israel reject he will lose a lot of his base so the only reason he would even consider getting involved is MEGA Arrogance, hubris and a lot of stupidity. He could care less the negative consequences just succeeding if only by perception in doing what Obama and other past presidents failed to deliver…. Israel is not a real estate deal IMO his biggest mistake was Keeping Stupid Jared and Ivanka on and getting rid of Bannon. With all his faults Bannon has a brain.
@ Colorado Rose:With all due respect. First I am not a Trump hater, I voted for him and still support him. However, first I am realist.
Canada and Mexico needed the USA trade deal. Their economies would sink without US trade. The USA also needed the Trade Deal. That is a deal I said would more likely than not happen. Trump has surrounded himself with business people and he is a business person. Kushner got the deals over the finishing line (still need Congressional approval). So if Trump could not get this done he was not going to get much of anything significant done.
Trump tries to keep his promises. He will try to get border security on the Mexican border. It may happen but the GOP & DEMS have been fighting about this for years and Congress is divided. So it is a tall order.
The Israel – Arab conflict is not a business deal. It is a religious conflict. Muslims do NOT want Jews to rule over the land they call Palestine and this the Jews only home ever in the world and have NO place to else to go. So thinking that Trump is capable of solving this conflict is putting Trump on a pedestal and far from reality. Trump does not even get the root of the conflict, nor does anyone else who believes that it can be solved by dividing the land and signing a piece of paper.
@ yamit82:
What are you talking about, Yamit? Of course the wall will succeed.
As an American citizen, I have been watching President Trump since 2016 with mixed emotions. Would he be a good president? Would he keep his campaign promises?
The take-a-way has been that he is unlike any president America has ever had. And slowly but surely, many Americans have started to trust him. And as Ted pointed out, it would not serve this president to put a failed plan forward.
I do not know more than anyone else what the plan it, but what I do know is that President Trump has succeed where all before him has failed. I am starting to realize that President Trump is different because he is not a politician, but a trained negotiator.
Remember his trade deal with Mexico and Canada? Canada would not come to the table, so President Trump made a deal without them. This put Canada in a great panic. And this is how President Trump deals with recalcitrant partners. It was a delight to watch.
People read his tweets and discuss them endlessly. I do not nor do a great majority of Americans. I do not care what he says as much as I care what he does.
I do not blame Israel for observing him with trepidation. She has learned that hard way not to trust anyone.
Watching President Trump going into his third year, the deal he puts forward will be like not other. This I can pretty much guarantee.
The waiting is hard, but I am convinced that it will be worth it. And I am also convinced that Israel will be much happier with the plan than the muslims.
God bless America. God bless Israel.
SarahSue
Bear Klein Said:
I am in the Hope For Failure Camp!!!!
Ted Belman Said:
You mean like the WALL on the Southern border???
@ Ted Belman: As I said in my earlier post everyone is talking about conjecture. The endless debate about a plan that has not been released nor seen fully except for a few insiders in D,C.
Tobin, at least has a disclaimer “if the report is correct”. He does not claim to know.
Any plan that creates an actual Pal State or requires Israel to withdraw from more territory is a failure (Jason Greenblat has stated Israel will have to give up more than the Palestinians and take greater risk). Tobin is correct that there is not peace plan that will resolve the unsolvable conflict with the Palestinians.
That is why only victory over the terrorists and continued control of all Judea & Samaria by the IDF forever works. Getting rid of the terrorists one way or the other works.
A reduction in the amount of Arabs in the Land of Israel would lessen the friction. Buying lands owned by Arabs or incentivized emigration are good ideas.
Trumps ego is what has motivated him to wade into an unsolvable conflict. He will not be successful. We can only hope he gets border security for the USA and solves its immigration issues. Then back to Israel Pal conflict for round 2.
@ Ted Belman:
“The only reason for constantly talking and leaking what the plan may be about, is to fill a diplomatic void and to distract everybody from what is going on.”
That sounds reasonable to me.
@ Bear Klein:
I gagged on this line.
Does he really think that Trump and Kushner would be so stupid as to the same think that they would present the same plan that everyone in the past has failed with?
For starters if Trump didn’t have an entirely different deal in mind, he would never put his reputation on the line proposing a plan that has no chance of success.
So I stopped reading.
@ Ted Belman:
I am aware you do not agree with Tobin’s view. You yourself have confirmed that you have not personally first hand viewed Trumps plan and rely on a Jordanian/Palestinian who resides in the UK for information that you are not able to independently verify but believe in based on a personal trust factor.
I agree with Tobin, that, “most savvy observers aren’t wasting much time speculating about the peace plan. Few think there is any chance this effort will succeed.”
@ Bear Klein:
I didn’t post that article because Tobin is so uninformed.
Truth is no one except Trump and his inner circle what is completely in “Deal of the Century”. Pipes is extrapolating based on limited comments by Trumps circle and so are other commentators on the subject.
So people are arguing about conjecture.
So latest info is that the plan will be released after the Israeli elections. Will this be after a coalition is formed? So if this it is the case it could be June 2019 or thereabouts if nothing else changes the release date.
I remember conjecture that Bibi was going to be forced into Obama’s plan on this site. I remember arguing it will not happen. If Trump has an unfavorable plan Israel will find a way to circumvent it.
adamdalgliesh Said:
Wrong, wrong , wrong. There is no illusion , the PA and Hamas will not go for this plan. Trump has stressed that he will seek approval of the Palestinians and there are more Palestinians in Jordan than in Israel. But in reality there will be nothing to approve. Israel and Jordan already have a peace agreement. The PA will disintegrate and Jordan will administer in its place. There will be no peace process.
Pinhas Inbari wrote that only Saudi Arabia might approve of Trump’s deal. I said he was wrong. All the Arab countries are lined up to acquiesce in it.
The only reason for constantly talking and leaking what the plan may be about, is to fill a diplomatic void and to distract everybody from what is going on.
yamit82 Said:
I set out the deal in Trump’s Deal of the Century and believe that it will be good for Israel though I didn’t make the case. According to the deal, all lands west of the Jordan River will be israel sovereign territory. With Mudar running the country, he will rename Jordan, Palestine and restore Jordanian citizenship to all Palestinians. He will also accept all Palestinian emigrants to Jordan. Jordan will replace the PA as administrator of all Area A. Israel can then exercise its sovereingty over all the rest of J&S.
This deal is not based on assumptions, so there is nothing to challenge.
Then if Israel can induce the Palestinians to emigrate, its a bonus.
I think you agree with than but you are certain that it will be a security disaster. I beg to differ and can’t get into why.
As Ted says, Pipes is biased against Trump, and everything he writes about the (alleged) peace plan is filtered through that bias. The very fact that Trump has delayed so long in making public his alleged “peace plan” suggests to me that he will only publish it if the Palestinian leaders show to his satisfaction they are sincere in wanting peace. Since they are not, and since Trump is a realist who is not willing to propose deals until and unless he sees tangible evidence that his prospective partners want a deal, he won’t propose one. IN this case, the Palestinians are extremely unlikely to send out signals that they are prepared to deal. So the (alleged) peace plan may never be made public.
. Belman. said:
I think Pipes plagiarized some of my printed comments as they appear to be almost identical???? That said,
Everything you said about Pipes may be true WRT to his opposition to Trump but that was then and this is now. Do you disagree with:
There are many ways to be a game changer like Peace or War… Any momentous event or acts of nature can be game changers even big game changers. Will Trump’s plan be good for the Jews or Bad for the Jews…?
You are convinced it will be good for the Jews and I and others know it will be a disaster.
Based on what you think or know for a certainty why is Trumps plan good for the Jews and Israel? I want the challenge of either being convinced or the opportunity to refute and challenge your assumptions if I am not convinced by your arguments.