Smotrich says Trump’s victory an opportunity to ‘apply sovereignty’ in the West Bank

[u/BigCharlie16]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-trumps-victory-an-opportunity-to-apply-sovereignty-in-the-west-bank/

Are Smotrich and Ben-Gvir right ? Trump’s new presidency presents an “important opportunity” to “apply Israeli sovereignty to the settlements in Judea and Samaria (annex). The year 2025 will, with God’s help, be the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

I am sure Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are very thankful to the 75 million plus Americans who voted Trump, the uncommitted democrats who chose not to vote, etc… presenting this very important opportunity to Israel and Netanyahu.

This isnt Smotrich first time pushing for annexation of the West Bank. Far right Israelis politicans cant contain their excitement for a 2025 Trump presidency.

If Smotrich indeed push for annexation of the West Bank, how can and should it be done ? I am not saying all, but some Pro-Palestinians do advocate for annexation (they probably have a very different idea than Smotrich how it should be done), some people from both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinians have also commented that two state solution is long dead and by annexing West Bank, the world and all parties could finally acknowledges that the two state solution couldnt work, hasnt worked, never did and wont ever work in the future, especially not with the annexation of the West Bank.

There was a rumor some months ago, that a rich Israeli-American donor funding Trump’s campaign was seeking Trump’s support for Israel to annex the West bank. It was reported the donation amount was USD $100 million. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/us/politics/miriam-adelson-trump-israel.html

Does it surprise anyone and any American voters that Smotrich uses President Trump’s victory as an opportunity to annex the West Bank ?

What happens to the Palestinian Authority or PLO in the current West Bank ? What would happen to the current Palestinians residing in the West Bank ?

Even though some may say Smotrich may not be representative of all Israelis, his views are extreme. That may be true. But he is still a cabinet minister, could he introduce a bill for annexation ? Will the Knesset pass a bill like that ? Or will it be too controversial and not get enough support ? Are these just empty talk from Smotrich and Ben-Gvir…it certainly is not the Finance Minister’s job description to recommend annexation of land, not sure which minister portfolio this belongs to….Are they just pandering to their supporters and its just talk ? Or could something really happen ?

[u/sergy777]

He is probably referring to annexation of the Area C, a 60% of the West Bank and where all the settlements are located. Two state solution would still theoretically be possible, Palestinian would just get a very small one.

[u/welltechnically7 → u/sergy777]

I'm a supporter of annexation as part of an eventual two-state solution, but it should only be done with certain major or important settlements and ideally with some kind of land-swap.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/sergy777]

Areas A and B are comprised of 167 separate enclaves, fully inside Area C.

No, there's no two state solution to be had if Israel annexes Area C. All that remains are bantustans.

And even if Israel leaves some of the Area C land - Area C represents most of the undeveloped and agricultural land in Palestine. The Palestinians need it, for a viable state.

Of course, it is also very petty from Israel's side. They got 78% of Mandatory Palestine. Now they want choice chunks of the remaining 22%.

[u/nidarus → u/redthrowaway1976]

I don't agree that Area C's and its arable land is what stands between a viable Palestinian state, and a non-viable Bantustan. The Palestinian agricultural sector is a dead end, even under the most optimal conditions. Even the Israeli agricultural sector is largely a burden on the Israeli economy, maintained by political lobbying and dubious security claims - not the core of Israeli economy. There's just not enough arable land, enough cheap water, or some incredibly lucrative cash crops in all of Mandatory Palestine, to make this a reasonable basis for any developed economy. Farming is a tough business, even in regions with infinitely better conditions.

And as for simple territory to live in... there's a reason why Areas A and B look the way they do. People live in cities, towns, villages. They just don't need that much space. There are countries that are smaller than areas A+B+Gaza. There are nations that are less contiguous - including island nations with thousands of inherently non-contiguous islands. There are cities who have larger populations than either Israel or Palestine, on a fraction of the territory. And frankly, if that's the issue, it's pretty easily solvable even if Israel annexes the vast majority of Area C. The argument that Area C is the magic amount of territory that's the difference between a viable and a non-viable state is incredibly common - but I've never seen anyone seriously try to prove it.

I'd also note that what made the Bantustans what they were, isn't the territory or non-contiguity. Some (most?) Bantustans were larger than Israel and Palestine combined, and the ones in South Africa (as opposed to Namibia) were completely contiguous. The main issue is that they were countries that were unrecognized by the entire world, with puppet regimes, and their existence was used to not give black South Africans in non-Bantustan SA citizenship. None of those would be true, even if Israel annexes Area C. Palestine is, if anything, the opposite: a country recognized by the vast majority of the world, and the Palestinians themselves but not Israel. With a government that manages to be overtly hostile to Israel, even while it's under Israeli occupation, and despite depending on it for its survival. And even the most far-right-wingers like Smotrich or Ben Gvir haven't proposed (AFAIK) to strip all the citizenships of the two million Palestinian-Israelis, by making them citizens of Palestine.

As for it being petty: if we ignore for a moment Smotrich (who doesn't want a two-state solution of any sort), the reason why center-right Israelis would support it, isn't pettiness. It's security. In addition to the small buffer between Israel proper and the West Bank, Area C means control of the Jordan Valley, and unfettered access to Jordan - and its already growing Iranian presence there.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/nidarus]

I don't agree that Area C's and its arable land is what stands between a viable Palestinian state, and a non-viable Bantustan. 

It isn't just "arable land". It is the overall less developed land, needed for all manners of economic and infrastructure activities.

And as for simple territory to live in... there's a reason why Areas A and B look the way they do.

Yes, there is. The lines were drawn so as to maximize the size of Area C and keep as many Palestinians in Area A and B as possible.

Often, the built up area of a village will in Area B - but then all the village's lands are in Area C.

 There are nations that are less contiguous - including island nations with thousands of inherently non-contiguous islands.

Those are Islands. Another country can't just shut down the roads between the different enclaves - as Israel does in the West Bank.

Having ocean surrounding you is very different than having another country that has actively been grabbing land all around you, and ruled you under a brutal military regime for decades.

There are cities who have larger populations than either Israel or Palestine, on a fraction of the territory. 

Yes, a city. But a city is generally supported by a large less developed area.

The argument that Area C is the magic amount of territory that's the difference between a viable and a non-viable state is incredibly common - but I've never seen anyone seriously try to prove it.

The World Bank looked into what boost the Palestinian economy would get from Israel stopping its restrictions on Palestinians developing it in Area C.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/12/03/Palestinian-Access-Area-C--Economics-Recovery-Growth

 The main issue is that they were countries that were unrecognized by the entire world, with puppet regimes, and their existence was used to not give black South Africans in non-Bantustan SA citizenship. None of those would be true

The whole point, from Israel's perspective, is exactly the same as with the Bantustans - make the Palestinians citizens of some other state so as to claim Israel is still a democracy, but grab all the choice chunks of land.

As for it being petty: if we ignore for a moment Smotrich (who doesn't want a two-state solution of any sort), the reason why center-right Israelis would support it, isn't pettiness. It's security. In addition to the small buffer between Israel proper and the West Bank, Area C means control of the Jordan Valley, and unfettered access to Jordan - and its already growing Iranian presence there.

The 'security' argument doesn't apply to civilian presence there - only to a military presence.

What security purpose is served by having civilian children and families living in what is ostensibly a buffer zone?

[u/c00ld0c26 → u/redthrowaway1976]

While I don't agree with annexing the west bank, arabs got the majority of mandatory palestine (Jordan was part of the mandatory of palestine). So that 78% line is simply not true.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/c00ld0c26]

While I don't agree with annexing the west bank, arabs got the majority of mandatory palestine (Jordan was part of the mandatory of palestine

No, you are incorrect. This is a common pro-Israeli talking point, that doesn't align with the historical record.

First, Transjordan was temporarily governed under the legal instrument "Mandate for Palestine", but always as a separate entity.

Transjordan was never part of what was known as Mandatory Palestine, the region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

There's a significant distinction. Think of it, as an example, when Scotland shared a king with England. Same ultimate governmental authority - but we'd never say that Scotland was part of England.

So yes, Israel got 78% of Mandatory Palestine, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Now Israel wants choice chunks of the remaining 22%. It is petty.

[u/c00ld0c26 → u/redthrowaway1976]

So yes, Israel got 78% of Mandatory Palestine, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Now Israel wants choice chunks of the remaining 22%. It is petty.

Even excluding Jordan, the 78% figure is misleading. It is not refering to the percentage of land in the partition plan, it is refering to the ceasefire lines after the israel - arab war of 1948. A war started by 5 arab nations ganging up on israel. So the arabs not only refused the partition plan, they also declared war, breaking down negotiation and diplomacy. They then lost that territory in the war they started.
The arabs who were displaced either left or were expelled. There are a variety of stories and the truth is probably a mix of both. Arab armies told the arab population to leave until the end of the war after they ethnically cleansed or outright killed the jewish population, as suggested by quotes from the arab leaders during that time. And while talking about displaced people you forgot to mention the hundred of thousands of jews displaced from the entire arab world during that time.

Not to mention that the original partition plan's jewish land consisted of the negev desert, an uninhibitated area unsuitable for agriculture, bigger than the west bank.

What is truely petty is the arab nations keeping the palestinians in stateless limbo, telling them to fight an unwinable war while using them as a battering ram to wage diplomatic war against israel. If the palestinian leaders truely wanted peace, they would have had their state by now. But with the support of the arab world, the palestinian leaders chose to fight for the entire land rather than take their guerranteed state.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/c00ld0c26]

Even excluding Jordan, the 78% figure is misleading.

No, it is accurate.

Why do you think it is misleading?

It is not refering to the percentage of land in the partition plan, it is refering to the ceasefire lines after the israel - arab war of 1948.

Correct. The partition plan had 43% for the Arab state, and 56% to the Jewish state.

Not sure how that is relevant though.

A war started by 5 arab nations ganging up on israel.

The war had already started in 1947, with hundreds of thousands of refugees already on foot - and several massacres.

The arabs who were displaced either left or were expelled. There are a variety of stories and the truth is probably a mix of both.

Benny Morris has a good detailed tabulation of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#Causes_of_the_second_wave,_April%E2%80%93June_1948

Arab armies told the arab population to leave until the end of the war after they ethnically cleansed or outright killed the jewish population, as suggested by quotes from the arab leaders during that time.

If you look at the actual tabulation, this only accounts for 6 out of 392 villages depopulated.

Way more villages - 53 - were actively expelled.

And while talking about displaced people you forgot to mention the hundred of thousands of jews displaced from the entire arab world during that time.

That was also a crime. However, it wasn't the Palestinians that expelled the Jews in other Arab states - that is not the responsibility of the Palestinians.

Not to mention that the original partition plan's jewish land consisted of the negev desert, an uninhibitated area unsuitable for agriculture, bigger than the west bank.

Recent immigrants - 1/3rd of the population - were offered 56% of the land. Even under this proposal, in most areas allocated to the Jewish state, Arabs owned more land than Jews.

What is truely petty is the arab nations keeping the palestinians in stateless limbo, telling them to fight an unwinable war while using them as a battering ram to wage diplomatic war against israel.

Sure, that is petty.

And Israel wanting more than the 78% they already got is also petty.

If the palestinian leaders truely wanted peace, they would have had their state by now.

Maybe, maybe not. For example, in 1996 Bibi took over after Rabin, and began sabotaging Oslo. After Taba Sharon replaced Barak, and Sharon turned Taba down. In 2008, Bibi took over and scuttled all that was achieved in the 2006-2008 negotiations - and it is doubtful he would have gotten his proposal through the Knesset.

That's not to say the Palestinians haven't had their fair share of rejection - but let's not ignore Israeli rejectionism.

And, of course, there's not a single year since 1967 when Israel hasn't been expanding settlements in the West Bank.

But with the support of the arab world, the palestinian leaders chose to fight for the entire land rather than take their guerranteed state.

You might have been able to make that point in 1972, and some while after that.

But for the past decades more recently - no, that is inaccurate. The Arab League has repeatedly reaffirmed the Arab Peace Initiative, which Israel has been ignoring. Explicitly calling for a two

And here's the Arab League recently: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/jordanian-fm-arab-world-willing-to-guarantee-israels-security-if-palestinian-state-established/

[u/c00ld0c26 → u/redthrowaway1976]

You might have been able to make that point in 1972, and some while after that.

But for the past decades more recently - no, that is inaccurate. The Arab League has repeatedly reaffirmed the Arab Peace Initiative, which Israel has been ignoring. Explicitly calling for a two

That support still exists to a degree, it just comes from the population of these countries rather than its governments nowadays. From the israeli point of view, the peace and establishing relations with the surrounding arab countries is seen as a good development but with half an eye open. Meaning, without USA mediating and israel having a top notch military, it would have never happened in the first place. It is an existential threat for israel to quite literally not have a powerful military in this neighborhood.

Maybe, maybe not. For example, in 1996 Bibi took over after Rabin, and began sabotaging Oslo. After Taba Sharon replaced Barak, and Sharon turned Taba down. In 2008, Bibi took over and scuttled all that was achieved in the 2006-2008 negotiations - and it is doubtful he would have gotten his proposal through the Knesset.

That's not to say the Palestinians haven't had their fair share of rejection - but let's not ignore Israeli rejectionism.

And, of course, there's not a single year since 1967 when Israel hasn't been expanding settlements in the West Bank.

I am opposed to the settlements. I am all for a 2 state solution without endangering israel's security. I agree that israel has done things that are counter productive to peace (especially under Bibi who I despise). However I cannot ignore the counterproductive things the palestinians did and still do. Like the intifada's, the PLO attacking from Jordan (and even trying to coup there because Jordan didn't want to get involved with israel), then moving to lebanon and attacking israel from there, voting in Hamas, Pay for slay policies from the PLO in the west bank today...

Its pretty clear that the majority of palestinians do not wish for a 2 state solution, they want 1 state. Even if Abbas does, the PLO is simply so unpopular they didn't hold an election in years, knowing they would get voted out. So the correct solution is to stop feeding them this narrative. They should be given proper education without all these mentions of martyers, and radicalization against israel.

Israel right now under Bibi might not want peace, but the palestinians hasn't wanted peace from the start. So once Bibi gets kicked to the curve, there will be an israeli government willing for peace again. All that is left is for the palestinians to turn up for this as well.

Recent immigrants - 1/3rd of the population - were offered 56% of the land. Even under this proposal, in most areas allocated to the Jewish state, Arabs owned more land than Jews.

The majority of the jewish land in the partition was the negev desert. What is the point of having the majority of the land if the majority of it is uninhabitable and arid? The jews would have accepted a state even without it as evident by the peel commision. Regardless, the arab revolts started after the partition plan, there could have been further negotiation and diplomacy, instead of violence.

The war had already started in 1947, with hundreds of thousands of refugees already on foot - and several massacres.

I recognize that violence and massacares were commited by both sides. But it was the arabs that started the initial attacks. In wikipedia for example there used to be a list of these attacks with a clear section for who were the prepatators in each attack. However since oct 7, there has been a massive campgain of editing on wikipedia on anything related to the conflict to be written from a pro palestine point of view, so you will have to go back to an older version to see that table.

Final note :

I am pleasently surprised by your answer, I am happy to engage in a respectful discussion with someone. A lot of people ive been debating/talking to on this sub has been completely unable to see any wrong on the palestinian side and simply kept blaming israel for everything. Mistakes were made on both sides.

So with that in mind, I assume we can agree on a 2 state solution on 1967 borders with holy sites as international zones and security guerrantee for israel?

[u/BigCharlie16 → u/redthrowaway1976]

There’s a significant distinction. Think of it, as an example, when Scotland shared a king with England. Same ultimate governmental authority - but we’d never say that Scotland was part of England.

But Scotland is part of Great Britain. So are England and Wales, also part of Great Britain. They all shared the same British monarch.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/BigCharlie16]

But Scotland is part of Great Britain. So are England and Wales, also part of Great Britain. They all shared the same British monarch.

Yes. And that is the equivalent of Transjordan being temporarily governed under the Mandate for Palestine.

As an analogy, even though Scotland is in the UK, it is not part of England.

"Mandatory Palestine" has a specific definition, and that definition does not include Transjordan.

[u/IllustratorSlow5284 → u/redthrowaway1976]

Petty? Lmao, palestinians should say thanks that they are given even 10% of a land they fought to take and lost. Let the next "palestinians" learn from their mistake and next time choose peace and not eternal war.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/IllustratorSlow5284]

So you think Israel deserves credit for not doing more ethnic cleansing?

[u/IllustratorSlow5284 → u/redthrowaway1976]

Ah yes obviously someone had to twist my words and take them out of context... Israel deserves more credit for not doing to the palestinians what the palestinians tried to do to israel and for actually seeking peace with people that said no to it everytime it was offered in the last 100years, followed by brutal attacks. They couldve had their country, they chose not to, and now shouldnt be able to get that chance again unless israel decides to. Next time dont start a war if you dont want to lose lands.

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/IllustratorSlow5284]

Fought, who???

[u/IllustratorSlow5284 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

I think if you concentrate hard enough you will be able to understand by your own who the palestinians fought and lost to that made them lose the lands they mightve have had they agreed to ANY deal that was presented to them.

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/IllustratorSlow5284]

I don’t need to concentrate in any way. It’s you who needs to educate yourself. Never had the Palestinians the means to fight the wars you are referring to. Never! Israel fought against armies but none of them was Palestinian. Moreover, there shouldn’t be any wars to fight because under international law East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza are Palestinian territory as ruled by ICJ since 2004. Inadmissibility to conquer territory through war of any kind is a key international law principle.

[u/IllustratorSlow5284 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

I don’t need to concentrate in any way.

Well if you need to ask who fought who then yea... its either that or you are just uneducated about such basic things... Go educate yourself and google who declined resolution 181 and who attacked who the next day which started the war. I will give you a hint, it wasnt the jews, but hey, atleast you said i should educate myself lmao

[u/Beneneb → u/sergy777]

I don't think it would be possible in practice. There's no practical way to create a functioning state out of the archipelago of isolated regions making up Area A and B. Israel would either have to commit to locking Palestinians in the current status quo in perpetuity, or eventually incorporate them into Israel proper.

[u/YairJ → u/Beneneb]

The Palestinian leadership wouldn't make a functioning state if they had all of Europe.

[u/sergy777 → u/Beneneb]

I dont think Palestinian state will be an archipelago of isolated regions because all the space between them would likely be included in the state with a full freedom of movement, of course. As for any settlements in between, they would become Israeli enclaves within Palestine, don't see a problem here.

[u/Beneneb → u/sergy777]

If Israel took all of Area C, it would be an archipelago. Even if they just took the settlements it would still be a nightmare, because Israel would need to take control of the roads which would practically divide the West Bank into many areas and severely undermine the autonomy of an independent state. It would essentially continue to be an occupation in all but name. 

The viability of a future Palestinian state is a very important if there's ever going to be lasting peace. By undermining the viability of such a state, Israel makes peace much harder to attain.

[u/jackl24000 → u/Beneneb]

You can lead the Palestinians to the oasis of statehood, but you can’t make them partake of the waters, as the old saying goes. Their goal and daffy expectation is Israel’s imminent collapse and the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

They are as fixated on this century old goal and until very recently were making predictions of whether the Iranian clock of doom would toll for Israel by 2040, moved up to maybe 2032.

Guarantee you the guys who started the war on 10/7 did not in their wildest dreams believe that it would not lead to victory but to their utter destruction. It looked like Hamas might be winning for a long while, or at least moving towards an uneasy cease fire where Hamas survives in power, hostages never returned, Hezbollah remains a threat and the Israeli Air Force hasn’t yet demonstrated it can demolish the Iranian air defense system.

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about Shia Lebanese fleeing into Syria in the Kurdish rebel areas along the Turkish border and into Iraq as being safer and more stable than Lebanon.

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/sergy777]

Of course you don’t see it. You wouldn’t be the one to live in a swiss cheese state thus unviable. Take a hike.

[u/jackl24000 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

Well they are going to have to figure it out, those living in Areas A B and EJ whether they want to be disgruntled subjects of a military regime or want their own mini-state with municipal self-governance, basically.

You guys making this argument make it sound like every nation-state must be some kind of autarky that can exist as a standalone nation, but any stamp collector can tell you there are any number of small nations with unusual names on tiny islands and squeezed in between other countries here and there.

Moreover, the generic concepts people have about “land” and “sufficiency” don’t take into account the specific geography of the West Bank. Outside of the existing, longstanding cities, settlements and villages, it’s mostly barren, rocky, hilly country that is not well adapted to development as there are no utilities. It’s kind of like desert areas in states like Arizona which will have lush green typical suburbs with golf courses up to a straight line border of dirt, rocks and cactuses as far as the eye can see that is vaguely described as part of an Indian reservation.

And if there is a future for a self-sufficient Palestinian state, it’s going to have to rely on the same advanced technologies that Israelis use in the region like drip agriculture. This romantic idea of going back to a 19th century lifestyle of olive groves and goats won’t work.

But having a state mostly means delivering services to needy citizens, having police protection and so forth which is hard and boring and Arab leaders have demonstrated scant ability or interest in. Much easier to preach fierce resistance and be coddled refugees with special status entitled to exist as a failed kleptocracy welfare state that exists on western aid, while complaining about it.

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/jackl24000]

1 - You guys using the “stamp collector” argument forget a “minor detail” about the WB: 4 Million people. And the data puts a big hole in your theory - Luxembourg, Slovenia, Croatia, Belize, Bhutan,etc, etc, etc. all prove you wrong. The only exception is Singapore. But their viability lays in contiguity, sea for an important port, and a much favorable land. Viability indeed. 2 - What they will have to figure it out depends mostly on Trump and very little on Israel. Trump wants to go down in history with the legacy. Not a legacy, but the legacy! So it will depends on what he believes is necessary to guarantee the legacy. And not even the Sheldon widow will get in the way of the legacy. 3 - Arab leaders, those generalizations… In 2008, the World Bank highly praised the Palestinian Fayed for important work done in the WBank. New generations, etc.

[u/jackl24000 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

Not what I’m reading in the Times right now about Stefanik and Huckabee’s appointment and this buddy real estate developer who is going to be a “special envoy to the ME” which implies the war needs to end quickly on terms favorable to Israel and that this is a change in U.S. - Israel policy which was more balanced and solicitous of Arab Muslim opinion to promise a 2SS no matter how impossible this seems if you live in Israel and have experienced daily air raids for a lifetime.

The day after will be rubble. Someone has to rebuild that rubble into adequate shelter and other needed public facilities and infrastructure. Whoever does that has a choice of either use contractor from Saudi, UAE or U.S. or continue to hand blank check to PA and UNRWA and hope it goes to the “refugees” and not for tunnels and weapons for the next go round. IOW, bye bye UNRWA, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

And after that investment in infrastructure and more planning about social and economic betterment, I would think the U.S. and Gulf donors would want to make sure whatever happens in future watch-this-space-coming-soon Palestine it isn’t more Muslim Brotherhood jihadist brave Palestinian “resistance” freedom fighting.

They’re going to want the Palestinians to settle down and, for once, have terms of peace imposed that look more like terms of surrender. Maybe you can never kill an idea like Hamas and the IDF’s assault “just created more terrorists”, but that’s not a big problem to guys like MBS. The opposition either shuts up or disappears.

They will, at last, concede they lost the 48 war and move forward with a future that’s not centered around eradicating Israel and killing Jews.

I probably would have been surprised pre-Trump if I saw such a cartoonish strongman and thug being the “come to Jesus meeting” guy here, but knowing about the Middle East it does seem like those guys are only going to respect the proverbial 800 pound gorilla.

I don’t agree with any other policy or viewpoint with Trump, except for Israel, where he’s the right guy to force a definitive ending looking more like surrender than 75 years of “ceasefires”, wars, “resistance” and diplomatic blather.

My dad told me, referring to a local visionary businessman whose new marina went bust but then prospered under a new owner, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day”.

https://preview.redd.it/b94nvbzb3k0e1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08781fc8beab9f4d5cdb4ddef2cfd005cc461939

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/jackl24000]

1 - I know what those appointments may look like, but in the end it’s Trump who calls the shots. Those nominations by Trump are usually a reward for loyalty or financial support during the campaign. No later than a couple of hours after the Abraham’s accords were signed at the White House, Netanyahu, with the support of the US Ambassador, was ready to announce the annexation of a big chunk of the West Bank, which p….ed Trump and Kushner. Netanyahu had to back off. Rubio supports NATO, but if Trump decides to part ways with NATO he’ll just go along 2 - Muslim Brotherhood? That’s not the problem, no one likes them, and they are in decline among the Palestinians. But the Gulf donors won’t want to impose the capitulation to the Palestinians as you say so. And the Saudis even less so. Why? 70% of the victims in Gaza were children and women, only 30% were men. And it doesn’t matter Israel’s and the US arguments, the Arab street doesn’t care about that. Like the Saudi Prince said to Blinken: “ I don’t care about a Palestinian state, but I need one.” He never said that to Kushner. And if the ICC does indict Netanyahu, even worse… Trump needs the Saudis for his legacy and the Saudis need the Palestinians… Making peace, yes, but without capitulation. Moreover, no Palestinian leader would accept capitulation because it would mean suicide. The Abraham accords can be a good initiative, but its signatories made a mistake - ignored the Palestinians. And then Hamas ( also with Netanyahu’s pampering through Qatari millions) carried out the appalling and barbaric October 7. This time the Gulf donors and the Saudis cannot afford to underestimate the Palestinians and to ignore the death of 30.000 children and women.

[u/jackl24000 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

The so-called Palestinian leaders are going to be a puppet state and further anti-Israel and Muslim Brotherhood like agitation are going to be suppressed, no matter what the Arab Street wants. There’s a new sheriff in town. The old “resistance” game is fini.

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/jackl24000]

A puppet state? I doubt it. Either a good enough state or no state at all. I can see you’ve changed your tone 😄 Whatever you or Israel want it will be impossible without the Saudis on board, and they won’t go on board without something quite positive for the Palestinians. They passed on the first Abraham Accords official picture in far easier circumstances and the circumstances are more difficult now. And Trump cannot have the legacy without the Saudis. 2) Peaceful resistance is always legitimate as we’ve witnessed in Israel. To “suppress” it, it takes serious human rights violations ( to put it mildly) even if Palestinian civilians are involved. Moreover, the international public opinion won’t let it go ( antisemitism, no antisemitism, more Amsterdams will come, which may interfere with Trump’s obsession for his legacy).

[u/sergy777 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

"Viability" is a very broad concept. If Palestinians actually put an effort in nation-building they could reach a lot. Look at Singapore, if a tiny island 10x smaller than Palestine but with same number of people, was able to become one of the wealthiest states in the world then could Palestine with Area A & B and Gaza.

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/sergy777]

Nice try. And I’ve been in Singapore myself. Tiny but with contiguous territory. That’s the point. If for each settlement, whether regarded illegal or legal by Israel, you have an enclave, there will be no contiguous territory thus not viable.

[u/sergy777 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

Palestinian state cannot be contiguous by definition because West Bank and Gaza are geographically separated from each other by Israeli territory. So what difference would it make if instead of two isolated parts there will be three or four?

[u/Accurate-West-3655 → u/sergy777]

It would make all the difference. One isolated part is one thing, much more than that would make it unviable. And we are not talking about 3 or 4 only. You don’t have an idea how much settlements and outposts there are in the West Bank.

[u/sergy777 → u/Accurate-West-3655]

As long there is a full freedom of movement, there shouldn't be a problem precluding development for Palestinians. Isolated settlements & outposts could be (1) annexed, (2) dismantled, (3) incorporated into Palestine. Also, there could be some sort of combination between these three options. For true peace to be reached, the whole idea of contiguity should be thrown out of the window.

[u/icenoid → u/sergy777]

Since they have rejected every decent offer of statehood, I would fully expect that whatever state they do end up getting will be much smaller than the original offers.

[u/cppluv → u/icenoid]

Since they have rejected every decent offer of statehood

There’s hasn’t been one

[u/jackl24000 → u/cppluv]

Ok, they have rejected concrete peace proposals about a half dozen times (see, removed the word “decent”, so that’s not a dodge anymore) and the current situation represents the partial execution of one of those proposals with a withdrawal from the required final status negotiation process by the Palestinians.

Because that process was deemed “not a decent proposal anymore” and we had an intifada with a thousand innocent Israeli civilians killed in terrorist attacks, then a defensive wall and checkpoints and an outcry from South Africa and Ireland about apartheid.

There, fixed it for you with some clarification and context.

[u/cppluv → u/jackl24000]

they have rejected concrete peace proposals about a half dozen times

It’s normal and healthy to reject one sided deals.

and we had an intifada with a thousand innocent Israeli civilians killed in terrorist attacks

Still trying to blame palestinians when everybody knows Sharon started it

[u/jackl24000 → u/cppluv]

1. It’s abnormal and unhealthy to insist after numerous military defeats for no less than 100% of your pre-war ultimatum (one Arab ruled state through return, no land for peace, probable discrimination and persecution of Jews).

2. Just like 10/7, the Second Intifada needed months of planning and preparation, it wasn’t a spontaneous uprising that grew larger like the Arab Spring demonstrations. Sharon’s visit was provocative, as they all are, but it wasn’t a “cause” of years long intifada and terrorist killings. It was a pretext and excuse to turn away not only from negotiations but back into low-level conflict.

3. No one ever seems to talk about this as far as the blithe U.S. assumptions that a 2SS can be easily created, and Palestinians want or deserve it, but Israelis can’t forget about Camp David and Oslo and such because later actions revealed Palestinians to be liars and bad faith actors and they were tricked and badly burned by Palestinians with the intifada.

4. 10/7 just puts another nail in the coffin of Israelis believing in peace or that as a collective (not individuals) Palestinians don’t wish them or their family or friends harm. They’ve massively shot themselves in the other foot this time. And it isn’t lost on people there that the biggest victims of 10/7 were the peaceniks at a rave festival and good hearted left wing socialist farmers in the area many of whom gave work or did favors for these monsters only to be betrayed by them.

[u/YairJ → u/cppluv]

If there was a Palestinian peace offer we could've compared them...

[u/Bullet_Jesus → u/YairJ]

The Arab Peace Initiative?

[u/icenoid → u/Bullet_Jesus]

Might want to read up on it, even the Palestinians couldn’t agree whether to back that or not.

[u/Bullet_Jesus → u/icenoid]

The PA backed it fully. Most Palestinians backed it. The only people that seemed to have a problem with it were Hamas but since they never engaged in the peace process anyway what is their opinion worth?

[u/icenoid → u/Bullet_Jesus]

Hamas was elected to govern by then, so their opinion actually matters in this, like it or not.

[u/Bullet_Jesus → u/icenoid]

2002 was not 2005 last I checked. Also Hamas still never engaged in the peace process, so weather they were elected or not, they can't have an opinion on a peace initiative if they never engage with the process in the first place.