Kushner's economic plan for Mideast peace faces broad Arab rejection

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

We've been over this numerous times across multiple topics. Your version is a propagandist's one, and does not reflect reality. Whether even Arafat's recognition was properly ratified is an open question.

 

Regardless of how much your want to tout the same links, the fact stands that Hamas (and also similar organizations) do not accept this point of view, and they represent a significant part of the Palestinians (maybe even a majority). On top of that, not everyone aligned with the opposing Fatah is fully on  board the acceptance and recognition as you imply.

 

The point remains that "compromised enough already" is a slogan, or an opinion. It is not a fact. It isn't rooted in reality. To follow the example offered, the 1967 lines represent a worse alternative than the Palestinians were offered in 1947. Each consecutive phase of rejectionism leads to the territory discussed getting smaller.

[Harveyg]

On 6/23/2019 at 3:53 PM, webfact said:

While Riyadh and its allies have welcomed Trump's harder line against Tehran, which has cast itself as the guardian of Palestinian rights,

and also proclaimed that Israel does not have the right to exist.

Have they rescinded that statement?

That's what I call a real non starter.  A money bribe doesnt match that.

[candide]

On 6/24/2019 at 1:24 AM, ezzra said:

Back in 2002 president Clinton and than Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered yasser arafat 92% of the sized land back to the Palestinian people, Arafat just kept saying NO, it's 100% or nothing.... Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.

Nothing has changed since then, the Palestinian mule like stubbornness and pride will not allow them to move forward, or, they don't want to, it seems that they're happy living in 'refugees camps' for another 70 years and for the UN and the world to feel sorry and pity and keep pumping more and more billions of euros and dollars at them...

It's not that simple, as you know. 92% was a 'maximum' after some time, so the starting point was 78%. Moreover, the basis on which it was calculated was only 95% of the West Bank, the West Bank would have been divided in 3 non contiguous blocks separated by Israeli settlements, etc....

[Morch]

5 hours ago, candide said:

It's not that simple, as you know. 92% was a 'maximum' after some time, so the starting point was 78%. Moreover, the basis on which it was calculated was only 95% of the West Bank, the West Bank would have been divided in 3 non contiguous blocks separated by Israeli settlements, etc....

 

It does demonstrate that decades-long rejectionism did not and does not benefit the Palestinians. Each new phase sees the goalposts moved, and the territory discussed getting smaller. IMO, in practice, each phase is also marked by incremental increases of of Israel's positions and demands becoming, de facto, more "acceptable".

[candide]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It does demonstrate that decades-long rejectionism did not and does not benefit the Palestinians. Each new phase sees the goalposts moved, and the territory discussed getting smaller. IMO, in practice, each phase is also marked by incremental increases of of Israel's positions and demands becoming, de facto, more "acceptable".

Your observations are quite relevant. However, I am not certain Israel's positions and demands have been seen as more acceptable over time outside the U.S. 

I also strongly doubt Palestinians will ever find them acceptable so it's likely that the current deadlock will go on for a long period of time.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

Your observations are quite relevant. However, I am not certain Israel's positions and demands have been seen as more acceptable over time outside the U.S. 

I also strongly doubt Palestinians will ever find them acceptable so it's likely that the current deadlock will go on for a long period of time.

 

Acceptable wasn't a good choice of words, perhaps. What I meant was that with time, Israel demands and positions become legitimate parts of discussion, then added up to the list of demands. Compare proposed borders between versions of peace plans over the years. Little by little, even the mainstream ones try to accommodate a certain level of Israeli terms - keeping this hill, or that cluster of illegal settlements, roads to other places. And that's just on the territorial front.

 

It is true that USA administrations have been more open to this sort of thing, but not like it's absent from Europeans takes on the peace process.

 

Even them 1967 lines touted aren't the actual pre-1967-war lines anymore, but a further amended version (or rather, versions - this too erodes with time).

 

The Palestinians obviously do not find any of this "acceptable", but as they are pretty much dependent on international and regional support, the pressure to accept certain concessions grows as well.

[dexterm]

On 6/25/2019 at 8:57 AM, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

We've been over this numerous times across multiple topics. Your version is a propagandist's one, and does not reflect reality. Whether even Arafat's recognition was properly ratified is an open question.

 

Regardless of how much your want to tout the same links, the fact stands that Hamas (and also similar organizations) do not accept this point of view, and they represent a significant part of the Palestinians (maybe even a majority). On top of that, not everyone aligned with the opposing Fatah is fully on  board the acceptance and recognition as you imply.

 

The point remains that "compromised enough already" is a slogan, or an opinion. It is not a fact. It isn't rooted in reality. To follow the example offered, the 1967 lines represent a worse alternative than the Palestinians were offered in 1947. Each consecutive phase of rejectionism leads to the territory discussed getting smaller.

>>Each consecutive phase of rejectionism leads to the territory discussed getting smaller.
...quite true. Until one day there is no Palestinian land left and it becomes a single state...my preferred solution.

 At that point Israelis and the world must decide whether they are going to allow a democratic state where the majority of the population are non Jews but with equal rights, or the indigenous majority Palestinians have no rights (= apartheid).

 

I see nothing wrong in rejecting unjust solutions. Just because Kushner tries to sell you a lemon doesnt mean to say you must accept it. You seem to ignore the fact that Israelis, with the more land and people they annex, are digging a deeper hole for themselves which may see the demise of the Zionist dream of a predominantly Jewish state.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>Each consecutive phase of rejectionism leads to the territory discussed getting smaller.
...quite true. Until one day there is no Palestinian land left and it becomes a single state...my preferred solution.

 At that point Israelis and the world must decide whether they are going to allow a democratic state where the majority of the population are non Jews but with equal rights, or the indigenous majority Palestinians have no rights (= apartheid).

 

I see nothing wrong in rejecting unjust solutions. Just because Kushner tries to sell you a lemon doesnt mean to say you must accept it. You seem to ignore the fact that Israelis, with the more land and people they annex, are digging a deeper hole for themselves which may see the demise of the Zionist dream of a predominantly Jewish state.

 

Yes, I'm aware that what interests you most is the final "win", and that you're less interested in what happens between now and then (when?) other than as propaganda material for "the cause".

 

Realistically, your "preferred solution" implies either a civil war or a South Africa version plus the religious element. There are very little prospects of a one-state solution resulting in a peaceful, democratic co-existence. You seem to have no issues with that, so long as the "struggle" goes on.

 

You just accepted that the real consequences of Palestinian rejectionism did nothing to further their national aspirations. Yet, "see nothing wrong" with such a stance. Doesn't make much sense, but wasn't expecting much anyway.

 

Never said anything about Palestinian needing to accept this particular offer (if anything, the opposite). The comment was more general in nature. And, of course, "ignoring" the other point is a myth - it features in many of my posts. 

[dexterm]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, I'm aware that what interests you most is the final "win", and that you're less interested in what happens between now and then (when?) other than as propaganda material for "the cause".

 

Realistically, your "preferred solution" implies either a civil war or a South Africa version plus the religious element. There are very little prospects of a one-state solution resulting in a peaceful, democratic co-existence. You seem to have no issues with that, so long as the "struggle" goes on.

 

You just accepted that the real consequences of Palestinian rejectionism did nothing to further their national aspirations. Yet, "see nothing wrong" with such a stance. Doesn't make much sense, but wasn't expecting much anyway.

 

Never said anything about Palestinian needing to accept this particular offer (if anything, the opposite). The comment was more general in nature. And, of course, "ignoring" the other point is a myth - it features in many of my posts. 

What interests me most is a win win for both peoples.

 

You have very limited vision and seem to think that both peoples can never live together peacefully within an appropriate political framework.

 

Israelis continue to reject fair peace proposals, expand an illegal occupation not very conducive to peace talks, still don't have a permanent peace or borders with all their neighbors after 70 years, keep sending their young people to be brutalized and killed in the army of occupation for 3 years, and forever looking over their shoulders. I don't call that much of a life or future either.

 

By all means Kushner inject money into the region to make people's lives better, but don't come back after the Israeli elections in a few months time and say...Oh and by the way, this is the price we expect you Palestinians to pay for all this and if you refuse, we are taking all the goodies away. Sort of putting the cart before the horse.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, dexterm said:

What interests me most is a win win for both peoples.

 

You have very limited vision and seem to think that both peoples can never live together peacefully within an appropriate political framework.

 

Israelis continue to reject fair peace proposals, expand an illegal occupation not very conducive to peace talks, still don't have a permanent peace or borders with all their neighbors after 70 years, keep sending their young people to be brutalized and killed in the army of occupation for 3 years, and forever looking over their shoulders. I don't call that much of a life or future either.

 

By all means Kushner inject money into the region to make people's lives better, but don't come back after the Israeli elections in a few months time and say...Oh and by the way, this is the price we expect you Palestinians to pay for all this and if you refuse, we are taking all the goodies away. Sort of putting the cart before the horse.

 

Based on your many posts and toxic rhetoric, allow me not to believe your claim.

 

My "limited vision" relies on facts, reality and first hand experience with both People. I never said "never" - that's something you made up. Somewhere down the line, decades from now, maybe. In the foreseeable future, no. There are no indications it could be so, there are no applicable precedents.

 

Israelis do not reject "fair peace proposals". Your concept of "fair" ignores circumstances, conditions and positions of the Palestinian people. It isn't as if all Palestinians are up for whatever "fair peace proposals" you're referring to. There are hardliners on both sides, trying to make it only one party's issue is wrong.

 

Israel got agreed upon borders with neighboring countries who signed peace treaties. Borders aren't a one sided issue, and in the same way it could be lamented that Israel's neighbors do not have permanent peace or borders - but somehow you manage to see it into solely Israel's problem and responsibility.

 

The same not "much of a life or future" applies to Israel's neighbors on all counts mentioned. With the difference, that relative to its neighbors, Israelis generally enjoy a a better life, and more freedoms. And especially so with comparison to the Palestinians. So while everyone losses, some hurt more than others.

 

I have no idea what Kushner is going to say or do in a few months. If, however, you imagine that money comes without strings attached, then guess we live in a different reality. There's usually something down the line, one way or another.

 

[simple1]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

I have no idea what Kushner is going to say or do in a few months. 

 

Some MSM outlets (e.g. The Times, UK) are claiming the following means the end of the Two State Solution. 

 

“if there ever is a deal, it’s not going to be along the lines of the Arab Peace Initiative”...

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/jared-kushner-indicates-end-of-us-support-for-two-state-solution-at-launch-of-trump-peace-plan-1.485805

[user68677878]

The assumptions on which he appears to be basing his plan are so flawed that it is fair to wonder if his aim is really to start serious negotiations, or simply to please Trump’s base by gearing up to blame the Palestinian side for the failure to come.

It is already clear to the thinking person that Trump is a terrible dealmaker who has yet to conclude any significant international agreement

[wayned]

kushner confirmed this morning that his political plan does not include the two state solution.  Without that, the Palestinians won't come to the table, rightfully so, and the ere will be no peace plan.  I wonder if Kushner is planning to move to Israel and running for a seat in the Knesset ?

[user68677878]

There’s nothing like using U.S. foreign policy as an instrument of personal vengeance

[user68677878]

Convincing Jordan is not going to be any easier either because the Jordanian society itself firmly rejects the deal - something unlikely to change no matter what incentives and/or threats the White House uses. The Jordan valley needs to be returned but that will never happen.

When Trump announced his decision to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognised it as Israel's capital he ensured that no peace deal could be made-ever. This no peace deal in any shape or form- all the Palestinians get is financial support for development projects in Gaza, especially in energy, supposedly to alleviate the humanitarian crisis there.

[observer90210]

I have a better proposal ... why not make Apple set up a multi trillion dollar production plant in Palestine, Google open it's Middle East Regional HQ somewhere downtown Ramallah and have the Shangri-La build a 5 star beachfront hotel with private pool villas along Gaza and of course all the GAFA hire only locals. Guaranteed peace within the first year.  Of course this will piss of one or a few nations here and there, but who gives a damm ..  business, money and peace first !!...

[wayned]

14 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

I have a better proposal ... why not make Apple set up a multi trillion dollar production plant in Palestine, Google open it's Middle East Regional HQ somewhere downtown Ramallah and have the Shangri-La build a 5 star beachfront hotel with private pool villas along Gaza and of course all the GAFA hire only locals. Guaranteed peace within the first year.  Of course this will piss of one or a few nations here and there, but who gives a damm ..  business, money and peace first !!...

You forgot the Trump Tower and the Ivanka Spa.

[observer90210]

6 minutes ago, wayned said:

You forgot the Trump Tower and the Ivanka Spa.

No only, I also forgot some Burger KIngs all around RAmallah, KFC here and there and Disneyland Gaza (c) to build it's first billion $ Theme Park, right next to that thing that looks like a wall ! ...Guaranteed that after all this, nobody will be in a hurry to go to heaven to meet the XX virgins !

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

I have a better proposal ... why not make Apple set up a multi trillion dollar production plant in Palestine, Google open it's Middle East Regional HQ somewhere downtown Ramallah and have the Shangri-La build a 5 star beachfront hotel with private pool villas along Gaza and of course all the GAFA hire only locals. Guaranteed peace within the first year.  Of course this will piss of one or a few nations here and there, but who gives a damm ..  business, money and peace first !!...

That basically is the plan: bring in money and all will be ok.

Not possible though without a political solution first.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Some MSM outlets (e.g. The Times, UK) are claiming the following means the end of the Two State Solution. 

 

“if there ever is a deal, it’s not going to be along the lines of the Arab Peace Initiative”...

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/jared-kushner-indicates-end-of-us-support-for-two-state-solution-at-launch-of-trump-peace-plan-1.485805

 

I think that, in general, there are a lot of references to the Arab Peace Initiative. And that quite a lot of them are misinformed. The Arab Peace Initiative was a rather short piece, dealing with several core issue. Some see it as a an outline for negotiations, but then others treat it as representing preconditions and red lines.

 

If the latter take is upheld, and it's either accept it as a whole or bust, then pretty much any negotiations are doomed for failure and could be conveniently labeled as ditching the two state solution. If, on the other hand, the Arab Peace Initiative is treated as an outline for discussion, then saying an outcome which will be somewhere between it and Israel's position makes sense.

 

It's not that I'm hopeful or expecting much. It could very well be that the plan, when presented will be underwhelming with regard to Palestinian aspirations. But maybe better to bash the actual product than a hypothetical one.

 

1 hour ago, wayned said:

kushner confirmed this morning that his political plan does not include the two state solution.  Without that, the Palestinians won't come to the table, rightfully so, and the ere will be no peace plan.  I wonder if Kushner is planning to move to Israel and running for a seat in the Knesset ?

 

If you're referencing the CNN interview, he did not "confirm" that. He was certainly dodging the issue and being evasive, but that's about it. While it may not inspire confidence in his intentions, its worth bearing in mind he's got to contend with Israeli right-wing hawks as well, From their point of view, outright saying "Palestinian state" is like a red rag to a bull.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, porphyry said:

There’s nothing like using U.S. foreign policy as an instrument of personal vengeance

 

What "personal vengeance" would that be?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, porphyry said:

Convincing Jordan is not going to be any easier either because the Jordanian society itself firmly rejects the deal - something unlikely to change no matter what incentives and/or threats the White House uses. The Jordan valley needs to be returned but that will never happen.

When Trump announced his decision to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognised it as Israel's capital he ensured that no peace deal could be made-ever. This no peace deal in any shape or form- all the Palestinians get is financial support for development projects in Gaza, especially in energy, supposedly to alleviate the humanitarian crisis there.

 

"When Trump announced his decision to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognised it as Israel's capital he ensured that no peace deal could be made-ever."

 

Not really. No door was closed on the option of East Jerusalem being the future Palestinian capital. And it was made clear that final status issues will be a matter of negotiations:

 

Quote

We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders.  Those questions are up to the parties involved.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-jerusalem/

[Harveyg]

On 6/25/2019 at 3:21 AM, Morch said:

The Palestinians obviously do not find any of this "acceptable", but as they are pretty much dependent on international and regional support, the pressure to accept certain concessions grows as well.

I’ve been wondering if the opposite may also be possible.  That is, let’s say the Palestinians would be somewhat accepting of a resolution, but a country like Iran might see a lack of resolution as better suited to its aims, and then exert their influence against such a resolution under whatever pretext.  What do you think?

[Lacessit]

This has been going on since the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs are never going to accept anything less than the annihilation of Israel.

Without the oil in that region, Arabs would be told to go back to shagging goats and camels. What will they do when the oil runs out?

My religion is better than yours because it's a more recent embrace of monotheism.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Harveyg said:

I’ve been wondering if the opposite may also be possible.  That is, let’s say the Palestinians would be somewhat accepting of a resolution, but a country like Iran might see a lack of resolution as better suited to its aims, and then exert their influence against such a resolution under whatever pretext.  What do you think?

 

In terms of popular support for this or that, or dictating political moves, Iran's influence on the Palestinian scene is limited. More relevant to factions that are anyway more invested in rejectionism (Islamic Jihad, and to a lesser degree, Hamas).

 

So with regard to "exerting their influence" in terms of political clout, maybe not much. Making hardliners harder yet, yes. Pushing toward violence aimed at disrupting a process, yes.

 

But at the bottom line, it's an extra. The same stance can be applied by home grown elements not in favor of peaceful resolution. As in, they don't really need Iran's approval or motivation for that sort of thing.