Trending Topics:

Two-state solution didn’t work, Jared Kushner says, signaling possible support for Israeli annexation

News
on 42 Comments

The Trump administration’s lead Middle East negotiator, Jared Kushner commented on his forthcoming plan two days ago at a Time Magazine forum in New York. It’ll come out after Netanyahu’s “great victory” and after Ramadan.

We were getting ready at the end of last year, and then obviously they called for Israeli elections. Prime Minister Netanyahu had a great victory, and he’s in the middle of forming his coalition. Once that’s done, we’ll probably be in the middle of Ramadan. So we’ll wait till after Ramadan and then we’ll put our plan out….

They’ve talked with people “from the region.” I.e., not so much Palestinians.

When my father in law asked me to work on this project, the Middle East peace process, it’s about as tough a problem set as you can get. So we’ve taken I think an unconventional approach. We’ve studied all the different past efforts and how they’ve failed and why they’ve failed…. We’ve tried to do it a little bit differently. Normally they start with a process and then hope that the process leads to a resolution for something to happen they haven’t been able to resolve for a long time. What we’ve done is the opposite. We’ve done very extensive research and a lot of talking to a lot of the people, we’re not trying to impose our will. I think that the document you’ll see which is a very detailed proposal, is something we created by engaging with a lot of people from the region and people who have worked on this in the past. I hope that it’s a very comprehensive vision for what can be if people are willing to make some hard decisions.

So we started with a proposed solution then we’ll work on a process to try to get there.

Time’s White House correspondent, Brian Bennett, asked Kushner about the “two state solution.”

Yes, so we have not said today, we are going to lay that out very clearly… I think that if people focus on the old traditional talking points, we will never make progress. Right? You had the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which I think was a very good attempt. If that would have worked, we would have made peace a long time ago on that basis. So what we’re going to put out is different. Our focus is really on the bottom up, which is how do you make the lives of the Palestinian people better? What can you resolve to allow these areas to become more investable? We deal with all the core status issues because you have to do it, but we’ve also built a robust business plan for the whole region. I think that the two together have the opportunity to push forward. And then from Israel’s point of view, their biggest concern is just security. And I think that what we do, is something that allows for Israel to maintain security, but there’ll be tough compromises for both.

That implies an “economic” peace. Palestinians get more investment, no sovereignty.

And I hope that when they [Israelis and Palestinians] look at our proposal, I’m not saying they’re going to look at it and say, this is perfect and let’s go forward. I’m hopeful what they’ll do is to say, look, there are some compromises here, but at the end of the day, this is really a framework that can allow us to make our lives materially better. And we’ll see if the leadership on both sides has the courage to take the leap to try to go forward.

Liberal Zionists are expressing alarm over the comments. “I think this may be the first time that Kushner has clearly disavowed two states on the record,” writes Michael Koplow. Koplow posted an analysis at the Israel Policy Forum saying Kushner has ditched the two-state solution “altogether” and is allowing annexation, and making clear that “Palestinians should give up any hopes of political sovereignty.”

[The] peace initiative… is branded as the deal of the century but is in fact a thinly veiled attempt to shift the Overton window so that it is centered on the Israeli right’s most ambitious fever dream. This would not actually be a deal in any normative sense of the word since there is no expectation of it being accepted by the Palestinian side, or even being balanced enough to allow for any type of negotiations. It would instead set a new baseline of unrealistic expectations for the Israeli side that would sabotage any potential future deal by moving the Israeli and Palestinian sides even further apart, with an even greater likelihood of paving the way for Israeli annexation of the West Bank as the U.S. cheers it on.

And it is this final step that would cement the disaster for Israel, as any claim to having moral authority as the only democracy in the Middle East, or shaking off the occupation of the West Bank as a temporary measure born from having no partner, would be gone forever. It would mean an endless fight against an empowered BDS that at some point will get real buy-in from European governments, the death of Israeli dreams of eventual integration into the wider Middle East and normalized relations with Sunni states, and a security hellscape dealing with Palestinians who want either their own state or Israeli citizenship but are not willing to countenance permanent second class status through autonomy on 40% of the West Bank. It would mean an Israel that never has quiet and sustainable borders, is never treated as a normal country, and is fated to fight a never-ending battle against its neighbors, the world, and its own conscience.

Leading Democrats have come out against Israeli annexation of portions of the West Bank.

P.S. Kushner was mildly critical of Saudi Arabia’s response to the Houthi rebellion. “Maybe they haven’t done the best job,” he said, but Saudi Arabia is in the same position as Israel is with Hamas in Gaza. “They need to be able to defend themselves.” And it’s “very pragmatic” for the U.S. to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.

“We’ve urged the Saudis to try to loosen up a lot of the aid to get in to the people,” Kushner said.

The president’s son-in-law is said to be close to Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, and at a dinner Tuesday night the film star Hasan Minhaj called on Kushner to reach out to MbS to get him to release women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul,

Thanks to Allison Deger. 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

42 Responses

  1. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw on April 25, 2019, 4:37 pm

    The key here is sovereignty, Netanyahu has ruled out a two state solution with Palestinian sovereignty over any area of the West Bank , certainly area ‘C’ [60% of West Bank with most settlers living there, and few Palestinians]. Netanyahu will annex Area ‘C’ first, this is the most valuable and water rich area in the West Bank with the largest aquifer and of course the Jordan River. Areas ‘A and B’ and maybe Gaza where most Palestinians live will be offered Bantustan status, the main benefits to Israel with this solution are 1/ It solves the demographic problem since no Palestinians living there will be allowed a vote in the Knesset and 2/ the Saudis, US and EU will be encouraged to fund these Bantustans 3/ Occupation i.e. control of these areas will continue similar to the Gaza situation, with the threat that should the Palestinians get uppity in A, B or Gaza funds can be withdrawn and blockades enforced or more ‘mowing the lawn’. That’s my prediction, the Palestinians will of course reject it. Israel and the US hope MbS will back the plan as was reported in the article below, but even he will not be able to force this humiliation down the throats of the Palestinians.

    “In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given,” bin Salman reportedly said in a report published on Axios website by Barak Ravid, Channel 10’s senior diplomatic correspondent.
    “It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.”
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/mbs-palestinians-accept-trump-proposals-shut-180430065228281.html
    Kushner, Greenblatt and Freedman these three proud radical Zionists have clearly demonstrated their enthusiasm for Israel’s illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories and their rejection of the label “occupied” for the West Bank and Jerusalem.
    But the Trump trio continue to surprise, and not in a good way. Kushner and company are so extreme that they make Netanyahu look moderate in comparison.
    They are part of a group of American Zionist hardliners who opposed the “Oslo Peace Process” in the 1990s and have even made comparisons between Israeli peacemakers and Nazi collaborators. They have dismissed Palestinian national and historical rights out of hand and defended Israel’s actions as ordained by God. Like their evangelical partners, they believe their boss Trump might have been anointed by God to look after Israel and reckon their interpretation of divine will supersedes the will of the international community.
    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/logic-humiliation-palestinians-190423123902553.html

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976 on April 25, 2019, 6:01 pm

      Those ordinances of God are always at the core of the argument.

    • gamal
      gamal on April 25, 2019, 6:48 pm

      “three proud radical Zionists have clearly demonstrated their enthusiasm for Israel’s illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories and their rejection of the label “occupied” for the West Bank and Jerusalem.
      But the Trump trio continue to surprise, and not in a good way. Kushner and company are so extreme that they make Netanyahu look moderate in comparison.
      They are part of a group of American Zionist hardliners who opposed the “Oslo Peace Process” in the 1990s and have even made comparisons between Israeli peacemakers and Nazi collaborators. They have dismissed Palestinian national and historical rights out of hand and defended Israel’s actions as ordained by God”

      well that’s clear enough, but not to all

      “Those ordinances of God are always at the core of the argument” what argument?

      no Hughes only from the Zionists be they Jewish or English (dear blighty) Christian Zionists, those ‘ordinances’ are meaningless, unless you would like to enlighten us as to what they mean, keeping in mind you wouldn’t want to leave out the Islamic view, unless you think that irrelevant for some reason? the ordinances of god are a total blind con aren’t they? unless you think God would ordain anything other than justice? and what lies beyond it, It may be that you have gone crazy and vastly overestimated your rights, intellect and abilities, that’s the core of it old boy, things change malicious guys like you get found out by time, God will grind you into dust.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 25, 2019, 10:18 pm

        If God is going to grind anyone into dust, there are plenty of candidates who are more deserving than MHughes. I could give him a list, if he wants.

        While God’s deciding, I’ll point out that that MHughes means that the Zionists cling to the idea of the alleged ordinances of God. He isn’t recommending the ordinances.

      • annie
        annie on April 25, 2019, 10:49 pm

        harry: ” They have dismissed Palestinian national and historical rights out of hand and defended Israel’s actions as ordained by God. ”

        mhughes: “Those ordinances of God are always at the core of the argument.”

        gamal: what argument?

        me: the argument used by zionist hardliners to strip away palestinian rights and justify their ethnic cleaning. i agree it’s at the core of their argument because without it they have no defense. it all boils down to ‘god gave us the land’, or ‘god said so’.

        take that away and what do they have? not much, the ad hominem.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976 on April 26, 2019, 3:54 pm

        Thanks for kindly words, RoHa and Annie.
        The false secularism of Zionist arguments is not hard to see when we hear of ancestral homelands and self-determination. Many people have many ancestors in Palestine but it’s the Jewish ones that count, many have claimed the land as theirs but it’s the Jewish claim that counts. That exceptional attention to one out of many must surely be connected to the fact that the Jewish connection is so much mentioned in a book of whose content so many are aware and which so many still link with the will of God. So the Jewish claim to override the normal rules somehow seems, maybe only in the back of people’s minds but still importantly, to have God’s authority. This problem goes, I think, far beyond the usual ‘evangelical’ suspects. Those of us within Christianity who want to dispute this have a problem in that the term ‘supersessionist’ is applied to us and this has the same penumbra as ‘anti-Semite’. Another long story.
        Gabriel Piterberg’s ‘Returns of Zionism’ argues that Z was a ‘return’ from Talmud to
        Jason Hill’s argument, now drawn to our attention, features the usual exceptionalism, since he does not ascribe to any but Jewish civilisation the ‘treasure trove’ status by which he sets so much store and which seems to have a mystical status.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak on April 28, 2019, 12:45 am

        MHughes976: Those ordinances of God are always at the core of the argument
        ————————————————–

        That’s particularly true of the “Zionist hardliners”, as Annie calls them. But for liberal Zionists and liberals who sympathize with Zionism, antisemitism/Holocaust/Israel-as-a-safe-haven arguments often take prominence, in my experience.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976 on April 29, 2019, 5:51 pm

        A word vanished from what I wrote above. Piterberg argued that Z was a return from Talmud to Tanakh, not from Talmud to arguments in Jason Hill’s style, though maybe that is also true.
        Sibi draws attention to the argument from anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, which are indeed important phenomena. I would say that hardly anyone has claimed that those subject to atrocities have the right to establish themselves as a majority anywhere of their choice. The reason why people think that Jewish forces had the right to claim Palestine was surely that it was much more than somewhere they had chosen, it was somewhere that was already theirs – and the reason why many people believed and still believe that depends massively, really totally, on the authority of the Bible and its widely accepted status as the oracles of God.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 29, 2019, 9:11 pm

        “A word vanished from what I wrote above.”

        The Moving Eraser deletes; and, having deleted, moves on.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 29, 2019, 11:19 pm

        MHughes- My frame of reference is history. Between 1881 and 1945 Europe was a tumultuous place for the Jews of Europe. First was the dying spasms of Czarist Russia which precipitated a massive migration of Jews from the Czarist realm. Massive. Along with the migration came two other phenomena: The Communist ideation (and its milder cousin, socialism) and Zionism. It was only natural that such a tumult would produce a variety of ideas and not all of them would be of the utopian, kumbaya form. (Of course the primary form was neither communist nor Zionist and that was individualism that resulted in the biggest movement: the emigration to western shores.) But it was also natural that it included a group philosophy: what should be done not only regarding my individual future, but regarding the Jewish group’s future and the primary answer to that was Zionism. An army, a homeland, an end to wandering, a grabbing of history by the horns and exerting a will to survive through a specific movement. There was only one place that could call itself the end of wandering and that was the Land. Next year in Jerusalem.

        This movement did not pay much attention to the harm that they were bringing onto the people who lived there and it did not mind utilizing British bayonets in their cause. Yet, given human nature a tumult like the one that the Jewish people living under the czar in its final phase were experiencing would and indeed should call upon various responses: among them individual safety, idealistic political striving and yes, also self emancipation.

        Do you think you would travel back to a Zionist of say 1905, after Kishinev and take him on a tour of the history of the next 114 years, do you think he will say, “We were wrong. the damage we did to the Palestinians is proof that we should have given up on Jewish identity or given up on group solidarity and group purpose.” No, they wouldn’t say that. They might bemoan what Israel has become and they might even bemoan what Israel did in order to be born, but they would not bemoan the movement towards self emancipation that of necessity focused on the land that was referred to in the Seder and in the book and in the lore. If you will it, it is no legend.

        I do not condemn the Palestinians for wishing to undo the whole enterprise and I do not have an argument that could explain to a bystander why he should favor the Jewish urge to self emancipation at the price paid by the Palestinians. But, I do not begrudge the Jewish urge to self emancipation. I celebrate it.

        (The need for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians is two things: 1. essential and 2. highly unlikely and a third thing: 3. heading in the wrong direction.
        The need for the world to do something about climate change is 1. essential and 2. not about to happen soon.)

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 30, 2019, 12:06 pm

        “Between 1881 and 1945 Europe was a tumultuous place for the Jews of Europe”

        While the rest of Europe indulged itself in the longest period of peace and prosperity known to man.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso on April 26, 2019, 8:31 am

      Another American neo-Nazi spews forth:

      https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/depaul-students-demand-prof-to-be-censured-for-supporting-israel-annexation-of-west-1.7164374

      “U.S. Students Demand Professor Censured for Supporting West Bank Annexation”

      “Prof. Jason Hill wrote ‘not all cultures are indeed equal,’ claiming ‘a strong argument can and ought to be made to strip Palestinians of their right to vote – period.'”

      By Josefin Dolsten, Haaretz, April 24/19

      “Students at DePaul University are calling on the Chicago school to condemn a professor who penned an op-ed arguing ‘the moral case for Israel annexing the West Bank.’

      “As of Wednesday, more than 2,000 people had signed a petition launched by the anti-war group Chicago Area Peace Action. The petition also asked that Jason Hill ‘commit to racial sensitivity training and to release a public apology for his immoral conduct,’ and it referenced tweets in which the signers said Hill had used offensive language against Muslims and people from the Middle East.

      “A coalition of student groups at the Catholic university — among them Students for Justice in Palestine and the College Democrats — also called on the university to censure Hill, Newsweek reported.

      “Last week Hill, a philosophy professor, argued in The Federalist that the Palestinians have no right to live on the West Bank.

      “’Under a different set of political sensibilities, the Palestinian people would have been militarily removed from the area because, morally speaking, after the 1967 war, they never belonged there,’ Hill wrote.

      “He also wrote that ‘Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected’ and that “[n]ot all cultures are indeed equal.’ Hill also said that ‘a strong argument can and ought to be made to strip Palestinians of their right to vote — period.’

      “A university representative told Newsweek that it was committed to academic freedom.

      “’Protecting academic freedom requires that we maintain an environment where the members of our university community articulate, challenge and defend their ideas; however, that does not eliminate the need for empathy and concern,’ the representative said.

      “Hill told Newsweek on Monday that he would not apologize for the article.

      “’I take myself to be such a leader, and I have no intentions of issuing any apologies,’ he said. ‘I’ve spoken what I believe to be the truth, and I stand firm in what I believe in.'”

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976 on April 26, 2019, 2:49 pm

        I have read Professor Hill’s argument – or series of assertions – in the Federalist. He is of Jamaican background and believes that immigrants should welcome assimilation.
        His basic point seems to that Jewish civilisation is a ‘treasure trove’ for us all and is entitled to develop in such conditions as it needs, which include the existence of Israel. Altruism on the part of great civilisations can be a mistake, he thinks. His example of mistaken altruism is the non-expulsion of the Palestinians after 67., since the Palestinians had no rights after the Israeli defensive war and have, as it were, lost the little that they had by resorting to terrorism.
        There’s a lot to question here. The treasure trove must have glittered just as brightly when the great majority of Jews were – as many are to this day – significantly assimilated citizens of
        Western countries, a status which Hill regards as constructive. Why then must there, on this showing, be an Israel?
        The idea of a situation in which human rights lapse completely, so that one may be driven from one’s home and if need be, it seems, killed (Hill’s language is very strong) is quite dangerous. I remember reading about WW2 and being asked to contemplate such ideas, attributed to the Nazis, with horror. If promoted by those who claim to offer a treasure trove to all humanity it must cast doubt on their claim. It also cuts both ways: if rights lapse so radically the other side
        has no moral reason to abstain from resistance even in terrorist forms. Then there will be
        counter terror and it is surely inevitable that the treasure becomes tarnished.
        I could go on.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 27, 2019, 4:51 am

        “Professor Hill’s argument – or series of assertions…”

        Ouch!

        Mind you, I have just read it, and I think that is a fair description.

        A first installment of comments:

        “Not all cultures are indeed equal. Some are abysmally inferior and regressive based on their comprehensive philosophy and fundamental principles—or lack thereof—that guide or fail to protect the inalienable rights of their citizens.”

        I would agree that not all cultures are equal. Some are better at producing warriors than others. Some are better at harmonizing with nature than others. Some are better at providing a flourishing life for the members than others. But, like MHughes, I cannot see why this would be a reason for denying anyone their full human rights, regardless of their culture.

        “[Palestinians] … have never come into their own as a people largely because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the basic liberal principles of individual rights, and a free market economy.”

        One commenter in the Federalist points out that the Chinese have never explicitly held such a philosophy, but somehow managed to be very successful as a people.

        I would suggest that only a limited number of Western Jews have held such a philosophy, as a result of being strongly influenced by the liberal Western civilization they lived in.

        And, again, I cannot see why this would be a reason for denying anyone their full human rights.

        “Given Fatah and Hamas’s genocidal aspirations toward Israel and universal Jewry…”

        But they do not have genocidal aspirations.

        Hill also refers to the 1967 war as a defensive war forced on the Israelis.

        But surely the cream of the crop must be this one:

        “A people that overwhelmingly approves of their terrorist leaders cannot be made to become citizens of any civilized country such as Israel. “

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        Atlantaiconoclast on April 28, 2019, 12:50 pm

        Or why not accept his right to free speech, and stop being afraid to really lay out the case against Israel, no holds barred? There are so many things one can truthfully say about Israel and what it has done to the US, that would end the Zionist enterprise a lot sooner than expected, but people must have both the courage and the freedom to say these things. Curbing free speech from the other side only limits ones’ own speech in the long run.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 28, 2019, 8:42 pm

        The mods have rejected the second part of my response to Hill. I don’t know whether they thought it was anti-Caledonian, anti-Cymric, or anti-Popperian. I will try again, presenting it as a series of comments so that they can cut the bits that they find offensive.

        The “treasure trove of Jewish civilization”.

        I admit that, despite the best efforts of the re-education camps, I still think of civilizations in Toynbee’s terms.* And, so, if,by “Jewish civilization”, Hill means something in the Toynbee line, then we have to say that there has never been a Jewish civilization. Jews have always been a minority group in other civilizations.

        (*No doubt this confession will elicit a visit from the Popperian Inquisition to demand that I renounce historicism and all its works. Well, at least it isn’t unexpected.)

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 28, 2019, 8:48 pm

        Unconditional space for evolution? How (as MHughes asks) did Jews manage any “civilization” in the days before the creation of Israel?

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 28, 2019, 8:48 pm

        Do the Quakers require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization? If so, are they justified in taking a slice of Lappland?

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 28, 2019, 8:49 pm

        Hill’s “argument” seems to have been written by a Zionist hack.

      • Nathan
        Nathan on April 28, 2019, 10:35 pm

        RoHa – You certainly caught me by surprise when you argued that “Jews have always been a minority group in other civilizations”. I believe that it’s common knowledge that the Jews are the majority in Israel (and they surely are not part of the surrounding civilization in the Middle East setting). There were other times in history when the Jews were the majority (for example, the Kingdom of Judah had a Jewish majority, and this is the group of people that wrote the Hebrew Bible and created Judaism, the “-ism” of Judah). Every so often I notice a protest here in the comments’ section when the term “Jewish civilization” comes up in the debate. I suppose that it’s part of the same phenomenon of denying that today’s Jews are descendants of the ancient Israelites or that King David was a real character in history. It’s seems to be important in the anti-Israel crowd to “pooh-pooh” the Jewish narrative. Anyway, it’s obvious that the Jews created a distinct civilization. Even if they are an extremely small minority group on this planet, they created one of the main pillars of the western world.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 29, 2019, 12:56 am

        “Or why not accept his right to free speech,”

        I fully agree with this. Hill should be allowed to say that stuff, the students should be allowed to protest about it, and the university should be allowed to say that they are allowing free speech.

        “and stop being afraid to really lay out the case against Israel, no holds barred?”

        Again, I agree with laying out the case against Israel. Unfortunately, fears of the consequences of doing so are fully justified.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 29, 2019, 1:07 am

        @Nathan.

        “I believe that it’s common knowledge that the Jews are the majority in Israel (and they surely are not part of the surrounding civilization in the Middle East setting)”

        The state of Israel can hardly be classed as a civilization.

        “There were other times in history when the Jews were the majority (for example, the Kingdom of Judah had a Jewish majority,”

        If I remember my Toynbee correctly, ancient Israel/Judah was, at various times, a minor part of the Egyptian, Persian, Syriac, and Hellenic civilizations. It was never a civilization in its own right.

        Jews outside that territory lived in several civilizations, and mostly the Persian, Hellenic, Islamic, and Western civilizations. Quite a few live outside civilization altogether, in Australia and the USA.

      • eljay
        eljay on April 29, 2019, 7:16 am

        || Nathan: … I suppose that it’s part of the same phenomenon of denying that today’s Jews are descendants of the ancient Israelites … ||

        So…your claim is that every person alive today – every citizen of every homeland throughout the world – who has chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish is in fact a descendant of an ancient Israelite. Interesting. Do all Zionists share this phenomenon?

        || … It’s seems to be important in the anti-Israel crowd to “pooh-pooh” the Jewish narrative. … ||

        It seems to be important to Zionists to “pooh-pooh” justice, accountability, equality and respect for human rights and international laws and the protection they are meant to afford all people including Jews.

        Regardless of what it is, the “Jewish narrative” does not grant to those who choose to believe in it or to those who have chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish a right:
        – to be supremacists;
        – to have a supremacist state; or
        – to do evil unto others.

      • eljay
        eljay on April 29, 2019, 7:44 am

        || eljay: … It seems to be important to Zionists to “pooh-pooh” justice, accountability, equality … ||

        Correction: … It seems to be important to Zionists hypocritically to “pooh-pooh” justice, accountability, equality … ||

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 29, 2019, 9:15 pm

        “I believe that it’s common knowledge that the Jews are the majority in Israel”

        Yup, the old “if you can’t be the biggest fish, find a smaller pond” plan always works.

    • Emet
      Emet on April 28, 2019, 2:25 am

      HarryLaw, why don’t you just admit it, that you are not able to acknowledge anything good that Netanyahu and/or Trump may have done or may ever do. The Arabs continue to disappoint and you blindly shove your support into their laps, in this frenzied dance of perpetual love. You need to ask yourself why.
      One day you will also understand that there is no room for another full blown state in the region. Israel is just too small and places like Jerusalem, cannot be split down the middle into two cities and then expect peace. Israel was and is still willing to share. The Muslims however, are not. The Quran does not permit sharing, and instructs the Muslim to be dominant. Try to understand this.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 29, 2019, 12:44 am

        “Israel was and is still willing to share. ”

        Rot! The Palestinians were prepared to share the land as a single, unified, democratic state from the 1940s onwards. It was the Israelis who wanted a Jewish state. The new “Nation-State”law does not sound very sharing, either.

  2. eljay
    eljay on April 25, 2019, 5:22 pm

    … we’re not trying to impose our will. …

    But if we have to impose it, we will.

  3. Kay24
    Kay24 on April 25, 2019, 8:13 pm

    Why are Liberal Zionists so alarmed? Did they think for one minute that the man who gave Netanyahu Jerusalem, and got his father in law to okay taking control over Golan Heights, was going to achieve peace and a 2 state solution? This biased man, who pretended he was going to do what no other Presidents, diplomats, and leaders could never do? Surely Liberal Zionists are not so naive? Kushner has achieved all what Netanyahu wanted him to do,

    A town will be named after Trump, and most probably Kushner will get something named after him too, most fitting will be a sewage plant.

    Kushner is a disgraceful man, as crooked as his father, and father in law. They all belong in jail.`

  4. RoHa
    RoHa on April 26, 2019, 1:24 am

    Could someone please remind me about how the Houthi became a threat to Saudi Arabia?

    • Tuyzentfloot
      Tuyzentfloot on April 26, 2019, 8:12 am

      The Houthi were standing between Saudi Arabia and their rightful property, the resources of Yemen. But they realized that doesn’t sell well so the Saudis said it was all about Iran. That always works.

  5. brent
    brent on April 26, 2019, 1:39 am

    Some time back Abbas said if a reasonable deal was not forthcoming, he’d go for one secular and democratic state. Such a move would put Palestinians in a more influential position because it would widely resonate and threaten the existence of Jewish supremacy. Also, it’s historically been the case Palestinians haven’t had a government they respect. Sadly, its unlikely two states would actually bring about freedom or peaceful co-existence. Mutual respect is more likely to come about in one state with guaranteed civil and human rights. Trump has signaled approval so Abbas could credit him, play to his ego vs. the costly path of rebuking and diminishing him.

  6. Koshiro
    Koshiro on April 26, 2019, 5:52 am

    A scenario: On the morning of the day that the long-awaited (chuckle) “peace plan” is to be unveiled, Jared Kushner will be missing. Nowhere to be found.

    Some hints in the form of booking confirmations (one for Kushner, one for a 20-year old female national of Belarus, formerly employed as a dancer) for first class flights to a tropical country without an extradition treaty will be discovered.

    Confirmation that his assets have been moved, presumably to anonymous accounts based in Switzerland will follow shortly thereafter, along with the discovery of a leather case with “Comprehensive Peace Plan for the Middle East” engraved on it in golden letters.

    The case will be found to contain a pad with about 10 pages of random scribblings and drawings (“Tomorrow is another day!” and “Soooo bored!” being among the few decipherable items) and 40 blank pages.

    No, I don’t really think this is going to happen. But I do think it’s about ten times as likely to happen as the scenario that this “peace plan” is actually going to have any noticeable effect.

  7. Citizen
    Citizen on April 26, 2019, 6:10 am

    I agree whatever the plan, a new key of it will be lavishing economic investment on the intentionally deprived Palestinians, which will be paid for by US, EU, Saudi Arabia–not Israel. The macro analogy will be to a landlord-tenant dispute where the landlord has all the power.

  8. Misterioso
    Misterioso on April 26, 2019, 9:35 am

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/logic-humiliation-palestinians-190423123902553.html

    “The logic behind US humiliation of the Palestinians” Al Jazeera, April 24/19, by Marwan Bishara

    “What an old Hebrew parable can tell us about Kushner’s strategy and the deal of the century.”

    “Over the past two years, the Trump administration has launched an all-out diplomatic assault on the Palestinians, while preparing a new initiative to resolve the Middle East conflict. It has claimed its plan is different from any other, downplayed anything said about it as wild speculation, and accused critics of rushing to judgment before they have seen it.

    “Indeed, the Palestinians have not seen the actual plan, but they have a pretty good feeling about what it will involve. They have watched closely as the Trump administration has spat out one policy after the other with the clear intention of humiliating and subduing them.

    “Trump: Israel’s gift that keeps on giving”

    “Over the past year and a half, US President Donald Trump administration has been giving Benjamin Netanyahu’s government one political ‘gift’ after the other.

    “In December 2017, his administration recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv in May 2018. In January 2018, it froze all assistance to UNRWA, the UN agency tasked with supporting millions of Palestinian living as refugees, and in June that year, it quit the UN Human Rights Council after accusing it of having a bias against Israel on account of its policies in occupied Palestine. In September, the Trump administration closed the representative office of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Washington.

    “Meanwhile, it gave Netanyahu freehand to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which the State Department stopped calling ‘occupied’ in official documents and instead designated as ‘Israeli-controlled.’

    “Then, just before this year’s Israeli elections, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation recognising Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, which had been previously declared ‘null and void’ by the Reagan administration and the UN Security Council.

    “Perhaps most alarmingly, his administration pushed certain Arab countries towards normalisation of relations with Israel without any Israeli concessions being made.

    “These US policies have encouraged Netanyahu, who will serve a fifth term as prime minister, to boast of maintaining forever Israeli sovereignty over a ‘united Jerusalem,’ as Israel’s ‘eternal capital,’ and to vow to never relinquish Israel’s control over any Palestinian territories west of the Jordan River. He has also pledged to annex all the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

    “In the meantime, the Palestinian leadership and Arab rulers have done little more than issuing inconsequential statements.

    “Zealots on steroids”
    “These and other changes to the traditional US foreign policy in the Middle East have come at the initiative of Trump’s three top Middle East advisors: his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his two former New York lawyers, Jason Greenblatt and David Freedman, who have been actively promoting pro-Israeli policies for decades.

    “These three proud radical Zionists have clearly demonstrated their enthusiasm for Israel’s illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories and their rejection of the label ‘occupied’ for the West Bank and Jerusalem.

    “But the Trump trio continue to surprise, and not in a good way. Kushner and company are so extreme that they make Netanyahu look moderate in comparison.

    “They are part of a group of American Zionist hardliners who opposed the ‘Oslo Peace Process’ in the 1990s and have even made comparisons between Israeli peacemakers and Nazi collaborators. They have dismissed Palestinian national and historical rights out of hand and defended Israel’s actions as ordained by God. Like their evangelical partners, they believe their boss Trump might have been anointed by God to look after Israel and reckon their interpretation of divine will supersedes the will of the international community.

    “Last year, Friedman, who has been serving as US ambassador to Israel, tweeted: ‘More than 2000 years ago, Jewish patriots (Maccabees) captured Jerusalem, purified the Holy Temple and rededicated it as a house of Jewish worship. The U.N. cant vote away the facts: Jerusalem is the ancient and modern capital of Israel.’

    “That the Trump trio displays such religious fundamentalism on steroids, while disingenuously insisting that they have the Palestinians’ best interest at heart, should worry everyone in the Middle East and beyond.

    “Wheeling and dealing”
    “While Kushner has remained largely quiet about the new deal, Friedman and Greenblatt have been chatty about its merits and implications for the Palestinians.

    “With unmatched chutzpah, both lawyers have been trolling Palestinian leaders and shaming them for not caring about the Palestinian people. They have also wrongly attacked the Palestinians for “praising” terror and harbouring terrorists, and at the same time, have wholeheartedly defended Israel against any and all criticism of its violence and repression, including by US media.

    “In all likelihood, the trio has been relying on the infamous ‘Israel Project’ media guide for ‘leaders who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel,’ in order to embarrass the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority and cheer the Netanyahu government. They persistently use PR gimmicks like: ‘We are ready to help the Palestinians, but is the Palestinian leadership ready?’

    “All of this prompts the question: Why should the Palestinians even consider the US plan when Kushner and company advocate for the expropriation of their land, their capital and their resources, all in the name of realism and peace? Why should they think differently, when two leading pro-Israel experts and former White House advisers reckon the plan is no more than ‘economy plus-plus,’ that is ‘set up for failure?’

    “Well, the Trump trio insist they are working on something completely different than past US initiatives, as Kushner told Time 100 Summit this week – something based on reality not fantasy – and the sooner the Palestinians embrace it the quicker their lives may improve. But if past initiatives failed because they were slanted in favour of Israel, how does making them even more favourable to Israel lead to peace? Needless to say, no occupied or colonised nation have or ever will accept any such advice that is based purely on the logic of rogue power.

    “But if the US administration wants the Palestinians to come on board with the plan, why does it continue to humiliate them in public and private? After all, any new deal, like any old deal, would have to involve accepting dividing or/and sharing the land.

    “There’s old Hebrew wisdom at play here. ‘The art of humiliation'”

    “In an attempt to offer his own rendition of the old adage, ‘You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs”, Mr. Kushner wrote in a January 2018 email that: ‘Our goal can’t be to keep things stable and as they are, our goal has to be to make thing significantly BETTER! Sometimes you have to strategically risk breaking things in order to get there.’

    “But breaking what exactly?”
    “It seems Kushner’s main goal is to break the Palestinians’ spirit and their hope for a sovereign state on all territories occupied in 1967, in order to force them to settle for autonomy in parts of these territories with a down-the-road option for a ‘Gaza first’ pseudo-state, conditional on good behaviour.

    “All of this reminds me of an old story Kushner surely knows – a Hebrew parable about a poor man who complained to his rabbi about living with his big family in a small house. The rabbi told him to bring all his animals into the house. Though astonished, the man did what he was told. The next day he rushed back to see the rabbi and complained that the situation has gotten much worse. The rabbi then suggested the man take out the chickens. Feeling a slight relief but still frustrated with his living arrangements, the man headed back to the rabbi, who advised him to take out another animal. This back-and-forth repeated until the man had taken all animals out. The following day he went back to the rabbi with a big smile. ‘O Rabbi,’ he said, ‘we have such a good life now. The house is so quiet and we’ve got room to spare!’

    “The moral of the story is that when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. In this sense, the Trump trio is trying to force the Palestinians to see that their reality is not so bad in comparison to how bad it could become.

    “But the truth is, changing your perspective does not change your reality. In fact, every time the Palestinians changed the way they viewed things at US insistence over the past quarter of a century, their situation has only gotten worse. Whichever way you look at it, Israel has been expanding at the expense of Palestine for decades.

    “It is high time for a new generation of Palestinian leaders to fundamentally reshape the reality on the ground by reversing or overcoming past and present US and Israeli policies.”

  9. James Canning
    James Canning on April 26, 2019, 4:23 pm

    Where does Kushner get the notion the two state solution was even tried?

  10. Vera Gottlieb
    Vera Gottlieb on April 27, 2019, 2:53 pm

    Why??? is so much attention being paid to this unelected, wet behind the ears, greenhorn???

  11. Emet
    Emet on April 28, 2019, 2:09 am

    Come on Philip, you have to agree that Netanyahu has done some very good things? No?
    How about that Israel is the only stable country in the entire Middle East? How about that the standard of living of every Israeli, Druze, Christian, Muslim and Jew has improved under his leadership. Are you not noticing the amount of Israeli Muslims who have come out in support of the Jewish State and have openly confirmed that they do not see Israel as a discriminatory state. This only goes to prove that you are wrong, you have been wrong all along and you continue to support something that will result in everyone losing.

  12. Ossinev
    Ossinev on April 28, 2019, 8:12 am

    “Trump: Israel’s gift that keeps on giving”

    It must always be borne in mind that Trump is bottom line a buffon , a doombrain and a moron(choose any three from three) who somehow got catapulted into the Presidency. He knows SFA about the political situation in the Middle East either current or historic and even if he had the will power in betwen burger fests to sit down an read about it it would not register as there is no viable processing mechanism between his ears.
    His entire “philosophy” is based on narcissism as in the Yahoo ” likes ” me therefore I will give him what he wants. MBS “likes” me so I will ignore the Khashoggi murder etc etc ad nauseum. The Kushner Piss Plan will turn out to be a hilarious overtly Zionist flop and he will just brush it away and move on to the next greatest ever Presidential ” initiative ” in the history of Presidential initiatives.

    What will be left in its wake will be dust of the imaginary two state solution , the end of the ludicrous Palestinian “Authority” charade and the reality for the West of a supposed “ally” running an Apartheid South Africa Mark 2 and the West being expected to fund it !

    The rabid Zios running the show are of course blind to what is waiting down the line. They are after all the “Chosen People” and acts and consequences do not apply when you have a history of parting seas with walking sticks. They probably have architects already working on the plans for the Third Temple assuming that the Americans and the “softer” Arab states will be fine with the destruction of the Al Asqa which they will probably justify as being routine “collective punishment”.

    Tick tick

  13. Ossinev
    Ossinev on April 28, 2019, 10:30 am

    @Emet
    “Are you not noticing the amount of Israeli Muslims who have come out in support of the Jewish State and have openly confirmed that they do not see Israel as a discriminatory state”

    Nice one Emet. Even you have become a salesman for the one state solution. It is understandable that the younger generation of Palestinians in the West Bank are increasingly agreeing with you and seeing this as the only way forward.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/13/one-state-solution-gains-ground-as-palestinians-battle-for-equal-rights

    Keep up the good work.

  14. Emet
    Emet on April 28, 2019, 4:05 pm

    Pay attention Ossinev. Twenty seven years ago, when the idiots were shoving Oslo down our throats, we said why it would not work. We are saying now that a one state also will not work. The reason and the problem is not with Jews but with Muslims. Islam will not allow a state where Jews can lead, in any form. You need to read and understand the Quran to know what I am talking about.

  15. Ossinev
    Ossinev on April 29, 2019, 7:30 am

    @Emet
    I do pay attention sunshine – to fact and not to fiction.

    Qurans,Bibles. All much of a muchness to me. All making fact out of daft fiction and I am definitiveley a non – fiction person.The proof is in the simple fact that I am typing this on a computer in 2019 and didn`t need to consult the Book of Whatever to inform my opinion. If you can find a direct reference to the internet,smartphones or instant 24/7 MSM coverage in your favourite ancient make believe reading then let me know. I may have to revisit my core understanding of the universe.

    “The reason and the problem is not with the Jews”. Total and utter bollocks. The reason and the problem is that foreign Jews came to Palestine terrorised murdered and drove out a large proportion of the ancestral native Semitic population. They couldn`t murder and drive them all out simply because the Western world would not have allowed it and additionally the invading Jews realised that they would have forfeited their indispensable eternal victimhood status. Thus the huge demographic “problem” currently facing Zioland.

    As for ” shoving Oslo down our throats we said why it would not work” I presume you as a Jewish Zionist ? are talking about fellow Jewish Zionists who conceived of it as a wonderful way of establishing a never ending subject to ongoing negotiations status quo scam thus covering the ongoing ethnic cleansing and illegal theft and settlement of native lands. And to date it has been a great success but time has run out and with all that non Quranic and Non Biblical technology there is no longer any cover for the the crimes or the criminals.

    You need to read and understand some factual history (as opposed to make believe fictional history ) to understand what I am taliking about.

Leave a Reply