Does your Thai wife keep you on a short leash?

[webfact]

Trump backs Middle East peace, even if not tied to two-state solution

REUTERS
 

A Palestinian demonstrator holds placard during a protest against a promise by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to re-locate U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, in the West Bank near Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim, January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump supports the goal of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, even if it does not involve the two-state solution, a senior White House official said on Tuesday.

 

Speaking a day before Trump holds a White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the official said peace was the ultimate goal.

 

"Whether that comes in the form of a two–state solution if that's what the parties want, or something else," the official said, adding that Trump would not try to "dictate" a solution.

 

Failure by a U.S. president to explicitly back a two-state solution would upend decades of U.S. policy embraced by Republican and Democratic administrations. It has long been the bedrock U.S. position for resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been at the core of international peace efforts.

 

Any sign of a softening of U.S. support for eventual Palestinian statehood could also anger the Muslim world, including Sunni Arab allies, which the Trump administration needs in the fight against Islamic State and to back efforts against Shi’ite Iran.

 

Trump considers Middle East peace a "high priority," the White House official said. The president has given his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, the job of negotiating a peace deal.

 

"We would want to work on it very quickly," the official said.

 

Trump's choice for U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who has not yet been confirmed by the Senate, will not be involved in the president's discussions with Netanyahu on Wednesday, the official said.

 

Friedman advocates settlement building and has questioned the two-state solution.

 

The White House said earlier this month that Israel's building of new settlements or expansion of existing ones in occupied territories may not be helpful in achieving peace.

 

The statement was a shift in tone for Trump, who signalled during the campaign that he could be more accommodating towards settlement projects than his predecessor, Barack Obama.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland; Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Eric Walsh)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-15

[retarius]

For me there is no peaceful single solution. The arabs outnumber the jews especially when the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan are emptied out, and would control the government…..cant have democracy now can we?

[Morch]

And then there's this:

 

CIA Chief Meets Palestinian President Abbas Ahead of Netanyahu-Trump Summit

http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/1.771886

 

 

[Jingthing]

Could be trump is just too darned DUMB to even get the complexities of this complex situation?

 

 

Quote

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a vocabulary. But Trump does not understand it. He’s like a man regurgitating phrases in a foreign language: Israel is wonderful, the Palestinians teach their children to hate, settlements should go forward, settlements should be restrained, Israeli-Palestinian peace would be the ultimate deal. And these mindless regurgitations — uttered by a man too coddled and narcissistic to realize the consequences of his own ignorance — are shaping the futures of both Palestinians and Jews.

http://forward.com/opinion/363679/is-donald-trump-too-ignorant-to-deal-with-israel-and-the-middle-east/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

Edited February 21, 2017 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Yeah, but  that's not unique. He does pretty much the same with most foreign policy issues, and many domestic one as well.

 

[Rob13]

On 2/15/2017 at 11:03 AM, webfact said:

Friedman advocates settlement building and has questioned the two-state solution.

 

Trump's real position would be in his choice of ambassador regardless of his words.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Rob13 said:

Trump's real position would be in his choice of ambassador regardless of his words.

Why assume that there is a "real position" upheld by Trump? He pretty much flip flops all over the place with his statements and supposed positions. As far as he's concerned,  seems like the main criteria for such posts is, first and foremost, the person's perceived loyalty to Trump. Friedman's been among his trusted circle for a long time.

[Rob13]

He delegates based on what's best for his business. His son-in-law's been named as his Israel expert and Friedman is the ambassador. Trump's real position on anything is what's  best for Trump inc. Palestine or a 2 state solution has nothing to offer. 

Hence his choice of ambassador. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Yeah, but  that's not unique. He does pretty much the same with most foreign policy issues, and many domestic one as well.

 

So very comforting. 

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

He delegates based on what's best for his business. His son-in-law's been named as his Israel expert and Friedman is the ambassador. Trump's real position on anything is what's  best for Trump inc. Palestine or a 2 state solution has nothing to offer. 

Hence his choice of ambassador. 

Tempting, but I seriously doubt it's anything that straightforward.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So very comforting. 

 

Of course it isn't, the point was simply that the OP is but an instance in what passes for Trump's way of handling (of mishandling) foreign policy.

[dexterm]

>>"Whether that comes in the form of a two–state solution if that's what the parties want, or something else," 

...the operative words are "what the parties want" ...note plural!

 

If any deal offered is unfeasible, then simply reject it, until a viable just solution is offered.

For a two state Palestinian solution that would be along the lines that have been on the table for decades..

... return to 67 Green Line incl land swaps
... Jerusalem as shared capital
... right of return for Palestinian refugees or compensation  [and for Jewish refugees I would add to sweeten acceptance]

 

Certainly this recognition of Israel as a Jewish State precondition is total nonsense...a deliberate peace derailing tactic and completely impossible to enforce anyway.

 

If a two state solution is imposed by Israel even if backed by USA unilaterally, it simply won't happen and Israel will still not have a permanent peace.

 

Any sort of one state solution I would applaud, because it would ultimately mean the end of the Zionist state.

 

A confederation of the two states is another possibility, with both peoples having the freedom to live, work and worship wherever they wish within Palestine/Israel.

 

Interesting times. We may be approaching the endgame much sooner than I thought.
 

Edited February 21, 2017 by dexterm

[williamgeorgeallen]

On 15/2/2560 at 10:29 PM, retarius said:

For me there is no peaceful single solution. The arabs outnumber the jews especially when the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan are emptied out, and would control the government…..cant have democracy now can we?

jews need yellow shirts and palestines need red shirts. they just need to follow thai democracy. simple.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

>>"Whether that comes in the form of a two–state solution if that's what the parties want, or something else," 

...the operative words are "what the parties want" ...note plural!

 

If any deal offered is unfeasible, then simply reject it, until a viable just solution is offered.

For a two state Palestinian solution that would be along the lines that have been on the table for decades..

... return to 67 Green Line incl land swaps
... Jerusalem as shared capital
... compensation or right of return for Palestinian [and Jewish I would add to sweeten acceptance] refugees

 

Certainly this recognition of Israel as a Jewish State precondition is total nonsense...a deliberate peace derailing tactic and completely impossible to enforce anyway.

 

If a two state solution is imposed by Israel even if backed by USA unilaterally, it simply won't happen and Israel will still not have a permanent peace.

 

Any sort of one state solution I would applaud, because it would ultimately mean the end of the Zionist state.

 

A confederation of the two states is another possibility, with both peoples having the freedom to live, work and worship wherever they wish within Palestine/Israel.

 

Interesting times. We may be approaching the endgame much sooner than I thought.
 

 

The "terms" you tout were not on the table for decades. We've been over this on a recent topic. That you choose to repeat the same again will not change facts.

 

I used to think that the condition about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state was nonsense. The more one reads about actual things said during negotiations, it seems like a prudent request. It is closely related to the issue of relinquishing all future claims. Obviously,

the Palestinians aren't that keen - as it amounts to forfeiting the so-called Right of Return. Essentially, ignoring this issue will create a situation in which Palestinians will have legitimate claims and rights in both states, whereas Israeli Jews will have a claim on one, and that too not fully recognized by the other side. As for "impossible to enforce" - that is nonsense: such a recognition is a formal act, taken by the other side's representatives. Granted, the Palestinians have issues on this front.

 

Israel can not "impose" a two-state solution. At most, it can repeat what it did with regard to the Gaza Strip. For a two-state solution there needs to be a Palestinian state willing to take charge. That your own agenda revolves around the destruction of Israel, and not the best interests of either Israelis or Palestinians, is rather obvious from your posts. I have no doubt that you'd have "no problems" with a one-state solution, even if it means intensified violence and ongoing civil war.

 

A confederation, or any other "peaceful" one-state solution by another name, is not on the cards. That you keep ignoring (or being ignorant of) views by various parties on both sides is nothing new.

[dexterm]

51 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "terms" you tout were not on the table for decades. We've been over this on a recent topic. That you choose to repeat the same again will not change facts.

 

I used to think that the condition about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state was nonsense. The more one reads about actual things said during negotiations, it seems like a prudent request. It is closely related to the issue of relinquishing all future claims. Obviously,

the Palestinians aren't that keen - as it amounts to forfeiting the so-called Right of Return. Essentially, ignoring this issue will create a situation in which Palestinians will have legitimate claims and rights in both states, whereas Israeli Jews will have a claim on one, and that too not fully recognized by the other side. As for "impossible to enforce" - that is nonsense: such a recognition is a formal act, taken by the other side's representatives. Granted, the Palestinians have issues on this front.

 

Israel can not "impose" a two-state solution. At most, it can repeat what it did with regard to the Gaza Strip. For a two-state solution there needs to be a Palestinian state willing to take charge. That your own agenda revolves around the destruction of Israel, and not the best interests of either Israelis or Palestinians, is rather obvious from your posts. I have no doubt that you'd have "no problems" with a one-state solution, even if it means intensified violence and ongoing civil war.

 

A confederation, or any other "peaceful" one-state solution by another name, is not on the cards. That you keep ignoring (or being ignorant of) views by various parties on both sides is nothing new.

The terms for a just peace in a two state solution as I outline briefly above that are acceptable to the Palestinans are very widely known and are and have been thus "on the table" for decades.

 

Israel can call itself what it likes, just as Iran calls itself the Islamic Republic of Iran, but neighbors are not obliged to recognize that in order to to live beside it in peace.

 

A Jewish state is completely unenforcible, because to do so Israel would have to maintain some sort of birth control, restrictive marriage, family reunification, and immigration laws on its non Jewish population to maintain its racist/religionist supremacy. Of course, Israel already  imposes all of those except birth control. But if Israel is to be a democracy it cannot continue to do so and remain majority Jewish as well.

 

>>Israel can not "impose" a two-state solution. At most, it can repeat what it did with regard to the Gaza Strip.
...which of course if repeated by simply grabbing all it can and unilaterally withdrawing behind the wall is not a globally accepted permanent peace.

 

A one state solution would not necessarily entail violence and civil war if managed properly. That's just your usual too hard basket response. Same goes for my confederation suggestion.

 

I can't see any other solutions for a permanent peace...a just two state solution, a confederation or a secular one state democratic solution. Maybe you have something else in mind.

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Your twisted, one sided accounts of historical facts are of little consequence: there wasn't a formal acceptance, by the Palestinians of the all the terms you mentioned. There were parts of it which were, with reservations. There were favorable comments made. Not, as you attempt to present, a coherent and concrete offer. Certainly not one which is accepted by both Palestinian factions. That you choose to repeat the "decades" "alternative fact", is a poor attempt to gloss over actual decades during which the Palestinians did refuse any compromise or negotiation. Same goes for instances which saw Palestinian leaders (both Arafat and Abbas) decline to commit to similar terms.

 

Your "obligatory" inflammatory and hyperbolic anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel rant is a poor attempt at deflection. Obviously, no such commentary on the future Palestinian state being envisioned as essentially Jew-free, and having a constitution declaring the main source of its legislation to be based on the principals of Islamic Shari’a. Can't recall strong objections from your with regard to this, only the usual denials of Israel's right to regulate immigration as it sees fit. Not much of an argument there, just bile and double standards.

 

As said, and twisted out of context by yourself - Israel cannot "impose" a two-state solution. It can, maybe, repeat something along the lines of the unilateral move applied to the Gaza Strip, but this will not create a Palestinian state. Obviously, you cannot address the misconception raised earlier, and deflect.

 

There is no one with half a clue which thinks that a one-state solution can currently be applied smoothly or without violence. You're pretty much out there exposing your ignorance (genuine of wilful) of sentiments on both sides. As for "if managed properly" - you must be joking: that would involve all them "pedantic" details you abhor and all them perceptions of public views you ignore. Pray tell, what does such "proper management" include, and how it could be applied in a peaceful manner....

 

"That's just your usual too hard basket response."

 

Kindly stop trolling. I have never used this phrase, nor subscribed to the sentiment it attempts to convey. Apparently you cannot fathom the difference between acknowledging actual difficulties and designating them as insurmountable. What you falsely present as "solutions" are mere labels. Any attempt to discuss them in objective and realistic terms is met by your usual nonsense.

 

It is my standing position that a two-state solution is the only conceivable way out of this mess without making things worse, and while addressing most (not all) of either sides wishes. That said, I have no illusions as to the prospects of it materializing anytime soon - due to attitudes, actions and leadership issues on both sides.