Trump is now being depicted as partial because his peace plan rejects Arab Palestinian terrorism. How unfair and one-sided, indeed!
But Trump’s conditions to the Arab Palestinian leaders for an Arab Palestinian State are as workable as friendly asking from any dictator to institute democracy. The Arab Palestinian leadership would have to acknowledge Israel as the Jewish State, demilitarize, abandoned terrorism, stop paying murderers salaries, stop incitement and indoctrination, give human rights and freedom of the press, and forego a full right of return, air control, airport, seaport, in exchange for a sort-of-State, lots of money, and a ‘capital’ outside of Jerusalem, in what the anti-Zionist press always calls ‘East Jerusalem’ (though that also stretches to other directions).
If you think that this would ever remotely be possible, ask yourself if Hitler or Stalin would’ve agreed. Why would Hamas that uses its own population as human shields ever consent to such things? What do they care about their population having prosperity — their own bank accounts are stuffed.
Why would the PA agree? It has indefinitely postponed elections, vowed to never stop paying its murderers, and will not allow openly gay men.
Then, why was Netanyahu wrong in agreeing with this phony plan?
Because the PA will always have ‘reasons’ to blame Israel for its non-compliance and Israel as a democratic State cannot deny its obligations.
Look at the previous peace processes. They cost Israel dearly and gave it nothing but criticism from the whole world that ‘Israel must choose peace and work toward a two-State solution.’ As if we’d ever not wanted peace.
You cannot build a safe and stable future on a lie. Jordan is Arab Palestine.
This peace plan and its promoters lack the honesty or courage to call a spade a spade. To say no to a third Arab Palestinian State (besides Gaza and Jordan) and to demand an end to Muslim animosity toward Jews.
There is no real viable State without weapons, foreign policy, an airport, free immigration (‘Right of Return’). Without Arabs discarding Jew-hatred, this would be yet another terror haven in Israel’s midst. Most dangerous!
So, what is an honest reasonable workable alternative instead of a ‘demilitarized non-viable Arab Palestinian State at the West Bank’?
Has Trump’s plan’s hype already erased every memory of the consensus that we had that Israel should annex the whole of the West Bank and give Arabs living there a path to citizenship? Please, let’s return to our senses!
Again, an Israel PM finds it more important what the world around us wants from us than what is real, true, just, and also good for the Jews.
Jewish-Israeli reactions in the first 24 hours on Rotter.net chronologically
I’ll only look at reactions by the locals, Israeli Jews, after the plan was published and not at previous speculative predictions or reactions by Palestinians (all contra-factual and negative — what’s there to learn?). I also left out self-serving self-congratulating accounts by Israeli politicians.
These are the mostly negative reactions that I found:
On the Left:
The JTA / JPost only knew extremist leftwing Israeli Jews to ask for their comments and they all just talked ideology and lies. Sad. Later, one Israeli lefty deplored that it didn’t give the Arab Palestinians enough concessions.
Tovah Lazaroff for the Jerusalem Post: Blow-by-blow exposé why everyone will hate this plan. Very convincing.
David Horovitz: Questionable for peacemaking but a great success for Bibi.
Dr Shany Mor: This farce gives both parties got some goodies and Israel should take what it got.
Avi Issacharoff: The plan brings great unity but between the wrong groups: Netanyahu and Gantz on the one hand and all Arab Palestinian fractions on the other. (Sounds more like a war uniting the warring parties.) More than creating peace, it seems to make a relatively calm state more volatile.
The Haaretz site gives nice damning headlines but seems off the air.
On the Right:
Moshe Koppel, the Kohelet Policy Forum: This plan is for Israel the best one ever. Yet, despite all good intentions, it could easily backfire.
JoeSettler: Nice on paper, terrible in practice because it will lead to more terrorism and a US President hostile to Israel can modify the conditions and give the Arab Palestinians a path to Israel-endangering statehood.
Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar of the Sovereignty Movement: This is a bad deal for Israel, made with the best of intentions but a lack the basic understanding of the essence of the Land of Israel, which is not for sale.
David Israel: Let us pray that, as in previous times, the Arab Palestinian leaders will also prevent this disastrous dangerous plan to come about.
Leaders of Jews living in the West Bank rejected an Arab Palestinian State there forcefully. But they liked some raisins in the porridge (annexation). (How in the world do they agree with partial over total annexation?)
These are the mostly positive reactions that I found:
On the Left:
Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post: Israel shows its red (border) lines.
Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post: There is no Palestinian peace partner but at least, this plan shows the world that Israel is not at fault.
Lahav Harkov, Jerusalem Post: Trump’s plan gives exactly what Netanyahu always wanted. (If that’s true, he wanted too little.) And then the formerly respectable daily opines the opposite: that Trump convinced Netanyahu to agree to an Arab Palestinian State. (If anything, Netanyahu convinced Trump that this unviable thing could be called an Arab Palestinian State.)
On the Right:
Col (Res.) Dr. Raphael G. Bouchnik-Chen: Very nice plan without blame game though probably never to be implemented because the Arab Palestinians are not willing to talk. (Like: beautiful machine but useless.)
Caroline Glick: (Atheist) Trump is the first US President who acknowledges Israel as the modern State of the Biblical Jews. His plan is better than we ever got from the US or ever will get so it would be a sin not to support it. It is not perfect but we can live with it. (Beats me why she turned so mild.)
Reactions in the first 24 hours by Israeli ToI bloggers chronologically
I will only discuss the posts that really deal with the Deal of the Century.
These are the reactions that I found:
My blog post: This is dangerous and doesn’t address the real problems.
Gil Lewinsky: It sounds friendly but besides no chance to have it realized because the Arab Palestinians will not agree, it relinquishes Jewish land.
Abraham Bril: Israel should motivate the Arab Palestinians but if they fail to come to the table, Israel will not be to blame.
Daniella Levy: The plan will not work but listening to Trump I still felt misplaced hope. It’s good we can still hope.
Miri Maoz-Ovadia: My initial reaction: We have won America’s recognition that we belong to the land upon which we live. (Not alarmed by creating a path to an Arab Palestinian State or a US President Bernie Sanders soon.)
Martin Kramer: No dancing in the street except by Trump and Netanyahu. To get any significance, it should find wider international support.
Avi Shamir: This plan’s goal is to keep Trump and Netanyahu out of jail. PM Netanyahu may use it for landgrab, PM Gantz for real peace negotiations.
So in fact, though it’s from in-depth analysis, my opinion is nothing special.