Trumps Palestinian 'greatest peace deal ever' pronounced dead on arrival by Palestine Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
The Palestinians hate it, the Lebanese hate it, the entire Arab world (more or less) hates it.

I rather like the reply given in that "Palestine is not for sale".
To be fair this deal seems to be beyond insulting. A poultry amount of money - especially as;
- a fair amount would be ploughed back into Israel through contracts
- Israel will likely blow up whatever this money is used to build
- The majority of this 'aid' is actually in the form of loans, loans on what i ask? Their economy is in free fall and what little production of fruit and such they have left has a habit of being pilfered by a certain occupying country.


However, this is just the economic portion of the plan... I can only imagine what a moronic hatchet job part 2 will be. The US is no longer seen as an impartial and honest broker by the Palestinians (or anyone for that matter) and unless they're prepared to get their masters in Tel-Aviv to agree to some significant capitulations, such as actually giving into Palestinian autonomy and not token nods (at best) this entire plan will be a spectacular damp squib.

With all that being said though i'd be happy to be proved wrong on this matter.
Almost forgot to add this rather excoriating piece by Nahar on the matter (some excellent quotes from those concerned);
Jared Kushner said Wednesday that the door remained open to the Palestinians to engage in his peace initiative as he accused their leaders of not caring about their own people for rejecting his $50 billion economic framework.

U.S. President Donald Trump's son-in-law launched a long-awaited Middle East initiative with an intimate two-day conference in Bahrain, where economic leaders touted his plan as holding the potential to jumpstart the Palestinians' stagnant economy.

The Palestinian Authority boycotted the "Peace to Prosperity" workshop, accusing the unabashedly pro-Israel Trump of dangling the prospect of cash to try to impose political solutions and ignoring a fundamental issue of Israeli occupation.

Closing the conference at a luxury hotel in the capital Manama, the 38-year-old real estate investor promised to put out the political plan at "the right time" and said the Palestinian Authority could help its people by embracing the U.S. recommendations.

"If they actually want to make their people's lives better, we have now laid out a great framework in which they can engage and try to achieve it," Kushner told reporters.

"We're going to stay optimistic," he said. "We have left the door open the whole time."

He said the Trump administration was trying a fresh approach to the long intractable Middle East conflict and that the authors of the economic framework had not seen the political plan.

"What the leadership has done is that they've blamed Israel and everyone else for all the people's problems, when in fact the common theme coming up is that this is all achievable if the government wants to make these reforms," Kushner said.

- 'Insult to our intelligence' -

In the occupied West Bank, senior Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi told a press conference the U.S. proposal was an "insult to our intelligence" and "totally divorced from reality."

"The economic peace, which has been presented before repeatedly and which has failed to materialise because it does not deal with the real components of peace, is being presented once again, recycled once again," she said.

"The elephant in the room in Manama is of course the occupation itself," she added. "The Israeli occupation, which was never mentioned -- not once."

Trump has taken a series of landmark steps to benefit Israel including recognizing bitterly divided Jerusalem as Israel's capital in 2017, leading the Palestinian Authority to cut off formal contact.

The Trump administration has hinted its political plan will not mention a Palestinian state -- a goal of U.S. policy for decades -- and that it could accept the annexation of parts of the West Bank mulled by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a family friend of Kushner.

- 'Urgency' for Palestinian economy -

The "Peace to Prosperity" sets an ambitious goal of creating one million new Palestinian jobs through $50 billion of investment in infrastructure, tourism and education in the territories and Arab neighbors.

Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, praised the plan for focusing on jobs and said "all the goodwill in the world" was needed to prevent a severe deterioration of the Palestinian economy.

"So if there is an economic plan, if there is urgency, it's a question of making sure that the momentum is sustained," Lagarde said.

Tax revenue is being held up in a dispute with Israel, which has blockaded the Gaza Strip for more than a decade because of the Islamist movement Hamas' leadership of the crowded and impoverished territory.

Mohammed al-Jadaan, Saudi Arabia's finance minister, said the Palestinian issue was "very important" for the oil-rich kingdom, which would support "whatever brings prosperity to this region."

"The region is in desperate need of prosperity and hope," he said.

Obaid bin Humaid al-Tayer, minister of state for financial affairs of the United Arab Emirates, said that international institutions should back the plan to decrease risks.

"We should give this initiative a chance, we should be discussing it, and we should try to promote it," he said.

Israel has voiced support for the conference and, in precedented scenes, Israeli academics and journalists openly traveled to Bahrain despite the lack of diplomatic relations.

Coinciding with the Bahrain conference, Oman said it would open an embassy in the Palestinian territories -- a first for a Gulf Arab state.

The sultanate said it wished to show "support for the Palestinian people."

But Netanyahu paid a rare visit to Oman in October, raising speculation the embassy could be a way to soften the blow before recognition of Israel.

Gulf Arab nations have increasingly found common cause with Israel due to their shared hostility towards Iran, although Oman has sought a moderate approach and often serves as a go-between for Washington and Tehran.
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/2...ain-peace-push
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Leb...al-hariri.ashx
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-p...ns-11561310135
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-and-derision
Last edited by Napp; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
It's one of those, had Obama come up with an identical plan and the Guardian would be lauding it instead. These things are never one or the other, the inbuilt prejudices and urge to politically exploit them determining the way they are taken in. One thing is for sure, what those territories need is to develop their economies somehow and the investment will have to come from somewhere. If anybody has a better plan, go for it first thing in the morning.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by z-hog)
It's one of those, had Obama come up with an identical plan and the Guardian would be lauding it instead. These things are never one or the other, the inbuilt prejudices and urge to politically exploit them determining the way they are taken in. One thing is for sure, what those territories need is to develop their economies somehow and the investment will have to come from somewhere. If anybody has a better plan, go for it first thing in the morning.
Whataboutery much...? And this is hardly simply people dislike for Trump it is universally recognized as being a rubbish plan dreamt up by his halfwit son in law.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
I don't know why they bothered.. its not easy to negotiate with people whose line in the sand is the destruction of Israel. Every-time they come up with a new plan, they should just ask "Does this include the destruction of Israel, and the handing of all its lands back to the Palestinians?" no? Then don't bother presenting it, because it will only be rejected.

As for the US not being impartial.. why not let one of the other super powers have a crack at it then - I'm sure both nations would love what China has to say about it...
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I don't know why they bothered.. its not easy to negotiate with people whose line in the sand is the destruction of Israel. Every-time they come up with a new plan, they should just ask "Does this include the destruction of Israel, and the handing of all its lands back to the Palestinians?" no? Then don't bother presenting it, because it will only be rejected.
Do you actually believe that or are you simply throwing out incorrect statements to wind people up?
Hamas has said, on several occassions, they can tolerate the existence of Israel (not that they have a choice in the matter) so long as it gives back the land it colonized from '63 onwards. These are basic facts certain individuals seem intent to cover up in a rather dishonest and partisan fashion. Nevermind the very real fact that to say that Hamas is an existential threat to Israel is clearly a lie. A pest? Sure. Little more though.
As for the US not being impartial.. why not let one of the other super powers have a crack at it then - I'm sure both nations would love what China has to say about it...
Are you saying the US is impartial? That gave me a chuckle.
Umm because China isnt a super power probably? Amusingly enough the Russians are the only outside power who have a good enough relationship with both sides to at least prod them, if not the clout to make them talk.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Napp)
Do you actually believe that or are you simply throwing out incorrect statements to wind people up?
Hamas has said, on several occassions, they can tolerate the existence of Israel (not that they have a choice in the matter) so long as it gives back the land it colonized from '63 onwards. These are basic facts certain individuals seem intent to cover up in a rather dishonest and partisan fashion. Nevermind the very real fact that to say that Hamas is an existential threat to Israel is clearly a lie. A pest? Sure. Little more though.

Are you saying the US is impartial? That gave me a chuckle.
Umm because China isnt a super power probably? Amusingly enough the Russians are the only outside power who have a good enough relationship with both sides to at least prod them, if not the clout to make them talk.
I do believe it. Your right that Hamas has said (on occasions) that they can tolerate the existance of isreal, and would push for the 63 or 67 boundaris...

on other occasions though, they have said things like:

"If we liberate Palestine though the resistance until the 1967 borders, we will go directly to liberate the rest of Palestine and the territories of 1948, and there will be no negotiations,”

"We cannot religiously, morally or nationally give up on one inch of the land of Palestine"

etc.

To be honest, if I have to choose which one to believe, not knowing their true intent, I think tending to believe the worst of the two things they say is the safest option.

Hamas being a threat or not is irrelevant, my point was (that I have raised on here before) Palestine has vastly disproportionate expectations of negotiations in relation to the power balances at play. What they want, never matches what they are capable of getting.. they are brexit on steriods in terms of people who think they have the power to gain a deal in their favor, and then end up stuck as no one else agrees and their is nothing they can do about it. They have made it very clear (and fairly admirably so) that they put principle over practicalities, and the cause they are fighting for is worth their lives and their peoples prosperity.. so why any American thinks they can be bribed with cash offers, is beyond me.



“Are you saying the US is impartial?"

You can read it again if your not sure.. it clearly doesn't say that the US is impartial though, of course they are not and never have been. My point was that no matter which power you are putting in to help fix this situation, the power will always come with its own agenda that may not suit the two parties involved. Russia for instance may have a reasonable relationship with both, but would likely still seek the option that is most advantageous to them internationally, uposed to just acting in the interest of the two nations. And as for China (firstly, I would love you to justify why the second richest nation, with the most people, and one of the fastest and strongest militaries, and a nuclear power is not a 'super power'), having seen what China has done to africa, they certianly would be impartial to both sides, as in they would exploit the crap out of both with equal vigor and enthusiasm.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I do believe it. Your right that Hamas has said (on occasions) that they can tolerate the existance of isreal, and would push for the 63 or 67 boundaris...

on other occasions though, they have said things like:

"If we liberate Palestine though the resistance until the 1967 borders, we will go directly to liberate the rest of Palestine and the territories of 1948, and there will be no negotiations,”

"We cannot religiously, morally or nationally give up on one inch of the land of Palestine"

etc.
Indeed they have said things like that on more than one occassion. However, and not to excuse said comments, but there is a difference between having a cast iron policy and simply having a fire brand PR chap who likes to stir up the base.
To be honest, if I have to choose which one to believe, not knowing their true intent, I think tending to believe the worst of the two things they say is the safest option.
Leading on from the prior comment as well simple capabilities dictate they couldnt do squat even if they wanted to. People can be as rude as they like it is of absolutely no consequence if they cant do anything about it and last time i checked they have neither an airforce, nuclear weapons, heavy artillery, tanks and divisions...
Hamas being a threat or not is irrelevant, my point was (that I have raised on here before) Palestine has vastly disproportionate expectations of negotiations in relation to the power balances at play. What they want, never matches what they are capable of getting.. they are brexit on steriods in terms of people who think they have the power to gain a deal in their favor, and then end up stuck as no one else agrees and their is nothing they can do about it. They have made it very clear (and fairly admirably so) that they put principle over practicalities, and the cause they are fighting for is worth their lives and their peoples prosperity.. so why any American thinks they can be bribed with cash offers, is beyond me.
It's the most salient point, surely? after all ... as you mention .. theyre the ones who can continue slowly bleeding Israel. They might never be able to conquer anything but they do have the power to make lives in Israel hellish be it through bombs or rockets etc.
I mean, arguably, the simple fact that Israel is notionally a democracy seriously undermines much of the power advantage they have. Hamas can afford to lose a lot more people than tel-Aviv before the populace start making life painful for the politicos.
Eitherway, as i mentioned earlier when you're already at the bottom of life, like most people in Gaza, you have nothing to lose.

Fair comment on the bribe though.


“Are you saying the US is impartial?"
Sorry no i was genuinely asking, it came across as ambiguous in its meaning.
You can read it again if your not sure.. it clearly doesn't say that the US is impartial though, of course they are not and never have been. My point was that no matter which power you are putting in to help fix this situation, the power will always come with its own agenda that may not suit the two parties involved. Russia for instance may have a reasonable relationship with both, but would likely still seek the option that is most advantageous to them internationally, uposed to just acting in the interest of the two nations. And as for China (firstly, I would love you to justify why the second richest nation, with the most people, and one of the fastest and strongest militaries, and a nuclear power is not a 'super power'), having seen what China has done to africa, they certianly would be impartial to both sides, as in they would exploit the crap out of both with equal vigor and enthusiasm.
Mmm they used to, well still do, like to think of themselves as such. A position somewhat undermined when the bombs raining down around Gaza residents ears say 'made in USA' on them.
Oh yes
Because there are rather strict conditions for being a super power - namely being able to project power on a global scale economically, militarily, socially etc. China cannot project its military (it cant even take Taiwan), its an economic superpower sure but that is a very different thing from what the USSR was and America is. China's military is an unproven quantity though, if memory serves they still spend more on internal security than on the military. China is a great power sure but it is far from being worthy of an all round superpower, imo.
Oh yes, well same with Russia as you said, then again countries only act in their own best interest (i can hardly fault them) America didnt meddle in that mess out of pure altruism, there are always reasons of personal salience that drive state actors to make the decisions they do.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
Napp, I don't see you brokering peace deals and getting Nobel peace awards. Stop being judgey on the sidelines as if you're some experienced diplomat.
Last edited by Notoriety; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Notoriety)
Napp, I don't see you brokering peace deals and getting Nobel peace awards. Stop being judgey on the sidelines as if you're some experienced diplomat.
I would need a flow chart to demonstrate all the ways in which this comment is hilariously moronic.

Do you have any useful input or just your usual useless ad hominems?
0
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 17
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Notoriety)
Napp, I don't see you brokering peace deals and getting Nobel peace awards. Stop being judgey on the sidelines as if you're some experienced diplomat.
> You can't criticise people unless you are doing it better than them.

Then what gives you the right to criticise politicians? You've no experience of politics.
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by AngeryPenguin)
> You can't criticise people unless you are doing it better than them.

Then what gives you the right to criticise politicians? You've no experience of politics.
Nice greentext.

I would not really consider myself the politician criticiser of TSR. That's more your and Napp's thing.
0
reply
coolangelcakes
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Napp)
I would need a flow chart to demonstrate all the ways in which this comment is hilariously moronic.

Do you have any useful input or just your usual useless ad hominems?
lmao you're one to speak about peace when you're part of the british empire society.

tip for the future: create a thread about your hatred for jews rather than hiding behind this nonsense
0
reply
Prussianxo
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Notoriety)
Napp, I don't see you brokering peace deals and getting Nobel peace awards. Stop being judgey on the sidelines as if you're some experienced diplomat.
So according to you I can't criticise the government's negotiations with the EU unless I manage to negotiate a deal with the EU. Makes sense.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Prussianxo)
So according to you I can't criticise the government's negotiations with the EU unless I manage to negotiate a deal with the EU. Makes sense.
Nah, it is OP's constant superior tone in matters of diplomacy and foreign policy. He thinks because he has a master's in IR he is so much more capable than the experienced negotiators, but really he needs to realise that the people from the Ivies and postgrad and postdoc fellowships are probably more capable than him and it just so happens that negotiating through persistently challenging issues is actually just inherently difficult.

#micdrop
#moretostorythanmeetstheeye
#actuallydoesmakesense
#cheers
0
reply
Prussianxo
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Notoriety)
Nah, it is OP's constant superior tone in matters of diplomacy and foreign policy. He thinks because he has a master's in IR he is so much more capable than the experienced negotiators, but really he needs to realise that the people from the Ivies and postgrad and postdoc fellowships are probably more capable than him and it just so happens that negotiating through persistently challenging issues is actually just inherently difficult.

#micdrop
#moretostorythanmeetstheeye
#actuallydoesmakesense
#cheers
You're acting like he's wrong on the issue.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Prussianxo)
You're acting like he's wrong on the issue.
Nah. I don't care which side he falls on. I don't just pat people on the back because they support the same side as me. This ain't Mean Girls.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by coolangelcakes)
lmao you're one to speak about peace when you're part of the british empire society.

tip for the future: create a thread about your hatred for jews rather than hiding behind this nonsense
Uhuh, do you have anything useful to say then or are you just going to complain?[/quote]
(Original post by Notoriety)
Nah, it is OP's constant superior tone in matters of diplomacy and foreign policy. He thinks because he has a master's in IR he is so much more capable than the experienced negotiators,
1) I dont recall saying that
2) I dont have a masters in IR
but really he needs to realise that the people from the Ivies and postgrad and postdoc fellowships are probably more capable than him and it just so happens that negotiating through persistently challenging issues is actually just inherently difficult.
1) a masters is a postgrad...
2) Duh
3) Never said there werent people more qualified than moi on the matter, its rather axiomatic. I just contend i know more than you do if the best you can do is whine about my writing style and contribute nothing to the topic, bar stroking Mr Trump that is.
#micdrop
#moretostorythanmeetstheeye
#actuallydoesmakesense
#cheers
Lol
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
And I'm sure if they hate it so much they'll do the honourable thing and turn it down... Right?
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
A few problems with the plan:

- Whilst it specifies in impressive detail how the $50 billion is to be spent (i.e. in what projects and where), it omits any mention of (majority-Palestinian) East Jerusalem. This suggests this 'deal' includes Israel annexing all of Jerusalem.
- Roughly half of the touted funds is to be invested in regional countries (such as Lebanon and Jordan). This suggests no recognition of the Palestinian right of return.
- No mention of the word "Palestine" in the entire 40-page document. This could imply that no full statehood is in the works.


I actually think the economic part of the plan is reasonable (dubious funding aside), but this isn't a conflict about economics. Trump/Kushner are business people and think that everything has a price, but ending a decades-old occupation, sovereignty and statehood can't be bought so easily.

anarchism101
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Palmyra)
A few problems with the plan:

- Whilst it specifies in impressive detail how the $50 billion is to be spent (i.e. in what projects and where), it omits any mention of (majority-Palestinian) East Jerusalem. This suggests this 'deal' includes Israel annexing all of Jerusalem.
- Roughly half of the touted funds is to be invested in regional countries (such as Lebanon and Jordan). This suggests no recognition of the Palestinian right of return.
- No mention of the word "Palestine" in the entire 40-page document. This could imply that no full statehood is in the works.


I actually think the economic part of the plan is reasonable (dubious funding aside), but this isn't a conflict about economics. Trump/Kushner are business people and think that everything has a price, but ending a decades-old occupation, sovereignty and statehood can't be bought so easily.

anarchism101
Pretty much my thoughts as well. Kushner and Trump were both born into money and have always been rich, and think throwing enough money at any problem can solve it.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (125)
19.72%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (59)
9.31%
No I am happy with my course choice (357)
56.31%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (93)
14.67%

Watched Threads

View All