The Trump administration’s Mideast proposal is the first real attempt to give Israel what that resolution promised more than 50 years ago—borders that are not only recognized, but secure.

By Evelyn Gordan, jns

(February 5, 2020 / JNS)Ever since the Trump administration published its Mideast peace plan, critics have vociferously claimed that it “violates U.N. resolutions” and “challenges many of the internationally agreed parameters” guiding peacemaking since 1967. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this is the first plan that actually relates seriously to the document every plan cites as the basis for those parameters: U.N. Security Council Resolution 242.

The resolution was adopted in November 1967, five months after Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, eastern Jerusalem and Sinai Peninsula in the Six-Day War. But contrary to popular belief, it was carefully crafted to let Israel keep some of this territory by demanding a withdrawal only from “territories occupied in the recent conflict,” rather than “the territories” or “all the territories.”
Read more…

MEMRI

The official Saudi position on the Deal of the Century presented by U.S. President Donald Trump this week was one of qualified support for the initiative. A Saudi Foreign Ministry reaction to the release of the initiative stated, inter alia, that “the Kingdom appreciates the efforts made by President Trump’s administration to develop a comprehensive Palestinian-Israeli peace plan, and it encourages the start of direct peace negotiations between the sides under U.S. sponsorship, in which any dispute regarding details of the plan will be settled. This in order to advance the peace process and arrive at an agreement that will actualize the brother Palestinian people’s legitimate rights.”

At the same time, the Saudi press reported that King Salman had spoken by phone with Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud ‘Abbas, who has rejected the plan out of hand, to “stress to him the Kingdom’s steadfast position vis-à-vis the Palestinian cause and the rights of the Palestinian people.” The king reportedly added: “The Kingdom stands alongside the Palestinian people and supports its choices and what[ever] will actualize its hopes and aspirations.”
Read more…

Reactions to Trump’s Mideast peace plan reveal that the chasm between what Israelis are thinking and the opinions of American Jews has never been greater.

By Jonathan Tobin, ISRAEL HAYOM

The unveiling of President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan last week engendered the usual partisan responses that attend to anything the administration does. Although it was welcomed by a cross-party consensus in Israel, even those Democrats who count themselves as friends of the Jewish state denounced it. This has helped to highlight not just the differences about Trump, but the enormous divide between Israeli and American Jews.

Those who follow politics in both countries have already got used to the idea that Israeli Jews are living in a red state while American Jews inhabit a blue bubble. But we need to drill down a bit deeper and understand that the Jewish left has basically imploded in Israel, even as it still gains ground in the United States. Read more…

By  Ryan Bellerose, ISRAELLY COOL

I am a Métis from Paddle Prairie Metis settlement. My father, Mervin Bellerose, co-authored the Métis Settlements Act of 1989, which was passed by the Alberta legislature in 1990 and cemented our land rights. I founded Canadians For Accountability, a native rights advocacy group, and I am an organizer and participant in the Idle No More movement in Calgary. And I am a Zionist.

Indigenous status
To begin, let us acknowledge that there is no rule that a land can have only one indigenous people; it is not a zero sum game in which one group must be considered indigenous so that therefore another is not. However, there is a very clear guideline to being an indigenous people. It is somewhat complex but can be boiled down to the checklist below, as developed by anthropologist José R. Martínez-Cobo (former special rapporteur of the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for the United Nations).
Read more…

T. Belman. Could it be that Liberman made a deal with Netanyahu that if Netanyahu got Trump to include the transfer of the triangle to this statelet, that he, Liberman, would bring his party into a Right Wing coaltion.  That’s why he recently said the formation of a Rightwing government is a done deal.

By Shlomi Eldar, AL MONITOR 

ARTICLE SUMMARY
Israeli-Arab politicians warn that they will not support a Blue and White-led coalition after the elections, if party head Benny Gantz keeps supporting the Trump administration’s peace plan.

It took time for the Blue and White party leaders to understand that Chairman Benny Gantz’s unconditional support of US President Donald Trump’s program has placed them in a Catch-22. Before the two election campaigns (April and September 2019), Gantz’s party viewed cooperation of Blue and White and the Arab Joint List as a historic opportunity for Jewish-Arab cooperation. But recent developments have turned this opportunity into a catastrophic crisis — one that might not be repaired after the elections of March 2. Read more…

T. Belman. I said the same thing less elegantly. I said that holding the prospect of creating a Palestinian state out there for 4 years, affords the Arab rulers with a fig leaf to cover their raprochment with israel.

…while many Arabs want to end hostilities, it is a mistake to pine for public Arab buy-in. Israel is anathema to both their Arab nationalism and a core tenet of Islam — and if they must swallow the existence of Israel, they prefer it play out as coercion, or at least a gradual and quiet acceptance rather than voluntary proclamations of “peace in our time.” In the end, helping the Arab world transition from war to cooperation is a delicate task and it will surely benefit Israel. But the Muslim world, which is hungry for prosperity, modernity, and reform, stands to gain even more.

by Yishai Fleisher, DAILY WIRE
JAN 31/20

When speaking with liberal-minded folks about solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the recently revealed “Deal of the Century,” inevitably the question of Arab buy-in arises. “Will the Palestinians accept it?” is the oft-heard refrain.

While this may seem to be a pretty reasonable question, it actually reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Middle East.

Here is a true story involving one of my mentors, Dr. Mordechai Kedar. It helpfully illustrates Middle East thinking. Read more…

T. Belman.  Horovitz takes a left wing position believing that what is intended is a negotiated solution. When Gantz says he wants to consult with the international community he is doing likewise. There is only one way that these issues can be resolved and that is through diktat.

Horowitz asks:

Is Trump genuinely seeking to broker the Deal of the Century, or are we, rather, witnessing the Art of No Deal?

That is the question.

Unilateral annexation risks so much damage for such potentially short-term reward, and completely undermines the proposal’s negotiated approach. So who’s pushing it, and why?

By DAVID HOROVITZ, TOI.

A week after the big reveal, something has gone terribly wrong with the Trump administration’s self-styled “Vision to improve the lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people.”

The document published by the White House last Tuesday broke ground in taking seriously many Israeli concerns that were marginalized, if not ignored, in previous peace efforts. Critically, it was predicated on the imperative that the rise of a Palestinian state in no way undermine or threaten Israel’s security, and that the US would only ask Israel to consider compromises that would make the country and its people “more secure in the short and long term.” It also included innumerable elements guaranteed to infuriate the Palestinians — radically constraining their future sovereign rights, denying them significant status in Jerusalem, refusing their demand for a “right of return” for refugees, and plenty more.

But the document was also declaredly only a starting point — “designed for the benefit of Palestinians, Israelis and the region as a whole,” as a recommended basis for direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiation on a “realistic two-state solution.”
Read more…

T. Belman.  This survey was done before the Deal was released.  It only asked if they would accept the Plan if it included the creation of a Palestinian state. That is not the case.  No mention was made about what israel might get from the deal or any possible restrictions on the state.  I fully expect greater support for the Deal now that its details are known.

The Deal does not require acceptance by any side though Trump has said he would like approval.  Since Trump has said on many occasions that settlements are not illegal and that israel has the legal and historical claims to the land, I see not impediment to Israel extending sovereignty not because of the deal but because they have the right to. At the same time, she can indicate that she is open to considering the provisions of the Deal. That’s far from expressing approval of the creation of a Palestinian state.

If peace plan requires recognizing a Palestinian state, 45.3% said Israel should go ahead, 38.1% oppose the idea; half the population see release of plan as election interference

By TOI STAFF

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu participate in a joint statement in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, DC, on January 28, 2020. (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images/AFP)

More Israelis think the country should agree to a Trump administration peace plan that includes recognition of a Palestinian state than those who oppose the creation of a state under the plan, according to a survey published Monday.

The Israeli Voice Index poll was conducted before US President Donald Trump unveiled his peace proposal in Washington last week, but it asked respondents about willingness to recognize a Palestinian state on the assumption that such a condition would be included in the plan.

While 45.3% would accept the condition of recognizing a Palestinian state, 38.1% said Israel should not agree, according to the poll, a monthly survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute think tank in Jerusalem.
Read more…

If the Trump peace plan comes to a vote, Kahol Lavan leader would oppose unilateral steps at annexation that are not coordinated with the Palestinians, but there are also divisions within the party on the plan

By Jonathan Lis, HAARETZ

Kahol Lavan leader Benny Gantz in the Knesset chamber.Emil Salman

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announced plans to annex West Bank territory following last week’s unveiling of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians have put Kahol Lavan in a bind. The party’s chairman, Benny Gantz, has made it clear that Kahol Lavan objects to unilateral moves at annexation that are divorced from other elements of the Trump’s “deal of the century” and that are made without coordination with the Palestinians.

On the other hand, sources in the party said Sunday that it may support a proposal for some form of annexation if Netanyahu brings it to the Knesset before the March 2 election. “If there’s a snap decision to bring unilateral annexation to a vote, we may vote in favor. It would be a major dilemma,” a senior party source told Haaretz, adding that if the issue arises, Kahol Lavan’s Knesset faction would convene for lengthy deliberations that would end with Gantz deciding how to proceed.
Read more…

This was the first power change in Sudan since 1989. But even Omar al-Bashir, the former leader had considered a change in relationship with Israel.

By SETH J. FRANTZMAN, JPOST

PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu meets Sultan Qaboos bin Said in Oman. (photo credit: GPO/REUTERS)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to pull another diplomatic milestone out of his hat on Monday when he met Sudanese leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Uganda. This is an important achievement that dovetails with other diplomatic successes in recent years. For instance Netanyahu went to Oman on a surprise visit in October 2018 and Israel renewed ties with Chad in January 2019. The Sudan meeting could be a trial balloon for further Israeli openings in the Middle East, or it could help Sudan with its own relationships with Washington and other countries.

The Sudanese meeting was likely made possible by a change in government in Sudan in August 2019 when al-Burhan came to power as part of a council that is supposed to run the country for a transitional period. This was the first power change in Sudan since 1989. But even Omar al-Bashir, the former leader had considered a change in relationship with Israel.

Read more…

by Noah Rothman, COMMENTARY

Once the dust had settled following Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw U.S. service personnel from northern Syria, the general-interest press seemed to lose all interest in the country. You haven’t heard much about the place since.

Casual observers might be forgiven for thinking that the nine-year-old Syrian civil war has virtually concluded with the Assad regime’s victory, but hostilities in that conflict are far from over. Last week, Syrian forces and Iran-aligned militia groups backed by Russian airpower executed a successful assault on the separatist-held town of Maarat al-Numan, sacking it and the surrounding villages. It was an important symbolic victory for the regime as well as a strategic feat. The city hosted some of the earliest anti-Assad protests before the Syrian uprising devolved into an international crisis, and its residents publicly objected to the Islamist elements that have since overtaken much of the remaining resistance to Damascus’s rule.
Read more…

A death cult shuns Trump’s Deal of the Century.

By Howard Rotberg, FPM   Mon Feb 3, 2020<
>

Merriam-Webster defines “rage” as “violent and uncontrolled anger.”

It is a sudden reaction, as in “road rage.” It is not planned and it is not controlled.

Hence, you cannot plan a day of uncontrolled anger due to a sudden reaction and call it a “Day of Rage.” Mahmoud Abbas of the so-called Palestinian Authority called for a Day of Rage in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century” — which would gradually give Abbas’ people a state alongside Israel in as much as 70% of the lands which Israelis term “disputed” and the Palestinians and their supporters term “occupied.”
Read more…

The decisions made by Ben Gurion can and should provide important lessons for the dilemmas facing Israel today as a result of the Deal. His decision to relinquish important tracts of territory has been vindicated historically.

By Ron Jager, INN

Irrespective of the ambiguities and the “open to negotiation” provisions of President Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” Israel clearly stands at an historic juncture very similar to the Ben Gurion period.

At the time, Israel’s political leadership had to either accept or reject the United Nations Partition Plan and decide what to make of this one-time historical opportunity. Undeniably, the “Deal of the Century,” represents an acknowledgment of Zionism’s historical triumph and that the State of Israel is indeed the embodiment of both the ancestral and modern day homeland of the Jewish nation.

The “Deal” clearly recognizes Jerusalem as the undivided Capital of Israel, the Jordan Valley as the Eastern border of the State of Israel, and most importantly, demands the Palestinian Authority recognize the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish nation.

The “Deal” also recognizes the changes that have transpired over the past half century and allows for the declaration of sovereignty over Jewish communities located in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank).
Read more…

The Taming of the Jew is a report from the front. We now know that Jew-hatred is bigger than Jeremy Corbyn, bigger than the Labor Party, and that anti-Semitism has infected all of Britain.

Prof. Phyllis Chesler,  INN

Tuvia Tenenbom is a man of the theater, a showman, the most serious clown ever, for buried beneath his puckish exterior is a barely hidden heartbreak over humanity’s betrayal of both reason and the Jews; and of Western Culture as we have known it.

Tuvia Tenenbom is also a bon vivant, a gourmand, a lover of both luxury and simplicity, a convivial coffee and whiskey drinker, a smoker, and he invites us to join him as he tours the British Isles, dines well or dines poorly, talks to almost anyone who will talk to him, visits all the theater he can find in the hope that it has not been destroyed by political correctness.

After interviewing the people of Germany (I Sleep in Hitler’s Room and Hello Refugees); Israel (Catch the Jew); and the United States (The Lies They Tell),  he has just published the aptly titled The Taming of the Jew, in Czech, in Hebrew, and now in German (Suhrkamp). It is set in the United Kingdom. He was there and on the road for three months in 2018 and for four months in 2019.
Read more…

T. Belman.  I get it.  Creating a Palestinian state west of the Jordan R, even with limited sovereignty, is a no, no, with the Israeli right. Why didn’t Kusher get this? If this is such a no no with them why have they not tabled their own plan?  What is their alternative?  This plan enlarges the Palestinian area but reduces its sovereignty and is heavily conditioned.  It was still rejected.  I think Bibi is responsible for showing acceptance of this plan and misled Kushner. But after three years in the making and numerous consultations with the Israeli right, surely Kushner knew this.

Could it be that Kushner included poison pills in the plan for both the Arabs and the Israelis to show how futile such a plan is?  Maybe he is setting the stage for something totally different.

How did the prime minister’s moment of ‘historic’ triumph in Washington descend into a bitter farce, turn Jared Kushner into a nemesis, and infuriate his right-wing base?

By SHALOM YERUSHALMI, TOI Today, 10:45 am

US President Donald Trump, left, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, January 28, 2020, to announce the Trump administration’s plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will have had many long hours for contemplation during his flight Monday to Uganda.

How did it come to pass, the prime minister will likely have agonized, that he could deliver such a climactic crescendo in Washington, only to awkwardly stumble days later?

Why did he vow so publicly that he would immediately start to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and all settlements in Judea and Samaria in a cabinet meeting that was supposed to have taken place on Sunday, only to have to swallow the bitter pill and cancel that meeting, because he could offer no annexation plan for the ministers to vote on — and couldn’t even be sure he had a majority among ministers from his own Likud party?
Read more…

Former Likud minister strongly opposes adoption of US plan and the idea of a Palestinian state in ‘regions of our homeland.’

Arutz Sheva Staff,

Former Minister and Likud figure Benny Begin on Sunday strongly opposed the idea that the government would officially approve the Deal of the Century introduced last week by U.S. President Donald Trump.

In an interview with Reshet Bet, Begin said, “It is an interesting document but it is not a plan. The Americans also call this document a ‘vision’, also the maps that it contains are called envisioned maps.”

“Of course, this document cannot actually be realized and therefore it should be viewed as an update on American policy in our region. It bears a certain import, but care must be taken to leave it at that,” he noted. Read more…

T. Belman.  Singer wants to extend Jordan’s borders to take in the land set aside for the Palestinians  west of the Jordan R. I disagree vehemently.  I want Israel to have sovereignty over all land west of the Jordan R and to incentivize the Palestinians to emigrate to Jordan or elsewhere.

The “Palestinians” do have a state – now called Jordan – created in 78% of former Palestine in 1946. 

By David Singer, INN

President Trump’s now released deal of the century – calling for the creation of a second Arab state in former Palestine in addition to Jordan (“the two-state solution”) – has predictably already been consigned to the dustbin of history by PLO President Mahmoud Abbas on the day of its publication.

Trump’s solution was a mirage based on the same shaky foundations unsuccessfully pursued by the international community since the 1980 Venice Declaration.

Trump’s failure to address the following issues ensured its collapse from the get go:

• The term “Palestinians” is not defined in the plan’s Glossary.
• Who comprise “the Palestinians” and what constitutes their common identity?

Read more…