In a closed-door meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told the Likud leadership that US-Israel relations are a lot more complicated than anyone realizes, and that Israel and the Trump Administration remain at odds over the question of settlement expansion.
Many Israeli officials assumed Trump’s inauguration, and pledge to be the “most pro-Israel” president ever would allow settlement expansion with impunity. Multiple large Israeli expansion announcements after Trump took office only added to that perception.
Netanyahu, however, insisted that there has been no formal understanding reached with Trump on the settlements, and that while Trump’s desire to be “pro-Israel” gives him opportunities, it is important to recognize they are not limitless.
The meeting was said to involve a vocal debate about what Israel’s reaction should be, with several MPs saying they believed Trump would ultimately accept any position that Netanyahu publicly held, and that he should be trying to do more, both to expand the settlements and to end talk of a two-state solution.
Why would Israel ever want to let go of “two state solution”? For as long as it is on the table, nothing needs to happen, and settlements could quietly go on as before. This is why presumed Trump reluctance is mentioned. This creates the diversion from the already offered one state solution. Accepting one state solution would mean that Israel has the sole responsibility for starting the peace process and negotiation with Palestinians on status. Why bother, when delaying the process would just make it more obvious. The only reason for accepting Trump’s one state solution, and starting the peace process would be a/ something Trump can give, or b/ something Trump can take. Otherwise, same old.
Every time Israel offers to end the occupation, the Palestinians say “No!”
Even Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia (certainly not a Zionist) said that Arafat’s refusal to accept the January 2001 offer was a crime. Thousands of people would die because of Arafat’s decision & not one of those deaths could be justified.
As Clinton later wrote in his memoir:
It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97 percent of the West Bank, counting the [land] swap, and all of Gaza, where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.
But Arafat would not, or could not, bring an end to the conflict. “I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake,” Clinton wrote. “The deal was so good I couldn’t believe anyone would be foolish enough to let it go.” But the moment slipped away. “Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes.”
Drama, drama. And more drama. Clinton deal was bad — and everybody knew
It. It was designed to insure Arafat cannot accept it. So, the show goes on. Do not get me wrong. I am a realist, and Israel’s rapacious attitude is a logical consequence of historic circumstances. Israel can have whatever it wants, and the region failed to moderate Israel’s ambitions. Quite to the contrary, princes and princesses are much more interested in Chanel in Paris. Up until today, Israel’s hospitals have treated over 1,200 injured Syrian “rebels”, the head chopping kind. The hospitals were complaining as more funds are needed for complex surgeries. Again, no complaints — Israel has zero principles, except what is in their judgment in the interest of Israel. But what is in the interest of US? To stop spending trilions on ME. And how can it do it? By ending conflicts. And how to end conflicts? By insuring that sovereign states take over managing their territory. But how to do it, when we invested trillions in divide et impera, so everybody hates everybody else? By letting everhone know that tbere is now a recognized boss — their government, funds and ideologies dry up. Remember, UK was an empire and played that game. And lost the empire. And went broke until US saved it by giving loans to save it from Hitler. So, US need not go down the path of micro managing by “exploiting contradictions” and monitoring bar fights in Bosnia. While 24-7-365 keeping guard around ancient Kosovo Christian monasteries to protect them against the very government of Kosovo, the new state we invented and recognized. So it goes on and on, and stupid Americans just pay. To end the conflict between Israel and Palestinians — it this can be called a conflict, just make Israel name the price. The offer should be fair: define your borders — a time limited offer — and once US recognizes your wish, the rest of it is merely a problem with Israel’s own internal political arrangement. Insure neighbors recognize Israel, and finally it can become a normal country. And once Syrian government restores peace, US can save a lots of money. It will take a bit longer in Iraq — but at least there will be a light at the end of a tunnel.
I hope Trump follows through and gives Israel whatever it wants. In exchange for becoming a normal country not involved in other country’s civil wars or regime changes. With us guaranteeing security — hopefullly Israel can live happily ever after. Come to think of it — Israel may like it, but what would then our would be commanders in chief do? Try to tell McCain to but out of sovereign decisions of sovereign nations? Never!
That fable has been well and truly debunked. The talks failed when Barak withdrew from the Taba conference.
There was never an offer of 97% of anything.
Please stop peddling tired old hasbara.
Promoting a one-state solution for Israel is the same as promoting an apartheid regime such as what was South Africa. Stop pretending it would be acceptable.
And promoting a two-state solution can never happen either because Israel need Palestinian lands and probably eventually Syria too.
All that can happen and will happen is all non-Jews will be driven from Israel.
Or
Nuclear war which will make it unsuitable for anyone to live there.
“Trump would ultimately accept any position that Netanyahu publicly held”
On what? Settlements? Probably. Mass ethnic cleansing? Not so much.
Netanyahu actually does have things he wants to do, other than just building settlements. Trump and all other Americans are against those things.
“Trump and all other Americans…”
Given the vast social, economic and ideological disparity currently in America, making blanket statements like that are highly suspect. As for Mr. Trump, I seriously doubt there is anyone who can definitively state with any firm conviction what Mr. Trump is against or not. To me, it pretty much depends on what day of the week it is, with whom he is talking, whether he had a solid movement…who knows?