Mr. Stephens,
you are one of my favorite columnists. But I have strong misgivings about your latest article. You are probably right about the course of history. But I could not find the word 'Justice' anywhere in your column. Instead you glorify the principle 'Might makes Right'.
By this maxim the annexation of the Crimea by Putin is perfectly correct and in 20 years it will be generally accepted. The same with the territorial aggression by China in Tibet and in the South China Sea.
If there were a Jewish community of some 3 million people anywhere in the world subjugated in a similar manner there would be a worldwide outcry. With the Palestinians not so much. The Jewish people have suffered immensely during their long history. But they have not learned compassion.
Wilhelm Evertz
763
@Wilhelm Evertz That is exactly the point. The Jewish community around the world has learned a painful lesson in the Holocaust. They have to depend on themselves. Hence Israeli power!!!
49
@Wilhelm Evertz
I'm sorry but you are drawing a false equivalency between Crimea and Palestine.
Did the Ukraine attack or even threaten to attack Russia? Did the Ukraine whip up support from NATO or it's neighbors to "utterly destroy" Russia? Should the Russian people have feared the Ukrainians?
The answer of course, is no. Putin attacked the Ukraine and took Crimea by force with ZERO provocation.
I suggest you do some reading about the 6 Day War, so that you can better understand how Israel was threatened by imminent attack from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Their goal was to 100% destroy Israel and it's people. That is indisputable.
Israel acted in self-defense, defeating superior forces and RECLAIMED what was theirs before it was taken from them thousands of years ago by the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans. Islam didn't come to what is now known as Israel until the 7th century.
So please tell us how your Crimea/Palestinian juxtaposition makes sense? Who has the better historical claim?
89
@Wilhelm Evertz "If there were a Jewish community of some 3 million people anywhere in the world subjugated in a similar manner there would be a worldwide outcry." Get real, Wilhelm. There would be world-wide silence, and world-wide complicity. Learn from experience or die.
That doesn't justify the "peace deal" now offered. I don't share Mr. Stephens's "they deserve it" attitude towards the Palestinians. But I do agree with his central point: the current situation is the inevitable result of more than a century of refusing to accept peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state.
61
As Mr. Stephen's notes, the proposal "...demands is an end to anti-Jewish bigotry in school curriculums." The problem of fanning hatred and promoting historical distortions/lies is much deeper than just school curriculums, it pervades the dominant messages from Palestinian political, intellectual and religious leadership. For those unfamiliar with the extent of this problem I recommend a study of the decades of work by the Palestinian Media Watch https://palwatch.org/. This organization simply translates and report what is broadcast and written in Arabic, which contrasts with the more benign and conciliatory statements in English designed to deceive international audiences. They have decades of research and offer e mail updates on new material.
19
My thoughts starting in college and the 1967 two week war is Palestinians lose when the say YES and NO.
8
Thought experiment:
Bret goes to bed tonight when there is a 50 percent chance of waking up as a Palestinian over there.
Would HE say “yes” or “no”?
11
Most displaced people quickly move on with their lives whether it be Muslims forced to leave India in 1947 or the Greeks who were kicked out of Turkey in 1923 or the Germans kicked out of Eastern Europe in 1945 or indeed the Mizrahi Jews kicked out of Arab states in 1949. Not the Palestinians though, they are told to forever have a woe is me attitude because their grandparents were displaced by war 70 years ago.
25
The Palestinians need their own Dr. Martin Luther King. Denounce violence, accept Israel, and protest peacefully to become citizens of Israel and live side by side with their Jewish neighbors. In a perfect world , Israel would be a peaceful multicultural country. Israel probably won't accept this because with current demographic trends, the Arabs may outnumber the Jews. But the government probably couldn't get away with violently suppressing peaceful protesters who only seek justice and peace. This tactic might get them a better deal for a two state solution. The Palestinians should threaten Israel with peace, instead of violence.
12
Are you writing about the Gerrymandered Peace Plan agreed upon without the input of the Palestinians? I could only think of the Opportunity Zones inserted by Kushner into the US tax plan that benefits his family and is being used for luxury Condos in Long Branch,NJ which was not the purpose of the program. Listening to an interview he used that word, "opportunity", frequently. He gives new meaning to the word, in this case it is intended for Netanyahu and Kushner and shoved in face of the Palestinians. He might as well used the phrase to the Palestinians as his comrade Mulvaney used to this nation to accept the unacceptable, " Get over it,"
6
Yes the Palestinians have made mistakes but does that mean they should give surrender now? This plan would be a surrender. They would never get their own country.
I've said it before but it bears repeating. You really love Trump. What you don't like is that he's crude and a racist, in other words, his style. You love that he's a plutocrat, using government power to enrich himself, his family and his cronies. You love the executive orders which empower polluters and restrict peoples rights, any rights. You don't like his trade wars but you love the subsidies for farmers and anyone else hurt but the trade wars and who supports him. You love that he killed Suleimani. The only good Iranian is a dead Iranian, right. You especially loved the tax cuts. Rich people should pay nothing. Every else should pay to support the military, the only legitimate function of government.
You're a phony Never Trumper.
14
But Bret aren’t the Jewish people going backwards by constantly seeking land that was theirs many years ago?
17
Spot on...
In retrospect, after the first fiasco, fifty years ago...
They and the Israelis should've agreed on as large a simple-bordered block encompassing the Gaza strip – and jointly declared it a first region of a sovereign Palestine...
All of the hurt and hatred and vengeance could’ve been carried forward – but in the context of a sovereign entity that could make law, currency, alliances…
And a vibrant coastal Mediterranean economy, for itself…
If this’d been done – two things would’ve likely followed, within a decade…
1. A second region would’ve been identified and agreed to
2. The endless – and, as you say, pointless – fervor about a fraction of a 5000 year-old city would’ve subsided
On that last one, progressives – look around the Arab world…With a few exceptions, the cities of which they’re proudest and most possessive are the ones they’ve built in the last 25 years…
And they’ve been gut-renovating the older ones…
PS
One might say this was, of course, impossible – because of Israeli tendency toward intransigence, and a tendency most of their neighbors toward genocide…
But – there was an abject failure of leadership…
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/world/middleeast/mystery-lingers-whereabouts-of-his-hidden-fortune.html
PPS
Eerie parallels between how this guy ran things, and some NYC mayors do…
And the proposed borders – sort of a love child of a map of Houston flood-zones and either of AOC’s or Jerry’s Congressional districts…
3
Let's take as gospel that nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less.
And let's also take as proven fact that by refusing the deal now on offer the Palestinians are letting history pass them by.
However, it cannot be firmly concluded that the Palestinian stuggle now drops dead.
How many years did Jews in the diaspora struggle for their homeland?
How many deals did Zionist and other Jewish leaders reject in order to gain a nation of their own?
The Holocaust could well have killed the dream. But the Jews fought on.
It's dangerous, shortsighted and cruel to dismiss Palestinian
nationalism.
The U.S. and Israel insist on treating the Palestinians like irrational children who don't know what's best for them.
That sort of thinking only ensures there will never be peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
7
You know what that plan is? - An authorization to blatant and shameless land grab by Israel. Look at the map they are proposing. This is total madness. No country can survive with such a scattered territory. And on top of it, it would be cut off from its vital water source, the Jordan river. It would be open to black mail any time by Israel. And a tunnel or "private" highway from Gaza to the West Bank? Who came up with such stupidity? And then an attempted $50 billion bribe! Typical Trump! Bribe your way through. I've rarely seen such a transparent attempt at obfuscation and cheating. The Trump Administration has no credibility. They are shameless. And they try to sell this as progress. And Bret Stephens tries to justify this abomination and absurdity, and now blames the victims. That's absurd, too.
13
If the Palestinians said "Yes", how would they be better off? Please answer.
7
The Israelis have offered much help to the Pal's over he last 60 years; but the Pal's have only taught their people to dislike the Israeles. And teach theri children in their school system to not mingle wih Jewish children. So a policy of hate still persists. Just like 1949.
4
Bret,
Hate to tell you mate but everytime the Israelis say yes, they also lose.
5
Once again Mr Stephans, your prejudice is showing.
I thought we were to never blame the victims.
Well, if they’re only Palestinians, I guess it’s ok?
12
Bravo
4
In his Opinion piece Bret Stephens makes some excellent points especially regarding how the Palestinian Authority by not taking a seat at the table does nothing to help the Palestinian people .
That all been said the fact remains that without the Palestinian Authority participating the peace plan cooked up by Trump and his ''partner in crime' Nethanyahu is not worth the paper it is written on .
The hasty release of the peace plan of course can only be explained by the fact that Trump intended to interfere in Israel's upcoming election , in an effort to to assist his friend Nethanyahu quest to retain power.
At the risk of outing myself as one of what Trump would term a 'Disloyal Jew ' Trump's sham peace deal will garnish him few if any Jewish votes in Florida or elsewhere . Trump fails to recognize although Jews love Israel we do not especially love Nethanyahu or much less even like him.
No we Disloyal Jews will be voting for Trumps opponent based on Trumps long and sordid history of dog whistling Anti Semetic tropes , and most of all his odious equivalence of Neo Nazi's and those who demonstrate against them.
4
It’s never been about statehood...otherwise Arab Palestinians would have had a thriving, prosperous state many decades ago.
No. It’s always been about defeating the Jews, eliminating Israel, and reasserting Arab Islamic hegemony over the small sliver of territory their forbears once conquered, occupied, colonized, and lost. One could argue that, as the descendants of Arab invaders and occupiers to a land not their own, the territory was never rightfully theirs to begin with...nor are they indigenous to the area.
For 70+ years, they’ve been waging a so-called ‘honor war’...or more appropriately, a war of dishonor, terror, and false narratives. Nevertheless, in that little corner of the Levant, the days of dhimmitude are over...and they’re NOT coming back
18
Some of Bruni's principles have merit, but I think that any chance for building towards anything like peace will require not only Abbas and the Hamas leaders to step down, but also for the other would-be partners - Israel and the U.S. - to have new leaders. In the best of circumstances - which this surely is not - there can be no chance for constructive engagement when the leaders with all the power are the most corrupt and racist either nation has ever had to endure. This framework, with Netanyahu and Trump gone, could be a start largely because as Bruni correctly notes, it represents mostly the status quo. The leaders of all three partners must be able to trust each other, and their people must be able to trust them. At present, we're 0-for-3 and, frankly, things can't get any worse for the Palestinians. Everything could be different in less than one year's time - let us pray!
2
I see a lot of petty arguments, those determining that the Palestinians should take whatever crumbs the Israelis and the U.S. give them. Israel is the aggressor taking more and more of the land belonging to the Palestinians. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to assess the map of Palestine to see little remains of Palestine. What we are observing is much like the U.S. and our land grab from the Indians. We can also see Russia making the same aggressive moves against their neighbors. Who is Trump's unqualified son-in-law to dictate to the Palestinians or any other sovereign nation. I listed to Kirchner's interview on the subject and he behaved like a little privileged brat with a game of monopoly. He absolutely espoused the theory that 'might makes right,' as referenced here previously. It is completely distasteful and antithetical to American values. This latest move by Trump, a so called peace plan that validates Israel's illegal invasion and usurpation of Palestinian land is beyond the pale. An agreement arrived at by the U.S. and Israel without including the Palestinians is no agreement at all, it is another dictatorial move by Trump and family.
5
Wasn't the entire Zionist effort prior to 1948 an exercise in looking backwards: establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, something that happened last more than 2000 years back? Should not the Zionists have accepted that they were not going to go back to Palestine? And yet, the Palestinians are now being given gratuitous advice that they should not look backwards. The Yiddish word "chutzpah" I think is meant for such situations.
10
The Palestinians were never consulted at all about accepting a State Minus (this is Netanyahu's description) and trusting Trump to provide 50 billion for economic development. It's a bald faced scam meant to distract from Trump and Netanyahu's problems.
4
Nobody is talking about the original, legal promise for the entire west bank/state of Israel, from the river to the sea, being part of the promised Jewish homeland, starting with the Balfour Declaration. If these layered internationally approved agreements are bogus to those who think Israel, any sized Israel, is illegal, then what makes Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, even Saudi Arabia any more "legal"? The winners who took former Ottoman land and carved it up didn't consider the many religious and ethnic groups into consideration, as Iraq with its mess clearly shows. But, they did believe, for whatever reasons, that Jews should have a country of their own, in their historic homeland.
Of course Arabs from all over the Middle East came to live in what you call Palestine. The Ottoman Turks took in few Jews, ran some of them out, murdered enough, forced conversions to Islam, and created an environment of horrific poverty and often starvation for the Jews. So that's why their numbers were fewer. But, do your readings, most of Ottoman Palestine was a no man's land. It took the establishment of Mandated Palestine (for the Jews) to bring in tens of thousands of Arabs from all over to get better paying jobs from the Jewish farmers. Israel does NOT owe this land to the Palestinians, but it has to find a solution for these people that doesn't destroy Israel in the process. The longer the Palestinians delay, the less they get.
10
"Things rarely go well for those who try to live history backward."...Then why would we be ok with turning back the clock of Jewish history and recreate the state of Israel? Because we felt guilty about the Holocaust? Because the Arabs "lost the war" (but helped the Allies defeat the Ottomans)? This has nothing to do with history but rather with might is right, rewarding authoritarians like Netanyahu.
5
Whatever you think of the "Deal of the Century," there remains one practical problem. Any Palestinian leader who endorses it will be assassinated before you can say Anwar Sadat.
2
Some time ago I posted in another venue my thoughts on a two state solution: Jewish West Bank settlements adjacent to Israel would become part of Israel. Small settlement outposts would be evacuated. Larger settlements not adjacent to Israel would remain in place with their residents becoming Jewish citizens of Palestine.
That last idea -Palestine having Jewish citizens - was immediately and strongly criticized. Apparently Palestine must be Juden frei. This while the Jewish state of Israel has about 20% non Jewish citizens, mostly Muslims.
I wonder what Bret Stephens and others think about the necessity of there being no Jews in Palestine.
4
Alas, the one thing the old guard of neoconservative elites shares with Donald Trump: a perverse love of punching down.
3
There's a wonderful moment in the film "Gladiator" when the Roman army is about to go into battle against a ragtag bunch of Germans near the Rhine and Drusus says to Maximus, "A people ought to know when they're conquered." And Maximus replies, "Would you, Drusus? Would I?" To the victors belong the spoils, right? Of one thing we can be sure, if Bibi likes the Trump peace plan, it's a thoroughly bad deal for the Palestinians.
4
Stephens writes, "Nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less."
Therein lies the fallacy in Stephens thinking: equating the varied and varying Palestinian interests with "the "Arab side." I would simply note that Black September, the Palestinian group that murdered eleven Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972, was named not after an Israeli operation against Palestinians but after a Jordanian crackdown on Palestinians.
6
Having just been established by WW2 European nations smack dab in the middle of Bedouin country, the people finding themselves in the land, might have been better neighbors. I mean really, they'd just lived through the nazi holocaust with all those horrible events. One might have thought that they'd be the best neighbors because they had just been rescued. It could be added that if not for the powers of basically christian nations, that new nation would not have been established nor sustained.
A cursory study of Bedouin land since about 1947 shows a shrinking of Palestine land and a growing of the settlements and other illegal growth. Something wrong with this picture. There are groups of activists within israel who are trying to curb the illegal settlements and government over-reach. Their own people don't like what their country does to Palestine.
2
I agree with you in principle, but I think Israel would stand on much firmer ground if it had never, ever allowed the settlements to begin with. The only conceivable reason for settlements was, and is, to get a foothold on the West Bank, with a mind to complete annexation in the long run. Whether this is right or wrong is not for me to say, but it makes it harder for a hypothetical reasonable Palestinian to get an upper hand in public opinion on her/his side of the conflict. And if there are no reasonable Palestinians, why pretend to negotiate? Why not just annex the whole shebang and deport them? That’s not MY position, mind you, but if it is not the real plan behind the curtain, then what IS the real plan?
4
Mr. Stephens has produced a very nice example of "blame the victim".
The perpetrators of this proposed "plan" are Trump, Bibi and
the oh-so-unqualified Kushner. Not the Palestinians. Its designed to elicit a rejection. So that they (and Mr. Stephens) can then blame the Palestinians for the coming neo-apartheid "single state solution".
12
And, by extension, every time Netanyahu says, "No!" he wins.
6
I really love how everyone who is not a Palestinian knows exactly what they should do.
17
One of the most common myths about this conflict has been that the Palestinians always say no. Careful historians have found the opposite: decades of offers by the Palestinians and Arab states to which Israel always said no. Far from being ready to take less, the Israelis have always been maximalists.
Since Israel took the West Bank in 1967, it has sunk billions of dollars into settlement construction to ensure it would never have to give the territory back. Since the first intifada, this plan was simply adapted to provide the Palestinians an autonomy zone - read, Bantustan. This is what Trump has endorsed: an openly apartheid arrangement, where one ethnic group surrounds and dominates another that is disarmed and rendered helpless to resist. It lays Israel's fundamental racism bare (and Trump's).
The good part of this apartheid "plan" is that the situation is now too obvious to ignore. The only solution is the South Africa solution: one state for all its residents. It's been the only solution for a long time, but people didn't want to admit it. Maybe now, with a different goal (unification) and the real problem (racism) made plain, negotiations can start that are not based on myths and the other pointless, distracting hooey this article promotes
22
Israel's existence is truly the manifestation of history lived backwards, enabled by some leaders who felt overwhelming guilt about their treatment of all Jews throughout time, but especially their ambivalence during WWII. The sacrifice of the Palestinians was the amelioration.
9
Whatever agreements are made, I still expect Israel to continue its land grabs far into the future.
8
The same argument applied to native Americans trying to resist the European/Caucasian grab for their land. To stay alive with any land, the native Americans had to keep saying "yes" as their situation got worse and worse. I think we even called the leading edge of the land grab "settlements." Maybe the Palestinians should say "yes" and build casinos on whatever "reservation" land the Europeans allow them. I suspect they will keep saying "no" - forever hoping that they will get justice; that a de facto state created on stolen land will find its conscience and repent. Mr. Stephens like many others engaged in 20th century "manifest destiny" arguments for the European colony of Isreal well know they are engaged in advacacy not truth seeking. Of course I will be reminded that the Palestinians were the true aggressors. I rather think that argument was made towards native Americans; for the most part - they kept refecting peace offers until they were wiped out; shame on them!
4
The argument Mr. Stephens makes here is one as willfully ignorant of the conditions of the Palestinian people as any proclaimed by 'knowledgeable' pundits of the imperial consensus. Ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians under the yoke of Israeli occupation, the continued expulsion of Palestinians by settlers, and the absolute disregard for human rights and international law that the Israeli government seems to have, he instead invokes the lazy accusations of Palestinians teaching Anti-Semitism, incubating terrorism, and, most insultingly of all, being unaware of the consequences of their rejection of this farcical solution.
It is a anti-solution that Trump and Netanyahu are offering the Palestinian people. The division of Palestine along the lines suggested only officiates the illegal division that has taken place up to this time. No one who understands the conflict will be convinced that Israel will respect any national boundaries; they have not for the last 70 years. That Saudi Arabia and the UAE support this measure isn't shocking; the two feudal-capitalist states are as much dependent on American imperialism as Israel. The White House has made clear its loyalties, and Mr. Stephens again makes clear his disdain for the Palestinian people, and their right to resist. They say 'No' to oppression.
8
And if they say “yes” they lose. Life under the Trump Administration
1
Stephen's concern for Palestinians' decision-making is touching and disingenuous. .. the sub heading states.. "things rarely go well for those who try to live history backward." Isn't this exactly the principle the Israelis live by?
9
There are vicious border disputes all over the world (Cyprus, Western Sahara, Kashmir etc.) but for reasons I think we all understand, the only border dispute anyone seems to care about is the one that involves Jews.
9
Maybe because they claim to be a democracy...a democracy that gets billions of dollars from American taxpayers.
5
Less than 20 years ago Stephens moved to Jerusalem to edit the Jerusalem Post because he believed media here wasn’t correctly reporting the Israeli situation. “I do not think Israel is the aggressor here,” he said then. “Insofar as getting the story right helps Israel, I guess you could say I’m trying to help Israel.”
He’s still trying.
13
Why would the Palestinians trust a plan they had no input on? It's absurd.
11
“Every Time Palestinians Say ‘No,’ They Lose”
but less than they would have lost had they said “yes”.
5
Bret, try to use the analogy between the Palestinians and the Native Americans in this country. Historically, they were driven from their own land based on a bibllical claim not shared by everyone. Why would they be willing to give up all claims to what was once their's as a convenient way for the world of nations to escape it's shared guilt for the fate of the jews in WWII by giving them someone else's country. I share the Jewish need for a home land, but I share the Palestinian need for a home land too. This is not as easy to solve as it looks to a person like you who has already made up his mind.
6
Sure. The Palestinian people have always gotten a raw deal.
European immigrants carved Israel out of the Middle East by means of weapons and woe. Israel has existed for 72 years now, for one reason and one reason only: its military might. This in turn, is based on the continued support of rich "European" countries, especially the United States (a country not in Europe, but dominated by European people).
Israel cannot subject the Palestinians to the level of ruthless and unremitting violence necessary to totally subjugate a people. If Israel went anywhere near there, international support for Israel would dry up. Then the country would cease to exist. The end most likely being a horrific tragedy involving tremendous violence. For if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.
During all the time that Israel has existed, compared to the rest of the world, European people have enjoyed extraordinary wealth and power. This has not always been so, and will not continue to be so for ever. Israel's military might is not permanent. As soon as it ends, so will Israel.
Israel needs to stop living by the sword. Israel needs to change. Not the Palestinians.
7
"Things rarely go well for those who try to live history backward." Wait, this on behalf of a country founded less than a hundred years ago in compliance with a wish uttered yearly for thousands of years: "Next year in Jerusalem?" A land where the spoken language was dead a hundred years ago, until it was revived programatically? A place built by expropriating land from the current occupants in order to honor the "original occupants"? Oh, come on. I'm Jewish, I lost family in the Holocaust, I recognize the strong impulse of the Jewish people to have a country, not to live at the mercy of others. But to couch the existence of Israel in the language of the inevitability of history strikes me as the pettiest sophistry imaginable. Israel had English backing, it later secured American backing. If that means historical inevitability, fine. But let's not try to make this a historical imperative.
8
Mr Bruni's commentary encapsulates conservative thinking. To the victor go the spoils. Or, military might makes right. Or manifest destiny for the Israelis. Or, the ends decided on by those who have the biggest army and most bombs justifies the means. We have heard and watched this patriarchal two-step so many times over the centuries. Anything short of a two-state solution with occupied lands becoming part of Palestine(those Jews who live there can remain or be paid fairly for their property) is destined for failure. This is like how the US treated the Native American tribes in the 1800's or the Allied powers treated the Axis powers after WWI. We know how well that went.
5
Trump's so-called Deal of the Century is more like the Steal of the Century.
The Israelis are essentially imitating the US by legitimizing their theft of Palestinian lands, just as the US has legitimized its own theft of Native Indian, Mexican, or Hawaiian lands with similar legal fig leafs like Trump's proposed deal.
This is worse than Versailles, more like the international formalization of Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing program and a carte blanche building permit, making Trump's so-called Deal of the Century more like the Steal of the Century.
In process, intent and diplomatic effectiveness this so-called “peace” plan isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
For years Israel has been gaslighting the world with talk of peace and a two state solution.
This plan has one positive aspect, it lays bare the Israeli vision of "peace" for all to see. It is not a two state solution but apartheid. A legal cover for occupation.
The traditional zionist claim to be interested in a fair compromise and a settlement leading to peace and harmony has become threadbare to the point of transparency.
It is now clear that Israel itself is a threat to peace and cannot be allowed to continue to exist in anything like its present form.
If the international community does nothing when Israel once again illegally annexes occupied territory then it has learnt nothing from the mistakes made in the 20th century.
5
With all due respects, Brett, if they say yes they also lose. The common error is historical. When the great and victorious nations created the Jewish State, an accommodation for the Palestinian peoples should have been considered as part of that process. The argument that there was not a Palestinian homeland belies the fact that neither was there a Jewish homeland of recent vintage. The "Palestinian problem" which ensued was totally predictable and the cost was in Israeli and Palestinian lives. This so-called Peace Plan exacerbates the situation as it, once again, ignores Palestinian interests and imposes a solution that can only succeed through an honest negotiation between stakeholders. If you were to argue that the Palestinians at this time are not ready to negotiate, your point would be more valid. Imposing a settlement ensures continued violence. In my opinion, your analysis is simplistic, naive, or both. The end result would create additional dangers for both Israel and the Palestinians.
5
The Palestinians will never accept this agreement because they know if they did the US and Israel would reneg as they have done with every other agreement and US has recently done with the agreement with Iran. They will never see 1 cent of the 5 billion (how much taxes are they owed anyway?) and the terms look like they are nothing but loopholes. Would the US or Israel accept an agreement like this if they were on the other side? Probably the Palestinians know and Israel should keep in mind that Israel can win a million times but can't even lose once. So everyone should work as hard as they can for peace, justice and human rights even if means ignoring the contradictory communiques of the magical sky being.
7
Arabs think that rejecting Israel and attacking her for the last 75 years should not matter. Now that they lost every war they started and rejected every offer made to them they play a victim card. Why should Israel give back which was earned by blood of their citizens? This is not a chess game where you lose and then set the pieces back and play a game again. They have to face the facts and move on. Saudi Arabia realized that they need Israel much more than they care about Palestinians. Game is over.
11
I was born in Poland.
For ~150 years Poland was off the map of Europe. And then, she was born again.
Palestinians need to take the long view. They have little left to lose. Rapacious, arrogant, armed to the teeth world power and it's sidekick are arrayed against them As were three partitioning Empires arrayed against Poland.
Nothing lasts forever.
3
Why don't the Palestinians simply say "We don't like it; let's negotiate" instead of rejecting the plan outright?
Unless, of course, they don't really want a state unless they can have one without there being an Israel.
Michael Kaufman
10
But then hearkening back to Old Testament fictions as basis for current sovereignty claims is about as "backward" as can be imagined. So it works for some if not for all.
6
It all started when they hit back.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Got it...
6
The Palestinians made one key mistake: they existed.
They existed on land somebody else wanted, and that somebody had more guns.
10
@Milo
Actually the arabs had more guns, everyone seems to forget the country of Palestine included the territory that is now Jordan, the split decided by the UN in 1947 was equitable
9
I think Mr Stephens is correct that a mere "No" or even "Heck No!" from Abbas and the Palestinians would not serve their purpose. Seize the moment! The cabal of real estate slumlords and grifters currently mis-representing the US and partnering with the Israelis have put forward their opening offer. Naturally they present it as a "fait accompli". However there is no reason for anyone - especially Mr Stephens - to accept it at face value! What is needed from the Palestinian side is a serious counter-offer. Here is my proposal: a return to the 1948 borders and reparations of 1 trillion USD to be paid by the US and Israel to the new Palestinian state, justified by the damage to the Palestinian economy caused by the illegal Israeli occupation during the past 50 years. Also it is obvious that the US has forfeited its role as "honest broker" in any peace talks and should not seek to re-assume such a position going forward. If Israel insists on US participation the Palestinians should be allowed to pick their own partners to join the talks (I would recommend the Iranians.)
3
Anyone who has read the history of Native Americans after 1607 --every time they negotiated with the U. S. settlers, they lost -- is familiar with the plight of the Palestinians.
8
This "peace plan" has many trappings of the homelands solution in apartheid South Africa: Keep the most desirable land for the ruling class and push the "others" onto what remains. I suppose it's possible that if the Palestinians reject this even more coercive pressure will be applied, their lives will be made even more miserable and the next plan will be even worse, but don't expect peace to come from by making them choose between a bad and an even worse solution.
8
A guy with a gun says “I have a deal for you. Stand by quietly while I take your farm land, your water and your livelihood or I will take your life.”
9
Instead of offering $50 billion to the Palestinians so they can relinquish their claim to East Jerusalem and 30% of the West Bank, why not offer the money to the Jewish settlers so they can move back to Israel proper?
This is nothing more than a land grab by Israel. All the arable land and water resources of the West Bank are given to Israel and the Palestinians are left with the densely populated towns and cities
8
So, why Palestinians have to say Yes if they don't agree with the plan? Does Israel say Yes if the plan is not convenient for them? I don't think so.
Trump has divided our country, knows probably nothing about the ME, is totally distracted by his impeachment and is supporting Netanyahu who has a dubious past eager to be elected again in order to avoid jail time.
I guess the Palestinians have all the right to say No for something that is just unacceptable.
4
While I enjoyed this opinion piece but I was disturbed by the unrealistic implication that if the Palestinians were to just say yes, they would get something, such as their own viable state. As for the other Arab countries, they should all consider the horrifying results of their hatred toward Israel. Lebanon, with Beriut, the Paris of the middle east, reduced to a pathetic and dysfunctional mess, Syria destroyed and Egypt a complete wreck. This hardly makes a good case for staying in a constant state of war with Israel. Now if Israel could just take the clear opportunity they now have to open the door for the creation of a viable Palestine, there just might be some takers.
1
The Palestinians will not lose. Whether it takes decades or centuries, the Palestinians will not lose. The quest for justice will not just go away.
6
The deal that Arafat turned down in 2000 was absolutely the best deal they would ever be offered.
They don't want a deal.
4
It's easy to see why they say no. Nobody ever says yes to being humiliated.
7
Does that mean if Palestinians continue to say "no" to unfair offers, all occupied territories will be annexed by Israel and Palestine will be a mere figment of our imagination? When something is forcibly taken away, it is natural to revolt. Palestinians were acting on basic human instincts. Hindsight is 20/20 and in retrospect they should have accepted the 1948 partition plan.
Since they have said "no" so far, can they be given one last opportunity to say "yes" to the 1948 plan? And if they answer with an affirmative, would Israel say "no" because it would mean giving up much of what it illegally occupied in the first place?
4
As the days pass I more and more believe the granting of statehood to Israel in 1948 will eventually be seen as one of the greatest mistakes of the 20th century.
3
@rlk
Or it could be seen as the greatest achievement of the Jewish people...to rise out of the ashes and successfully reclaim a tiny portion of the land that was taken from their forbears centuries earlier...and from literally nothing, build a modern, prosperous nation.
6
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. ~Will Rogers
4
Someone should call Bibi and let him know that the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Philistines called and want their land back. Since we're working our way back in history, let's go back to the beginning and not just pick a random point in time convenient for the occupying power of the moment. As for the Palestinians, I'm sure our Native American population, living on their their scattered and quasi-independent reservations can easily commiserate with not trusting or accepting anything offered by the folks with the bigger army.
6
It appears the two-State solution has failed. If I was Palestinian I would say to myself Israel has taken my land and militarily controlled my life, locking me in ghetto like areas, and now they propose to give me miserable desert in compensation for fertile land. Time it seems to declare a total loss and demand a one-State solution in which the victorious Israeli conquerors absorb their conquest.
2
And every time they say Yes, they loose too!
4
The Israel-first Stephens continues the lies of Netanyahu and Trump about this phony peace deal which was written to fail, so that Zionist supporters can blame the Palestinians. Israel has brutally occupied and oppressed the Palestinians for over 50 years, with the support of its lackeys in Washington. The Palestinians demand justice before peace, which they are entitled to under international law.
5
I assume you also endorsed Manafort’s “peace plan” for Ukraine: “Russia gets Crimea, you hush up and, voila: peace!”
Building on this diplomatic innovation, I’m proposing a “peace plan” for Manhattan: the Dutch get it. Voila: peace!
2
The Palestinians lose no matter what they say.
You would have them say "yes" to the current cynical proposal, which solidifies Netanyahu and the Israeli far right's criminal land grab.
Jared Kushner's "peace deal" is nothing more than a smoke screen for the indicted Israeli leader and Kushner's father in law, who would also be indicted if our legal system were as effective as Israel's.
4
The prevailing opinion is that Israel is exploiting the Palestinians, when in fact, it's Hamas and the PLO who are chiefly responsible for repressing their own people.
7
'live history backwards"?? How about those who live a fictional history, that they 'belong to these lands' and proceed to promulgate the same murder and opression they themselves suffered - inflicting suffering on their weakest citizens, tearing down their farms, taking their water. Psychologically it is so predictable - those who suffer torture will torture others.. But we are humans with a brain..Why can't the israelis see the hypocracy and injustice of their oppression, and the inevitable murder and wars that will come from their blind-eye.
5
Every time Palestinians say "Yes" they also lose. Your point?
7
Not much mentioned here is the plan to revoke the Israeli citizenship of 300,000 Arab Israelis living in the so-called Triangle south of Haifa. The boundary line wold be redrawn so Israel can shed 300,000 citizens just because they aren't Jewish. Let that sink in.
This plan was first proposed by MK Lieberman, the former bouncer who also suggested Israel "chop the heads off" Arab citizens. Such is the hate key Israeli leaders show toward those who who would blemish the purity of their "Jewish state."
It's another Israeli tactic to seize Palestinian land and minimize the presence of "undesirables" in their midst. Echoes of another conflict in Europe where Jews were the undesirables.
6
Of course they never say "yes" because the deals are always never in their best interests and are rigged in favor of the mighty Israel each and every time. They should never surrender on the ideal of having their own nation state and sovereignty!
4
Palestinians lost in 1948 when Zionists, with 1/3 of the population, declared more than 50% of the Palestine to be Israel. Including the Mediterranean land.
And now we have 70 years where refugees have not been able to return to where they were born, where their parents had homes and land, where their roots go back for hundreds of years.
Jews want anywhere in the world can be an Israeli citizen.
Those refugees want to return to their homeland.
6
Yeah, Bret. It's all their fault.
9
"Might makes right"...it is the mantra of the conservative, right-wing, fascist and oligarchic thinking. This is always apparent. The stronger tribe makes the rules. How un-Republic like!
3
The new map of the territory looks like a Republican gerrymander - so we know where they got the idea.
Brett, you have it backwards: Palestinians say no when they lose, it is a cry of despair not the causal agent.
Please be out of your kitchen by March, it’s mine now, and don’t say no.
3
The Palestinians, Iran, and proxies Hamas, Hezbollah are all dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
They will settle for nothing less.
11
The Palestinians will refuse every offer, because they want Jews not to have a state more than for themselves to have one, and honestly, compared to the rest of the Arab world, their life isn't bad at all.
10
You are exactly right. They are no different than the selfish native Americans who chose to die rather than give up their land. I mean compared to the life of the enslaved African Americans at that time, life on the reservation wasn't that bad.
2
A two-state solution is a joke. Israel has already destroyed that possibility. Let's get serious.
5
Hey Palestinians, have I got a deal for you!
We take the fertile, good land close to us as a part of Israel - beautiful nature for our tourist industry.
And you go to these carved up, barren, remote strips of desert and agree to this division.
You won't be able to eke out an actual living there, but worry not - a bus system and 'temporary alien worker' arrangement can be worked out, because Israel needs cheap labor - without political or union rights - to build its magnificent democracy.
You won't be able to drink, but...you know - to sweeten the deal, we're going to throw in 50 bil. underwritten by the US of A - a one time deal that you can use to pay Israeli contractors to build water pipelines that we can always shut down - you know, in case you ever accidentally forget the terms of your agreement.
You get your own state; and we're not economically responsible for your future, permanent immiseration, and - since you won't be 'one state' citizens - you don't get to vote or have rights when you're slaving in our garden Paradise.
Deal????
17
Every time Israel dictates knowingly unacceptable terms to the Palestinians, Israel takes more and Palestinians loses more. It is as rigged as any election Republicans have a stake in.
Hopefully Europe will imposed economical sanctions equivalent to that on Russia for their territory grab of the Crimea. This is nothing more than a land grab and the enhno-religious purging of non-Jews. Will the go back to Egypt and impose claims there too?
The "trope" that Jews are divinely entitled to land and territory where Palestinians live is essentially as cruel as real anti-Zionism. Unfortunately we now have an expansionist Zionism.
Imagine Irish-Americans returning to Ireland claiming ancestral lands with the backing of the leader of a military superpower thuggishly endorsing claims to confiscate land and demolish homes of present day inhabitants because of some bizarro ancestral claim. Worse, we have 'religious' zealots claiming divine right over Palestinian land that is no longer - if ever it was - theirs! Indeed, they could make a similar claim all over the world where Jews have lived and use a divine pretext over existing inhabitants to kick them out.
Every time Israel dictates its unilateral terms, the world loses.
4
And if Mandella had just said "Yes" to Apartheid, he wouldn't have had to spend all those years on Robben Island.
11
Try reading the Nathan Thrall op-Ed in your paper,
To get a handle on the actual facts and history,
And what the Palestinians have been asked to say “yes” to for the past many decades.
If you can then blame them for saying “no,”
You cannot claim a shred of “justice” with regard to your positions on them.
3
The "peace plan" is an approbation of Israel's illegal and immoral encroachment on the lives and property of the Palestinian inhabitants of an occupied land.
The proposal of a landlocked, unarmed, isolated Palestinian state shredded to ribbons by settlements of privileged Israelis is a Trumpian farce!
Israeli has the power and opportunity to do the right thing for all the territory and inhabitants of the Former British Mandate of Palestine. It need not negotiate with Palestinian politicians or seek permission from Donald Trump to establish a republic of two cultures with justice and liberty for all.
In the end, Jews and Palestinians must live together like civilized 21st Century people. The notion of a manifest destiny of one culture over all others was extinguished in the defeat of the Axis powers in the last World War!
2
As much as I despise this lopsided plan, there's truth in what you say -- each time the Palestinians refuse to compromise, they end up with less, and that has been true since the partition of 1948.
But that doesn't change the fact that this proposal is thoroughly obnoxious and harms both sides, because it makes peace less likely than ever and reduces as well the moral authority of the Israeli state (not that the Palestinians, with their history of terror and rocket attacks, don't have even less).
Israel did not begin as a colonialist land grab, but rather as legal immigration, followed by partition as a solution to conflict. But the settlements cannot be considered anything except a land grab.
I have long despised the claim of antisemites that Israel is an apartheid state, but taking Palestinian land and then forcing them into the equivalent of Bantustans starts to look suspiciously like it.
5
Two big dogs and one little dog are having a conversation.
"If we take your bone and you do nothing, that's called 'compromise,' the big dogs explain. "But if we take your bone and you resist, that's called an 'insurgency.'"
4
All non indigenous Americans and Australians who criticise Israel should get their own house in order.
5
This column makes me sad but realistically it describes what the situation is. The Palestinians have always suffered from terrible leaders. They need a Ghandi, Mandela, heck even a Gerry Adams would be better. Instead they have gotten succession of terrorists who don't know when to move on. Their Arab allies, well with friends like them, who needs enemies.
The Arab world usePalestinians as a foil to explain to their population their miserable living conditions. It is always the fault of the Zionists. Honestly can anyone commenting here list a single Arab country they would voluntarily live in?
Israel gets more powerful, in their own right, all the time. The world cares less and less.
The next deal will be even worse.
5
Well may be the Palestinians think they lost everything and they have nothing else to loose. So the Palestinians' rejection of the deal keeps Israel an abnormal entity craving for normalcy, which it will never attain as long as the Palestinians remain where they are.
2
Sooner or Later the Palestinians will give up on the two state farce, and simply demand Israeli citizenship. 1 person 1 vote.
1
A bully moves into your ancestral home and takes over room after room. Each time you say 'no', you lose.
2
There are 21 Arab countries: Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the Comoros Islands, Iraq, Djibouti, and the United Arab Emirates.
There is one Jewish state.
Palestinians and their supporters say there should be NO Jewish state.
Can someone explain why Israel should not exist as a Jewish state, while there are 22 Arabic states?
234
@sboucher
In North America there are three European immigrants countries: Canada, the USA and Mexico. There are no Native American countries.
Can someone explain why the State of Georgia should not become a Native American country, under the sovereign rule of the Cherokee Nation. Georgia would no longer be a part of the United States. Anybody who lives in Georgia and whom the Cherokee Nation does not recognize as being Native American, would not have the same civil and legal rights as Native American people. For example, they would not have the right to vote or the right to keep and bear arms.
122
@sboucher That was the Arab position 50 years ago. It is not the position of most Arab countries today, nor is it the position of most Palestinians other than Hamas. That bugaboo is the excuse that Netanyhu uses to grab ever more land from Palestinians. Other than the Oslo accord,
which was blown away by extremists from both sides, there has never been a serious effort from an Israeli government to negotiate a two state solution that Palestinians could see as the minimum they could accept. All offers involved humiliating conditions that if you were a Palestinian living there would surely reject.
55
@sboucher
The claim that Palestinians and Iranians and the rest of the world say Israel should not exist is no different than Trump saying: “Many people told me”.
Your argument that there is only one Jewish state doesn’t hold water. Nobody is allowed to throw you out of your own home only because he has no home of his own.
What about if Israel takes over one US state claiming it needs one and it is fair because America has 50 states while poor Israel has none?
56
Excellent article today by Brett. The Palestinians have been indoctrinating their children from the age of two to hate the Jews and believe their goal in life should be martyrdom in the quest of liberating Palestine, meaning eliminating Israel. Unless this changes the Palestinians will continue on their nihilistic approach to politics and life.
196
@Mitchell myrin
Israel has been doing the same thing with their children. The fact is that Israel is the oppressor. Palestinians are fighting oppression in the only way they know and can afford.
The peace plan is a total sham. Mr. Stephens knows this, and I am sure you do as well. I don't blame any opposing side for not sitting at the table for this farcical peace process.
46
What about settlers? Raised worshipping kindness and respect for others?
18
@Mitchell myrin Again, irony of ironies. An Israeli child sees walls and soldiers and then is bound to serve against weak Palestinians.
6
As someone who dislikes both Trump and Netanyahu and believes in human rights regardless of ethnicity or origin, I have to nevertheless with Mr. Stephens.
To those of you who disagree, a few questions:
1. Would Palestinians be better off spending money on an army or education and housing? Demilitarization is a blessing, which would require security guarantees. Does anyone honestly believe that a Palestinian army would be of any use whatsoever to Palestinians?
2. Would Palestinians be better off having peace with Israelis or conflict? Imagine the economic benefits of trade and investment?
While Palestinians were battling Israelis, Israelis were battling AND building their own country. Isn't it time for Palestinian leadership to admit to their people, "We have failed you. Let us now learn from our neighbors, that making conflict the center of our identity is pointless. Let us now take a page from our adversary, and make education and economic success the center of our identity. Let us ensure that our grandchildren live as well as their neighbor to the West. Let us win by showing them that we can build a Singapore to their Israel. Let us be proud by showing what a great country we can build."
16
I agree with what you say, BUT . . . It seems to me that The presence of WB settlements just makes this possibility that much more difficult to realize. They certainly don’t make it easier.
1
The Palestinians are being treated like the American Indians were.
19
@Mickela
Rubbish. Back in the 1970s, the Labor party was strongly in favor of Palestinian statehood. West bank Palestinians used to flock to Tel Aviv beaches prior to the first uprising in 1987. It was the suicide bombings of the 1990s that left Israelis discouraged about reaching an accommodation with the Palestinians. But the Israelis have long offered to negotiate the disposition of the West Bank.
8
@Mickela I don't remember the American Indians using rocket attack against civilians or children as human shields... must be my revisionist history.
6
@Mickela
At the time, there were no enforceable laws to protect the American Indians. Today we have established laws that should be protecting the Palestinians.
2
"Things rarely go well for those who try to live history backward."
Whereas things go all too well for those who break the rules, and bounds of decency, to get their way. Just look at the three gentleman (I'll exclude Gants for now) who put this "deal" together.
5
@Eve
The Middle East is the wrong place to be looking for kumbaya. Only the strong survive in that part of the world. And the Palestinians time and again have rejected Israeli invitations to negotiate.
1
How are Jared Kushner or Donald Trump even remotely qualified to opine on the Middle East peace process, let alone recommend actual policy? There are high school social studies teachers with broader and deeper knowledge of this subject.
14
While it's true that the Palestinians have been there own worst enemies when it comes to peace negotiations, that hardly justifies a ham-handed, one sided 'peace plan' by Trump and Netanyahu. Netanyahu and co. have slowly allowed the de-facto annexation of Palestinian territory by letting extremists build settlements. This peace plan smacks more of a face-saving, land grab by two semi-criminal leaders feeling the law nipping at their heels.
5
First the Balfour declaration then the U.N. resolutions and then Dier Yassin. All took from the Palestinians. True self determination has never been an option. The western powers resolutions have continued to ask the Palestinians to accept their losses with no hope of any type of restoration of what was once theirs.
5
@Vincent Germany was also forced to accept massive territorial losses after losing 2 wars that it started. The Palestinians could've easily been taken in by the surrounding Arab states, but they weren't because they needed a human shield to attack the Jews.
1
The 2000 deal was probably their best bet. But this deal is a loser if they say yes.
There will never be peace until the Arab Palestinians eschew violence. Had they done so in 1948, they would have had their own significantly larger state for 70 years. Bret is correct: the Palestinians have blown their opportunity for a state many times. Their "leaders" (dictators) have spent the massive amount of foreign aid received over the years on violence and stashed it in their own Swiss bank accounts. The only thing they have gained in the past 70 years are prodigious PR campaign successes against Israel. That won't get them peace and a viable state in the end.
16
I agree with Stephens that the plan finally calls a spade a spade. It states that transparency and enforcement are prerequisites for donations [which in the past have been secreted by the kleptocracy] and that "live and let live" must be the first and main order of business. Take it or leave it, step up to the plate or go back in time. That some Arab states are on board also shows a change:free your people from the servitude of lies, fantasy, and ignorance.
The plan favors no side- it is straightforward marching orders. The plan involves serious security risks for Israel.
10
they would lose if they said 'yes, as well.
3
Bret Stephens's column is convincing. But people are so rigid in their views on this matter.
I would join Stephens to say the liberals, including many US Jews who adamantly claim that this offer is unfair and wouldn't at all mind when the Palestinian leaders reject it, to immediately forget about the stress most Palestinians live under for 70 yrs. They have little to lose. Nor for the corrupt Palestinian leaders. They are intoxicated with the power & the struggle. They may worry about being assassinated ( In 2000, Arafat feared he would be assassinated by his people if did agree to the Camp David proposal)
Perhaps, by some ingenious ways, the Hamas & Fatah leaders ought to be bribed with about half of the $50 billion! Still the Palestinians will come ahead. Now they just struggle and endure the humiliation. They can't rebel against their leaders; they will be executed.
Rather than accepting this proposal in its entirety, they can bargain for a better deal, like getting half of the Jordan Valley, and greater area in the Sinai.
3
Since when does one group of people require the permission of another group of people to create a sovereign state? Why is Israel's agreement required for the Palestinians to do this? I don't think the Palestinians were polled on this subject in 1948, were they?
5
Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. There should be no religious states or state religions anywhere. Look at the countries with state religions. It's a pretty wretched list.
5
Have you looked at the maps? The Palestinian territories are riven with Israeli corridors and dotted with Israeli settlements like blue berries in a muffin. The way it's divided up, the Palestinians could not do anything without the permission and cooperation of the Israelis. If it was a home one could not go from one room to another without exiting the home and then reentering it, again, with all the utilities passing through the utilities of the neighboring homes.
It's not a serious proposal.
7
And to think Jared Kushner read 25 books to learn about the history of the area. WOW. His statement truly shows how ignorant he is and why he should not be in the White House working on any policy. However, we all know he and Ivanka are there to line their own pockets. This is no peace plan.
5
The Palestinians should definitely say yes to swapping out their most fertile territory for arid desert territory near Egypt and sign up for endless Israeli occupation. What self-respecting state would say no to a deal like this?
5
You may be right about LOGICALLY the Palestinians should take this deal. But if Trump/Netanyahu really wanted a deal they would have included the Palestinians in the discussion. No country/people are going to take a deal, particularly of this magnitude, that they had no say in creating. Diplomacy 101.
4
@Dennis Berry
And heaven forbid the Palestinians should use logic, right? The Palestinians do not have to "take the deal"... all they have to do is merely agree to negotiate. Its a no lose proposition... except perhaps for the fact that Iranian threats and intimidation might discourage them from sitting at the table in the first place.
2
Bret, I am sure I will be judged as “anti-Semitic” when I write this comment. So I will preface these following words by assuring you and your readers that would be far from the truth. I love my Jewish friends, a number being among my closest. I find the tenets of this religion to be more compelling and far more inspirational than my own Catholicism. That being said, the leadership of Israel seems to deliberately and cruelly overlook that the everyday Palestinian is a human being deserving of a home of his or her own. The mother, the father, the child, the laborer, the nurse, and doctor deserve freedom and rights and dignity. I can go on; there is more that need be said. But I will leave you with one question: How can any good be possible when both Netanyahu and Trump are the primary architects of a so-called “peace plan.”
98
Hamas calls for the eradication of Israel through armed conflict. It may be your opinion that Hamas is merely posturing, but why not take them at their word? The Palestinian Authority has NEVER deviated from it position of the "right of return" - that several million Palestinians have the inalienable "right" to live in Israel, not merely in the Palestinian state. This would be the end of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people Here too you may think that they are merely posturing, but maybe after seventy years of not deviating from this uncompromising position, maybe it's time for the Palestinians to come up with a workable "peace plan". Sorry to disillusion you, but these positions of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority predate the births of Trump and Netanyahu.
28
@Kathy Lollock Aren't Israeli families likewise human beings deserving of homes of their own, freedom, rights and dignity, yet the Palestinians would deny them those by eradicating their country and "ethnically cleansing" them from their ancestral homeland.
If you have studied "Just (defensive) War Theory" under the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you would understand why the IDF has to take harsh measures to defend Israel's civilian population from terrorism. Talk to your Parish Priest about this; perhaps he can recommend some readings from the Catechism and elsewhere which will answer your questions.
Lack of knowledge is not necessarily anti-Semitism; however, enmity based on lack of knowledge certainly is.
17
@Kathy Lollock
The problem with your analysis is that every level headed person believes that the Palestinians want every Jew out of the Middle East. And they believe it because it’s true.
22
A truly monstrous proposition, that the world can offer no better than a beggar's bread crumbs to a deeply wounded and disenfranchised people, when the western powers and the UN were central in creating this situation. We are better than this, or at least ought to be. A better, more equitable settlement can be developed, that could serve both sides well, and foster genuine peace and prosperity instead of generational enmity. Those in power, both here and in Israel, prefer to take and keep what they can grab instead. President Carter had it right in his book on Palestine. It is unfortunate that he was not appointed to negotiate this "deal."
54
“A better, more equitable settlement can be developed...”
We’re all ears
7
@PT
The situation is much richer than your first blush would indicate. Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab lands, their properties were confiscated, and their roles in these societies were markedly limited. The international community has not said a word about these events, and yet you bemoan the behavior of the Israelis. Gee, I wonder why....
11
@PT The deeply wounded and disenfranchised people who actually deserve something are the Kurds.
9
All this does is legitimize the conquest of territory with an unwilling population through war, the most fundamental principle of international law and perhaps the only example of that since the end of World War II (at least in Crimea and Northern Cyprus there is reason to believe the people living in those regions generally accepted or welcomed the invasion). The world should accept the Israeli occupation of Palestine no more than it did the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.
81
@HO There is a difference between offensive and defensive war. The analogy to Kuwait is entirely misplaced. Unless of course Kuwait invaded Iraq along with two allies.
15
@Harpoon
Agree. There are consequences to losing multiple aggressive wars to drive a people into the sea.
18
@HO So if a portion of the population of Texas were accepting, you would be ok with Mexico invading and taking over Texas? Clearly then you would have been ok with Germany invading Czechoslovakia in 1939 because the local Sudetenland population was open to it.
As Harpoon said, your analogy is deeply flawed in that Iraq invaded Kuwait. For the analogy (while still flawed) to be of any use, it would have to be if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait was able to win and push into Iraqi territory and took over those areas.
There is a basic principle you seem to ignore: to the victor go the spoils. In the history of the World, whoever won kept everything.
International law recognizes that waging a war to gain territory is not valid and the attacking country can be forced to return the land it "stole" by waging said war.
However, there is no concept in international law of forcing those who were attacked, to return the spoils gained while defending themselves.
13
What an ugly distortion of history Stephens is trying to sell.
The Palestinians rejected exactly what? They were violently driven out of and forced to give up give up most of the land their ancestors had been living on for centuries beginning in 1948, then in 1967 and continuing ever since and for what? To make room for yet another religious theocracy, basing all their territorial claims on a four thousand year old scripture?
Imagine a tenant moving into your house and one day decides to claim ownership of it, generously letting you stay in the basement. You reject it, so you next banned to the outhouse.
36
@waldo You know there were Jews living in Mandatory Palestine before 1948, right? At the time, the Palestinian Arabs were not distinct from those in Jordan or Syria or Lebanon.
3
I've travelled in the West Bank. It's little more than a tightly controlled ghetto located in the poorest lands you can find in Israel and what's left is being chipped away by advancing Israeli settlements, thanks to policies pushed by extreme religious parties often holding the balance of power in Israel's Knesset (parliament).
Palestininians should resort to wearing the star of David armband in there - showing the Israelis what they have pushed them into.
207
@marco While the old adage "Turnabout is fair play," often appears correct, having the one-time victims of ghettoization in Europe pulling this on another people reflects badly on the Jewish People, who are far more than Israelis and the present government there.
18
@marco In have been crossing, or attempting crossing, the Israeli wall. How people there (and I) were (badly) treated by Israeli soldiers indeed reminded of another century.
15
@marco
Where is Canada's peace plan?
Another thing the bloggers don't understand is that the Palestinians don't want to have their hypothetical future state to live in peace next to Israel. They want their state to replace Israel. Nothing else will satisfy them. No Israel period. It's either Palestine or nothing.
25
And you’ve talked with exactly how many Palestinians to derive this position? And been to the West Bank how many times? This is the kind of fear-mongering that keeps the conflict alive. For myself, I’ve met and spoken with numerous Palestinians, not one of whom expresses that expectation. They would like to see an end to their homes being seized or bulldozed and an end to midnight visits from the IDF. Go figure.
14
The dehumanizing of “the other” needs to stop.
This is ridiculous, racist, and counterproductive.
Replace Jews for Palestinians and Palestine for Israel, read out your comment aloud, and then think of how that sounds ?
1
@sharon5101 Palestinian opinion is not all the same. There are differences of opinion. Your statement is not accurate. Some Palestinians are talking about a One State Solution with equal rights for all.
1
One of the reasons I voted for Bernie Sanders in the last Presidential election was his promise to listen to and advance Palestinian rights.
I am most likely going to vote for him in the coming election, confident that his words on supporting Palestinian rights even if that puts him at odds with the far right in Israel, are true.
Bernie has shown great courage as a Jew in taking his position saying he, as President, would look at the contributions America makes to Israel in the light of apartheid.
Well, he didn't use the word apartheid, but that is what it is.
Hugh
168
@Hugh Massengill Hugh your statement is courageous. I agree with you. We had a close friend, now deceased, who was a Reformed Rabbi. I so admired him and his philosophy of life. His words are forever with me. He was for peace in Israel. He even disagreed with his fellow rabbi and friend at their synagogue. You see he was for a two-state agreement in which neither Palestine nor Israel were exploited or abused by each other. They would share a peaceful coexistence where individual, social, and economic rights and dignity were equal.
30
@Hugh Massengill
Well, no.
There are plenty of Arab, Muslim and Palestinian citizens of Israel, living inside Israel’s borders and eligible to vote in Israeli elections. There was an Arab member of the Israeli Supreme Court until he reached mandatory retirement age.
Calling this “apartheid” is a lazy attempt to sound woke but completely misses what’s going on.
The first big difference to keep in mind is that the Palestinians depended from 1948 until Recently on the leaders of sovereign Arab nations (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) to help them/represent them/lead the fight for them.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians never realized that those countries didn’t really care about them and used them as pawns in their own political fights.
Had the Palestinians opted to work with the United Nations before the 1947 partition vote, things might have turned out differently, but they stuck to an “all or nothing” attitude and got nothing.
They made bad decisions and have been paying for it for 70 years. And nothing is changing now.
45
@G - if you want to see "what's going on" you only have to look at a map.
5
Even if Mr. Stephens is right about the merits of the plan itself
-- and I'm dubious that he is -- he has failed to address the way it was presented. Having the know-nothing-do-nothing Jared Kushner stand in front of the media, contemptuously ordering the Palestinians to recognize the magnanimity of the U.S. in general, and the vile Trump in particular, is not an approach that would ever get anyone to agree to anything. And, yes, I know that there is probably no manner of presentation that would induce the Palestinians to accept the deal, there are other people listening. As Mr. Stephens pointed out, there are other Arab countries whose opinion matters and who can exert pressure on the Palestinian Authority. And there are other non-Arab countries, as well as the American public.
The arrogance displayed by Kushner at his press conference just fans the flames. No one listening to him could believe that his (or our sorry excuse for an administration's) goal is to seek justice. It's all about winning and exerting power. That kind of approach never results in a positive response.
5
I am sure, Mr. Stephens, the plan seems like a reasonable compromise to you. To Palestinians, it's another example of their impotence in the face of those who tell how how they should live, without them really having a say. They feel like they are settling for scraps; moreover, everyone else is saying they should be grateful for the little they are getting.
The competence (or lack of it) of their government isn't at issue here. They could have the most competent government in the world and still be forced to settle for scraps because they have no economic or military power (so no political power), and the system is expressly designed to prevent them from getting either. Until the Palestinians are truly equal partners in the peace process (which means they need a powerful patron - because they don't have political power), they won't stop acting in a way you would deem as harmful to their own interests.
6
Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for telling it as it as on the latest U. S. peace proposal, in contrast to the rest of the Times coverage.
"Two Allies Draw Map With Voters in Mind," NYTimes, January 29, had it that the proposal put forth by President Trump and endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is nothing more than domestic politics here and in Israel, driven by upcoming elections in both countries. That dismissal of the proposal as nothing more than domestic politics is followed by second line of derisive attack under the subheading "A Proposal With Israel Upends Decades of Diplomacy."
Decades of diplomacy, indeed. With what result? No peace but continuing violent attacks on Israel, no solutions, nothing from Palestinian leadership but rejection, and pre-Trump U. S. pressure on Israel to make concessions which served only to fuel the demand for more concessions.
The latest peace proposal will go nowhere because Palestinian leadership, true to past behavior, has already rejected it out of hand. Unfortunately that leadership will look to the Times's coverage of the proposal as validation for the rejection rather than reading the Bret Stephens column and finding in it the common sense that ought to guide Palestinian leadership to the benefit of everyone, not least the Palestinian people.
8
The proposed Palestinian "state," together with its accompanying conditions, really looks more like a reservation. However, the Palestinians should view the proposal as a reasonable starting point for negotiations. They should at least insist on half of the Jordan valley, a border with Jordan and the right to form a security alliance with other Arab nations. Tunnel access and possibly the borders should be controlled by the UN or a similar independent force.
2
If logic can solve the conflict and achieve the world peace,
it has been done already.
People have emotions, pride and values cultivated in a long history.
The logic especially from outsiders doesn't solve the intricate relations of the others.
The Palestinians have, over the years, as Mr. Stephens noted turned down even more generous opportunities to end the cycle of violence. They operate a corrupt government that cannot provide for the basic needs of the populace. Furthermore how can there ever be peace with Israel when the Palestinians support Hamas, which calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. In case Abbas and the chronic naysayers don't understand; countries do not negotiate for their survival.
9
@vdicerbo
Palestinians support the destruction of the state of Israel just like Israelis support the destruction of Palestine.
That's the very definition of "war", remember?
And as long as Palestinians see their country occupied by a foreign government that, with the military help of the US, has installed an apartheid regime, they will of course resist that occupation.
How would you react if you want your country back and the oppressor tells you you'll get a capital ... outside of your capital, and that's it ... ?
Violently oppress people, and they'll resist.
What Bret does here is arguing that David should stop throwing stones at Goliath.
He won't, of course ...
1
And every time the said Yes, the lost, too, because they were never meant to be treated fairly. Israel wanted their land, but not its inhabitants, and that's what the Trump administration is trying to make possible.
9
This reminds me of the old maxim -"Children should be seen and not heard'. Take the medicine because I (mom) know what's good for you, and you have no say in it. It's true that over the years Palestine has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but it would have been nice if someone (anyone) resembling a Palestinian was at the negotiating table when this deal was conjured up. Maybe Jared could have donned the robes. It takes two to tango, Mr. Stephens. Do you see two here?
2
Look at the picture in your own article. Do these young men have anything left to lose? They have no country, no state, no life. We would be in their shoes if we were born in their side of the tracks. Most of their leaders are dead anyway so of course they have no experience and know-how of our new political realm. This is just common sense.
5
So, I guess, France and Britain should have folded right away during WWII because they would have spared themselves some grief. The question is not what the Palestinians gain or lose (Real Politik), but what is right for them. After all, the right to self determination and not having your land and rights taken away by colonial powers are ... self evident truths.
4
Palestinians need to ask themselves the questions any deal maker does. What do I want? Can I get everything I want? If I can't get everything I want, is getting some of what I want better than getting nothing? The state of Israel isn't going anywhere. This fact must to be accepted. It might not be fair, it might not be just, it might be a cosmic injustice....but it must be accepted. Once this truth is accepted you can get on to the business of making life better for the Palestinian people. I'm not promoting this plan at all, but I am saying that outright rejection of every plan that doesn't give you everything you want is incomprehensibly self-destructive. It's just plain ol' bad business 101.
7
@Spiral Architect
They don't want a "deal", they want their land and homes back.
In the meanwhile, they aren't going anywhere.
That too, we will have to accept ...
4
There will be no peace with the Palestinians till the Palestinians have peace with themselves. There can’t be a two state solution when there are currently three governments, one of which is quite honest and open with their end game of genocide. Maybe the World would be better trying to pressure the Palestinians into reconciliation and to have open and honest elections that can bring some new blood into this process. Then when there is a unified Palestinian voice we can start to pressure Israel. Until then, it makes no sense to pressure the party that can’t make peace even if it tries.
9
"... it says something that it has been met with an open mind by some Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates..."
We sent two thousand US troops to protect Saudi oil fields. It's the least they could do in return.
I'm still waiting for Stephens's first column on Trump's anti-Semitism.
Crickets so far.
3
@Paul I think President Trump loves his Jewish daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren very much--and as such is not an Anti-Semite--but tries to be careful not to alienate right-wing anti-Semites in order to keep them as part of his base and tries to placate them into not attacking him for his Philo-Semitism. Think about it.
1
Just another timely political distraction by Trump and Netaynahu. Not worthy of any other comment, but...
1. Has humanity progressed ethically towards not causing greater suffering, sharing resources, and equality? Why not focus on this goal?
2. Americans distract themselves from their responsibilities for causing: suffering and inequality at home; millions of deaths, suffering, maiming, and refugees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria (throughout the Middle East and Africa and Central America). Then we focus on this surrogate struggle to pretend liberal and conservative empathy, morality and outrage for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
3. The Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians are both suffering extreme insecurity and extreme defense costs.
4. They might need a more creative solution with Gaza and the West Bank at religious odds with each other. Like a 3 state solution plus a UN protectorate for parts/all of Jerusalem. Maybe swap out Jewish settlements in the West Bank for Gaza. Buy and colonize a likely place in Africa like Uganda for all Palestinians.
5. This has gone on for decades and could well continue on as is for another 70 years. If no world wide disaster like Climate Change, what will it be like in 2090?
6. Get the Muslim world to talk amongst its factions and negotiate the settlement of their religious rivalries. That resolution would give greater urgency for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
7. Political groups are sustained by it.
2
It comes down to the iron logic that says “might is right.” No wonder all small countries want nuclear weapons.
4
Correction: these are not "Palestinians" who say "No", but their terrorist leaders, who cling to their positions, which they would lose if there were peace. It is time that the real Palestinian people and real Israelis talk to each other directly. Real or common people of both sides can live well together. I used to moonlight nights as a physician in a Palestinian village near Ramle and I never felt there in danger. I cherished their hospitality. The people should take power away from Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO and Israeli right wing settlers. It is the latter who murdered Rabin since they fear that he would achieve peace.
4
If the Pal's leadership has any sense of realism, instead of hollering their protests, they'd do well to start negotiating.
Accept outright the beneficial points, then move to the others.
In other words: The Trump plan is not a 'zero-sum-plan' but a draft to be negotiated between the parties.
2
@Jak
Where did we hear that before ... ?
Oh yeah, his plan to build a wall, and his plan to repeal and replace Obamacare - his two signature campaign promises.
When will you guys finally admit that he has neither a plan nor any negotiating skills ... ?
The GOP had already passed 50 bills that repealed and replaced Obamacare in the House, when Trump became president, and they controlled the Senate.
All that Trump still had to do was to negotiate with his own Senators.
And yet he failed.
Somehow, you still believe that he has what it takes to solve the most complicated conflict in the world today - all while systematicaly picking sides ... ?
Talking about "sense of realism" ... ;-)
2
When I was 7 years old and my two sisters were three and five, we were playing in a sandbox when a disagreement over the toys broke out, resulting in some crying and pushing and grabbing. My Dad listened to the three explanations for the fight and then took me aside. "Johnny," he said, "you're the oldest and strongest child in the sandbox. It's up to you to make sure these fights don't happen." As I protested my innocence, he told me that it didn't matter who did what, that I had the responsibility to maintain the peace, and that I should use persuasion and fair arbitration to keep everyone happy. I should be willing to give up some of my toys if that would help. The right leadership style would persuade my sisters to follow my example, he said, a lesson I have never forgotten.
Are you listening, Mr. Netanyahu?
2
"That ought to go for the Palestinians as well. The old cliché about Palestinians never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity has, sadly, more than a bit of truth in it. Nobody ought to condemn them to make the same mistake again."
Mr Stephens blames the victims. Disgraceful.
The "peace plan" is simply a smokescreen for Israel to further dispossess its indigenous population.
"For all the talk about Trump’s plan being dead on arrival, it says something that it has been met with an open mind by some Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates."
Those two countries are despotic and authoritarian kleptocracies. MBS anyone? Their support does say something about the plan but not what Ms Stephens would like us to infer.
9
If the Palestinians could form a state that is self governing and able to live at peace with their neighbors including the State of Israel they would have done so. The haven't and they can't. So, life goes on without such a state. The two state solution has become one state and the vain hope of another state.
8
The Palestinians had 5 decades of offers to make deals and their refusal to give up the right of return which was never a realistic ask has brought them to where they are today. This deal is terrible but really-what did they expect?
My family was run out of Belarus. There is no right of return for me. There are no assets for me to fight for. There is no justice for me. Records are gone, property destroyed. I can’t even trace my history beyond my own grandparents -it’s all just gone
I have moved on- I look to the future and what I can create and the Palestinians should have begun to do the same instead of the intifadas. Education and investment will set them free. And family planning.
23
@Deirdre
The intifadas are not about the right of return. They were about having to live permanently occupied by a hostile foreign power.
You left.
They chose to fight.
1
@Deirdre The offers the Palestinians received were never serious offers. Only Swiss cheese territories peppered with Israeli checkpoints and no real sovereignty.
2
@Deirdre
My family has a similar history--those who hadn't left Poland before the Holocaust were murdered. But does one injustice deserve another? When does it end?
2
To say the plan has been favorably received by some Arab states is disingenuous. UAE and Saudi Arabia acceptance means that a few autocratic monarchs agree with the plan. It says nothing about the plan's acceptance throughout the Arab world especially in the street. Further, taking a "pragmatic" approach suggesting some of Israel's annexations and encroachments are faits accompli that should be accepted is little different than suggesting there should be acceptance of Russia's annexation of Crimea. That the Palestinians lose each time a peace plan is proposed is because unjust plans are followed up by punitive actions.
2
@don healy The West Bank is nothing like Crimea, no sovereign state has claimed it since Jordan renounced their claims in 1988.
1
As usual Mr. Stephens has given me a lot to think about. I just hope He ruminates on why the Palestinian people may not trust or wish to engage with the American and Israeli governments. There are no impartial arbiters here.
9
Yes, well, given a Hobson's choice, what would you suggest Mr. Stephens?
7
@James Thomas
Apparently, he wants Palestinians to live in a way he would not tolerate for himself. But that is the US conservative way.
2
Actually, what does the majority of Palestinians prefer, current status quo or this deal.
Trump is just the latest 'leader' to bully the Palestinians. Ever since the establishment of Israel, the powers that imposed that solution, on top of the patchwork of Middle East boundaries imposed on the remains of the Ottoman Empire after WW-1 have tried to enact outside solutions through power and conflict. It's not surprising that the whole area remains a churning mess of religious, tribal, and nationalist conflicts. To imagine that Trump (and Jared, don't forget Jared!) can find a solution for this intractable mess after decades of outside meddling, stirring it up once again, is a fantasy. The whole area would benefit if some divine interference relegated it all to insignificance, and the rest of the world left them all alone to work out their differences... of course, that's not going to happen. And Trump's 'plan' is only the latest evidence, and certainly no solution.
8
Israel has stolen everything from the Palestinians. Stephens is absolutely fine with that. Of course, white European settlers have always been fine with stealing everything from indigenous people, shunting them onto reservations, and then blaming them for failing to accept the injustices heaped upon them. Maybe that is the takeaway here. The fact that people who were once victims can become victimizers is hardly surprising or new. What is rather disgusting, however, is the effort to rationalize such injustices through an argument that amounts to no more than "the powerful will do what they want and the weak suffer what they must." That is an argument that doesn't accord very well with Israel's self-serving presentation of itself as a victim, a status that justifies its injustices against the Palestinians.
16
I'l give it a try. About 21% of of the population is Arab and presumably not Jewish. Plus I have seen estimates of observant Jews at only about 20% of the "Jewish population. Thirdly, we live in a country where the state stays out of religious practice and I have little patience with a country that attempts to force religious practice, particularly when it is a minority attempting to force a majority. Finally there is the fact of Israel existing by virtue of seizing the land of the Palestinians. I accept that Israel has a right to exist now, but it owes major reparations to the Palestinians who lost their land, something I recall even George W. Bush stating. Frankly, I cannot look a Palestinian in the face as matters exist now.
9
Quoting Bret , who quotes abba Evan, the brilliant Israeli politician/ statesman:
“ The old cliché about Palestinians never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity has, sadly, more than a bit of truth in it”.
And Bret has pretty much recount the history substantiating his points.
What’s baffling is, why haven’t the Palestinians managed to produce leader(s) the Likes of Ben gurion to lead them forward, towards progress - rather than backwards, in just about any major area of ( national) life ?!
11
@amir burstein
Because (a) they prefer the victimization narrative over the real work of shaping their own destiny, and (b) it is an open secret in Palestinian society that challengers to the sclerotic regime that leads the PA will result in assassination by Iranian-sponsored groups such as HAMAS, PIJ or Hezbollah.
11
Thank you, Bret, for yet another piece full of common sense and wisdom. You are so right.
10
"What it offers is a sovereign state, mostly contiguous territory, the return of prisoners, a link to connect Gaza and the West Bank, and $50 billion in economic assistance."
It offers none of these things.
1.) The planned 'state' has no sovereignty over defence, security, over borders, over trade, over air space, over telecommunications, over foreign relations. This list of things that are to be subjected to Israeli control for eternity is not exhaustive. (pp. 49-)
2.) The 'mostly contiguous' territory is composed of no less than 10 major chunks plus several small exclaves, with the only means of connection being under Israeli control. Even the major chunks themselves are studded with Israeli settlements and criss-crossed by access roads leading to them. (p. 45-46)
3.) All prisoners convicted of "conspiracy to commit murder", which is a very wide net as cast by Israeli courts, will remain imprisoned indefinitely as well as all those convicted of murder or attempted murder. (p. 34)
4.) The 'link' to Gaza by means of a tunnel, which would require construction of the longest land tunnel the world has ever seen, under a desert no less, is a complete fantasy.
5.) Only slightly more than a quarter of the much-touted 50bn is supposed to come in the form of actual grants. And only slightly more than half of it is supposed to go to the Palestinians. (p. 98)
Over 10 years, this amounts to <0.8% of the Palestinian GDP per year.
This is a plan for perpetual occupation.
10
@TobyR
P.S.: Page numbers are given as the technical page count in the PDF document.
As a long time supporter of Israel and a fair two state solution, I agree with much of Bret Stephens' column, but do not agree that "no" is wrong for the Palestinians this time. The Palestinian leadership has been awful for a long time. They are responsible for much of the problem in reaching a fair two-state solution. But saying anything other than "no" to this United States so-called attempt at a peace plan would be wrong. President Trump and his Trump-like partner, Netanyahu, are untrustworthy and as unreasonable as many of the past Palestinian "leaders."
Let's hope the next leaders of both states and the "peacemaker" United States are of the sort more likely to make a fair two-state agreement.
6
Mr. Stephens outlined all the defects in the plan.
Such a plan is not good for Israel in the long run, not good for the Palestinians and not good for the United States.
Let us not give up on a good (if difficult) plan bring peace to both neighbors. Lasting peace. A just peace.
4
The problem here has existed for decades. The problem is this: no one in the Middle East wants peace.
The Israeli government relies on the status quo in the Middle East as the glue that it can use to hold Israel together and the excuse it can offer to avoid dealing with Israel's internal problems. The various Muslim Arab governments in the Middle East count on Israel for the same reason--they need the Palestinian issue to enable them to stay in power. Ironically, it is probably the Palestinians who want peace more than any of the other stakeholders, but they have no chance of any kind of acceptable deal because no one else wants peace.
And since Trump likes Netanyahu, he will make certain that no proposal he makes will lead to peace. After all, as he well knows, there's nothing like an external enemy to help a current government stay in power.
4
Mr. Stephens,
I’m the guy that stole $4,000 from your bank account last year.
How ‘bout I give back $500, we call it even?
19
Argument by analogy is usually simplistic. This does not deviate from that norm.
6
If I were a Palestinian, I would be offended by both the plan and by this editorial, which finds fault with them but not with a one-sided, third-party, plan.
While it is probably true that the Palestinian leadership expects satisfaction on all issues, this plan hands Israel satisfaction on all their issues--it is one-sided. It is not a brokered settlement, in which Israel gives something up (something seized beyond what was allotted them by the UN) and Palestinians give something up (to make Israel more secure). It is a plan--not a peace deal--concocted by an American, a privileged American holding a position accorded him by nepotism.
I am usually on the Israeli side, since I do believe they are entitled to live in peace amongst their neighbors. If I were Israeli, I would reject this “plan” as cruel to the Palestinians and insufficiently bipartisan.
9
As usual, Brett Stephens' column can be accurately summarized with the sentence:
"Whatever the existing power dynamics are, they are fine. Do not challenge the status quo."
This article opens with 1 paragraph dismissing all the reasons why Palestineans might look at the deal proposed as a farce. That shows Mr. Stephens bias. Clearly its fine that the Palestineans are being starved into accepting this treaty. The columnist misses the obvious reason why though. The truth is, the Palestineans have no reason to take the Trump-Netenyahu deal beyond the reasons stated.
Its pointless.
Both parties are up for reelection in the coming year. Any Democratic administration will present terms better than this. Netenyahu is up for criminal indictment and prosecution this year. Giving either side a win would strengthen their relection chances. Just wait them out. Considering the deal presented is a demand for outright capitulation, whats a few more months? Noone's rushing to bend the knee.
The Palestineans will starve before they take this deal. And they are right to do it.
15
I suspect that the Palestinians may well starve if they *do* take the deal.
There will never be a peaceful resolution to this conflict. As long as the Israelis have the military upper hand, they will control the land. But the Palestinians remember that it took two centuries for the invading European crusaders to be pushed back out of that land, and they are playing the long game.
12
Agreed. Despite what Bret thinks, time is on their side.
This is Israel’s problem.
3
The Palestinians have indeed rejected numerous peace initiatives. But the problem has not been only the rejection, but the lack of initiative on their part. They left the field open to other players to shape. They did not realize, and nor did most of us, that the game changed and is no longer based on “old” concepts such as fairness, justice, respect and other such values, but on pure, brute power, the language Trump and Netanyahu share. Ethics has become irrelevant.
Now the only chance the Palestinians have is to come up quickly with a peace plan of their own, a realistic one that can convince other nations and the Israeli Left, that there is a point in negotiating with them, and coming to an agreed solution instead of an imposed one. If I were a Palestinian leader, I would ask to present this peace plan in the American Congress and seek the Democrats’ support -- before a new Israeli government is formed in March or April. Once annexation will take place, it could be too late.
2
I can see why the Palestinians rejected the Trump/Netanyahu plan, because it is mostly designed to ensure the reelections of Trump and Netanyahu. It is naive, however, to believe that the Palestinians would even agree to consider this or any plan plan. Unless a plan includes a humiliating defeat of the hated Israelis by triumphant Palestinian armed forces, the Palestinians aren't interested. This conflict is not about land, the Arabs already rule 99+% of the land in the middle east, it is about humiliation. Arab humiliation in general and Palestinian humiliation in particular.
Until the Arabs can avenge their loss of pride, loss of stature and loss of face, they will continue to hate the west in general and the Israelis in particular. This is because the Israelis are everything the Palestinians and the Arabs are not; technologically sophisticated, educated and successful. And they have beaten the Arabs in battle. Something the Palestinians can't get over, no matter how many billions we offer them.
6
If this grand plan is, as seen in those little red dots scattered across the landscape, is establishing a country, no wonder potus and Bibi didn't invite the Palestinians. Connect the dots is neither a plan nor diplomacy.
5
On the one hand, I find it confusing that both Israel and Palestine are true experts at making their case for their superior moral standing in this situation. On the other hand, I frequently observe them both move far beyond their own moral framework as they seek retaliation and undue advantage.
I can find only one thing that both share in common and that is an entrenched zero-sum view of their seemingly unending conflict. My guess is that peace will not be possible until both abandon admit that they have not been acting in good faith, but chose to do so going forward. There needs to be a period of time where each can demonstrate (for the benefit of the other) their commitment to restraint and to refrain from retaliation. Showing examples of peace today makes the dream of a lasting peace tomorrow much more realistic.
3
And every time the Palestinians say, 'yes', they lose.
Lose-lose from every perspective.
10
Kind of like when Israel said “yes” to giving back Gaza. Gee, that would be enough for me slow roll the process. The Palestinians didn’t just say “no,” they eliminated the Israeli Peace Now movement as security always comes first. Boy, the more you go back on this stuff the more you see how the Palestinian leaders get a big F for representing the interests of its people...for decades!
4
@Albert K Henning they have never said "yes" to anything!
1
This article lacks any empathy for the Palestinian people. Its central conclusion is "it wont get better, so deal with it." Is that a productive way to look at history. Should nat turner have foregone his education because his response, upon understanding his subjugation, led to increased difficulties for blacks to become educated? Should he have remained silent and preached for his owners profit, because, every time he tried to rebel, it only made things worse?
what would you do if someone offered that proposition to you? Would you be silenced if someone told you that any word you wrote, any time you stood against people in power, could hurt your cause later? I doubt it. I imagine someone at the Wall Street Journal made a similar proposition to you when trump was elected. Just ignore him, they said, and we can push the conservative agenda we've always wanted. Yet here you are at the NY times.
When you believe in the justice of your cause, fear of reprisal isn't a valid reason for acquiescence. Maybe you should consider what factors create an environment where sustained resistance seems better than accepting Israeli dominance, before you offer insincere advice to people you clearly fear.
16
Native Americans lost every time they said no too. That hardly shows that they were not being treated with injustice. Zionism began when Palestine contained 600,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. When are Israel's defenders going to even ADDRESS the question of how Europeans acquired the right to take over Palestine against the wishes of the people already living there.
21
@Robert Heinaman Most Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, not European.
And that Native American analogy isn't a good argument in your favor, they were extremely violent to settlers.
4
So why not start by giving the US back to the original natives before criticising Israel?
3
Maybe the same time every single US citizen of European descent decides we should give North America back to its indigenous peoples, from whom we stole it? Until we’re prepared to do that, maybe we should get off our high horses where Israel is concerned. Our moral high ground here is shaky at best.
3
In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a deal which gave them 95% of their demands, but Yasser Arafat turned it down because peace with Israel is the last thing he or his successors have ever wanted. The Arab leadership thrives on hatred; a just solution would destroy their entire raison de etre, exposing their moral bankruptcy and inability to provide their people with anything more positive than endless war.
19
@Someone else
I'm curious: what was in that 5% that made Arafat turn down the proposal.
Please corroborate your answer with actual proof, not quotes from Clinton or Ehud Barak.
7
Sounds like another Trump real estate deal. Israel gets, doesn’t have to pay.
10
"Critics of Israeli policy often insist that a Palestinian state is necessary to preserve Israel as a Jewish democracy. "
That's a zionist priority, not something anyone else cares about. If US or European countries are not to be "preserved" as Christian states, why would anyone care if Israel is a Jewish democracy or multicultural democracy like every other democracy.
4
the palestinians need to be dissuaded from their illusions that losing several wars will result in the status quo ante. they should talk to the germans, who will explain to them the consequences of losing a war, or two. they should make the best of what scraps and crumbs their situation offers, or wait a thousand years in suffering. the jews waited twice as long.
7
Stephens shares, unfortunately, much of the "tin ear" that Trump, Kushner, and Israel display. That is a condescending and patronizing tone that very easily could have been avoided with better diplomacy.
One could imagine Jimmy Carter, Richard Holbrook, John Kerry, or President George H.W. Bush doing a much better job of selling even this plan, without so overtly telling the Palestinians that they are just plain stupid not to negotiate (beyond saying "no").
Dial down the arrogance of the "enlightened" and we might make better progress toward peace among the peoples of the region.
7
"The Jewish state has thrived in part because, dayenu, it has always been prepared to make do with less."
Is "less" what you call hundreds of billions of dollars of military aid and full diplomatic support of Europe and the United States?
18
Mr. Stephens did not mention the American Christian Evangelicals. The Christian Evangelicals make up a key part of The Donald's base and they love Israel and Bibi.
The Donald will need the enthusiastic (as in high turnout on election day ) support of the evangelicals.
Could this explain The Donald's "policy" in the middle east? I tend to think that any of The Donald's "policies" can be explained by the 2020 election.
7
Kushner (and Trump) are cagey real estate dealers. A common tactic in a real estate deal is you make your first offer be an absurd lowball offer, accompanied by bluster, "This is as good as you'll get, so you better take it". The aim is to test if the other party is awake, and if they will insist on a reasonable outcome. If they concede, they get taken to the cleaners. Experienced negotiators know that you *have* to decline the lowball offer in order to get any respect at all from the offerer. The "deal" has many more tactical ploys, like putting off key elements until the other party is at even more of a disadvantage. The Palestinians are indeed awake, and see right through the tricks.
5
@Henry Lieberman Right, and since Stephens chose to respond to a tactic, I will turn away from his upsetting lack of human empathy in the article, relieved to write his opinion off as a mistake in taking Trump/Kushner seriously.
1
The least believable part of this deal is the $50 billion. I doubt the Palestinians would ever see it even if they agreed to the collar it comes with.
9
The Palestinians aren’t interested in compromising with Israel. Why? Because the Palestinians don’t want to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. This whole “peace process” begins and ends with that reality. All other points of discussion, to borrow a line from Hillel, is just commentary.
16
The so-called "peace plan" is a sham, as is the whole "peace process." The only way to move forward now is to forget the two-state solution and to embrace the one-state solution; i.e., equal rights for everyone within a greater Israel. If that means the end of special privileges for Jewish immigrants and settlers, and the end of repression against Arabs within all the territories, so be it.
7
@gregoryf
What is the condition of other religions in any majority Muslim nation? Most Jews have been expelled, Christians are being killed, Muslims who leave the religion can be killed as can anyone who dares criticize Islam. So a one state solution would lead to the same thing.
2
Every time the Palestinians say "no", they maintain their commitment to seek justice. They will say "yes" to a solution that conforms with international law and is consistent with basic human rights conventions.
15
The issue is very simple: Why would the Palestinians accept anything less than Israel evacuating the West Bank? The West Bank is their legally defined territory by international law. It has a guaranteed water supply and arable land so they would have food and water security. Of course, this is the very reason Israel occupy this territory now but that doesn't make it right.
6
@BaldySanta There is no international law legally defining the west bank as Palestinian. Yes, Palestinians live there, in the majority, since before 1947. But no Palestine/Arab country ever existed historically, and they have no more historic claims than do countless ethnic or religious groups in the Middle East, and the Kurds are only one such group. By international law and treaties, the entire land west of the river was promised to the Jewish people, with minority groups promised to have full rights, but not a separate homeland carved out of that land. Unfortunately terror attacks starting in the early 1920s changed the minds of the British mandate, though the laws/treaties did not change. Sorry, for Palestinians to have a state carved out of Mandated Palestine for the Jewish homeland, they must negotiate, and compromise. Israel has the greater, not full (it's under dispute, with legal opinions on both sides) claim to the west bank, east Jerusalem, even, still Gaza, though having pulled out, that part may no longer be true.
4
@BaldySanta
International Law is ONLY relevant if someone is willing to enforce it! Nobody is & No one can!
1
Say what?
“There is no international law legally defining the west bank as Palestinian.”
Have you not heard of UN Security Council Resolution UNR 181 and UNR 242 ?
It”s really not that complicated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
1
You are encouraging a major future disaster Mr. Stephens. The Trump proposal is and should be obscene to any honest believer in fairness and democracy. Only a disingenuous if not outright racist outlook justifies this column. Thought experiment: apply this meter of judgement to South Africa in the seventies.
9
The Palestinians have no say or influence. Solutions and options continue to be dictated by those that have the might and the power. The only option for the Palestinians is silence and refusal. The Palestinians are week. The US and Israel can dictate what they want, but that does not mean what they dictate is right, fair or decent. Trampling on Palestinian rights is easy for the US and Israel, that does not make it right, check the history and we have vowed never to let happen, check that and compare it how Palestinians are treated. Shame!
5
To exactly what should Palestinians be saying Yes?
There ability to recognize when they are being used as political pawns by Trump and Kushner?
The unwillingness to further empower Netanyahu?
The absurdity of a "Peace Plan" that offers them scraps from a buffet as the starting point for negotiations?
They're not stupid. They know when they are being used. They're not buying into an Israeli and American election year ploy.
10
What part of Perish Judea don't we understand?
1
Israel could be a pluralist state where all had equality under the law and bigotry was seen as wring and illegal. If they had started this way there would be peace.
The founders and all whom have controlled the state from its founding refuse to do this. Why? It makes no sense. What might explain this failure to see what is so obvious?
Definitely prejudice and bigotry. A wrong and fantastical idea of what ancient Israel was. contemporary fantasies of what Israel is or "should" be.
In the end the only way to peace is coexistence with equality under the law. The longer they wait the longer it will take to overcome the past 7 decades of resentment over the abuse, theft and murders committed by Israel in the name of self defense.
4
Also, every time Palestinians say "Yes," they lose. They are a people without friends, and Israel simply wants them to vanish. Israel wants their land - all of it, without them on it. What Israel wants, Israel gets. The world will not allow Palestinians to live in any sort of viable arrangement, ever.
6
The problem is that history doesn't end here.
Anyone who looks at the proposed map can tell that this makes a Palestinian state impossible. And of course, that's the goal.
This so called peace plan is essentially a plan for an apartheid state. Peace through vanquishment.
Time will pass, history will move forward, a civil rights movement will arise over time, the South African model will prevail. the Palestinians will demand citizenship and equal rights through civil disobedience. Ultimately there will be a single state with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews. That will be history moving forward.
5
This is a "deal" offered by a man under criminal indictment (Netanyahu), an impeached president (Trump), and the son of a convicted felon (Kushner).
It is understandable that Palestinians have reservations.
In any case, self-determination means one has the right to say "no". If that is the decision of the Palestinians, we should respect it.
8
No. It’s the Israelis who are going to lose. Not immediately, but there will come a point at which it will become impossible to contain the millions under illegitimate occupation. The reality is that Israel was built on the occupation of Palestine.
6
It would be nice if they could get along that said the Palestinians always are the one's to give up turf, to look at the new lines it looks like out of a Republican play book. The US should get out and stop paying and picking favorites. After a life time of this it would seem easier to move Israeli people to Nevada and start over it might be a lot safer.
2
“Things rarely go well for those who try to live history backward.” And yet that is precisely how the Zion-expansionist movement justifies it’s arguments, dismissing the present realities on the ground and the current inhabitants not like them they want to dominate and displace - as if they have a greater devine claim.
Imagine descendants of lords imposing long lost claims on current inhabitants! Worse, using a religiously based claim to get away with it.
4
Brett, this is not a peace plan, this is an apartheid plan. It is a plan to establish a semi-autonomous homeland to separate, isolate and control an undesirable population. This is not ‘kind of like apartheid’; this is exactly apartheid. I have two questions for you. Do you think that the establishment of apartheid regimes should be the policy of the United States government? Are you aware of any instance where an apartheid plan has led to peace, in the absence of an accompanying genocide?
5
Garbage. This is a sanction of amorality. The United States could have, and should have, forced Israel to cease settlement building, collective punishment, and destruction of Palestinian homes, orchards, etc decades ago. Trump's "plan" is merely the absurd end of these decades of US complicity in the oppression of the Palestinians - that is the proper context in which to view this plan.
5
Yeah, if only we had been giving the Palestinians 3 to 4 billion dollars a year for their military, then they could be building settlements on the "East Bank". Just think, the Palestinians could now be offering this great deal to the Israelis.
9
I'm no expert, but even I know this deal is dead on arrival. I don't even know why anyone is wasting their time with this.
2
The deal also transfers the only aquifer in the West Bank from the Palestinians to Israel. You missed that key point in your analysis.
5
If I remember correctly, back in 1948 no one asked the people then living in the territory now occupied by Israel if they would kindly move out in order to provide their traditiional homeland for a "new" state to be called "Israel", the name of a state that hasn't existed since 70 BCE.
Sorry folks, but I believe Israel owes the Palestinians BIG time and, although the people actually born in Israel since 1948 have every right to claim the country they were born into as being theirs, the displaced Palestinians are also owed some consideration. Jerusalem, for example, could be the capital of two countries, Israel and Palestine, or be declared an international enclave. At the very least the Illegal settlers on the West Bank should be relocated elsewhere than on the stolen Palestinian land they presently illegally occupy.
9
Stephens writes:
The Jewish state has thrived in part because, dayenu, it has always been prepared to make do with less.
This is a obviously an assertion and not backed by any facts he has provided. (or otherwise) A good and strong opinion piece.. with which most non-Jews. Arabs etc will likely disagree.
1
Stephens' piece acknowledges the election dynamics Authoritarians Trump and Netanyahu seek but misses the point. "Palestine" under this scheme will be relegated to a Ghetto under Israeli Authoritarian Control. Israelis tired of living in fear of attacks have forgotten the lessons of Germany and Poland in the 1930s and 1940s. No, Israel is not requiring Palestinians to wear a Crescent Badge, yet. With no self defense or governance, how long will it be before settlers want more Palestinian land. And like the U.S. did with Native American Reservations, politicians have a way of looking the other way during defacto genocide. #NeverAgain comes home to roost.
2
Right on Mr. Stephens. Outright rejection of the plan submitted, only proves the plan's opponents want nothing less than the destruction of the only Jewish state (and democracy) in the volatile Mideast. How sad Israel's neighbors have focused on the fledgling country's obliteration rather than improving the dire lot of not just the Palestinians they purport to support and defend--but their "own citizens" as well. Arab leaders bold and brave enough to recognize the legitimacy of Israel usually are silenced . . . by intimidation (or more lethal methods). Israel would be committing suicide to at this point to her to sign a "peace" deal at this point. Hasn't history proven that?
4
Once gain, I must point out that Bret is the worst. You know what he’s gonna say before he says it - a closed mind. So Israel slowly encroaches upon their land and steals it, and the Palestinians are supposed to sign an agreement that says it’s all ok? It’s might over right again - and that’s all that right wingers like Bret understand. It’s a good deal because it’s good for what he believes.
4
" ...Israel already has and will never relinquish..."
Never say never. The irresistible is often that which has not been resisted. The population of Arabs within the ever-expanding borders of Israel is increasing much faster than the Jewish population. The Israeli government is worried.
Besides the United States, the only friends that Israel has are dictators like Bolsonaro, el Sisi, MBS, and Orban. In the United States, support for Israel is dramatically declining. Although Mr. Stephens is a never-Trumper, he is dead set against Bernie, because he knows that he would cut U.S. aid to Israel. Groups like J-Street, JVP, and BDS, are growing.
The U.S. welcomes free and fair elections. But when Hamas won, it rejected its victory.
Politics is the art of living together in society. Trump and Netanyahu don't want to live together with the Palestinians.
5
Every Time Palestinians Say ‘No,’ They Lose.
And,
Every Time Palestinians Say ‘Yes,’ They Lose.
The point is that the Palestinians lose all of the time;
and, the Israelis "win all of the time."
4
What do Palestinians get out of the deal? Can they access jobs and education in cities or will checkpoints remain. Will they have access to Tel Aviv airport? Will they be able to use settler highways? Will their stolen land be returned? Will the barrier wall be removed?
2
@penney albany Palestinian Arabs have made it clear that they will accept nothing but the destruction of the state of Israel, "from the river to the sea." Israelis won't accept that, and neither would you if you lived in the most dangerous area in the world. If a Hamas rocket hit your house and endangered your family, you would have a different attitude about all of this.
6
The two state solution is gone. The Palestinians should simply insist that they receive full Israeli citizenship.
The real issue is not Israel, it’s the Arab world that has decided the game of using Palestinians as proxies to destabilize Israel is not working, never will, and they are done with their plaything. The cannon no longer needs fodder.
If I were Palestinian, I would join the side that won. But that means I appeal to the world that as a conquered and subjugated people, I deserve full citizenship.
It’s that or be forever a prisoner in a prison that your captor tells you every day is a make-believe country.
1
Kind of ironic to say you can't live backwards when we're talking about the return of Jewish people to the holy land after being expelled by the Roman Emperor almost two thousand years ago. No opinion on the deal one way or the other from me, just a reminder to keep an eye on the very, very, very long game.
3
Bret needs to read his own opinion with a clear head. The laundry list of what Israel wants is considerable and what do the Palestinians get, patches of remote desert sand, the promise of a sovereign state and $50 billion dollars to try and help develop an arid state with little fertile land and no water. If i were a Palestinian I'd tell trump and Netanyahu to puff smoke.
4
You left out some telling things, like Yasser Arafat professing cooperative intentions (in English) to Western journalists--to gain sponsorship and funding-- and then the opposite (in Arabic) to his own people--to keep them so busy with outrage that they never questioned where the money was going; like siding with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the first Gulf War).
The only thing that has sunk Palestinian aspirations more than the "Greater Israel" imperialism that has prevailed is the irresponsibility and wrong-headedness of the Palestinian leadership
8
They won’t admit it out loud, but the status quo works for the Palestinians, as evidenced by the continued existence of it.
7
This is the death knell of the two-state solution. It is so far from anything the Palestinians and Arab countries are demanding, that it cannot be the basis for anything. The 50 billion dollars don't exist. Palestinians won't be better off than they are now. Israel must give citizenship and all democratic rights to everybody the West Bank and Gaza. Anybody who still talks about negotiations for a two-state solution has their head in the sand.
1
@Roger Evans
Is this the Kushner deal that took almost 4 years in the making, buy them off?
Sounds familiar, but I'd get the money in something a bit more reliable and a lot more liquid than a Trump IOU.
1
The Palestinians are playing the long game towards a One State Solution. Time is on their side and they know it.
Trump is doing this not to help Israel but to keep the Evangelicals happy. Evangelicals want ‘Judea and Samaria’. They really do not care whether the 'New Israel’ would be Jewish majority or not. They have mathematical models that show that this is not the case.
Also it really does not matter whether the Jews are 45% or 55%. It has to be secular state either way.
1
Amazing insightful analysis in the face of knee-jerk reactions. Trump thus solidifies his brave foreign policy trajectory. If only his domestic policies were not reprehensible, he could be forgiven for lacking morality. (In my dreams, calling Mayor Bloomberg "mini-michael" would be an impeachable offense.) But reasoned positions such as his mideast peace plan create a terrible dilemma for a conflicted voter.
1
You can't make a deal without inviting all parties to the table.
3
I believe history will show hundreds of years from now that the leadership of the Palestinians was disastrous from 1945 to 2019.
6
This opinion is just more pro-colonial, pro-dominant power hogwash that’s plagued the peace process from the very beginning. If you consider the Palestinians as true equals, with every right to their culture, history, and of course, land then you can’t consider any efforts by Israel to represent true steps toward a lasting peace. Also, it’s easy for the Israel state to be “successful with less” when they’re receiving more than $3 billion in US military aid annually. Let’s see how far “dayenu” goes without it.
3
Here’s a plan. Move Israel to Nevada. Unlike Palestine, the US would welcome giving up some territory because it’s the right thing to do. Further, There are already skilled contractors and artisans who could recreate All the “holy sites”. Heck they’ve already built the Eiffel Tower and The Empire State Building.
Israel wouldn’t have to worry about their own defense. The US would save by not sending unending
Aid.
Let the Arabs fight among themselves. We could extract ourselves from the unending Middle East wars and focus efforts on improving the lives of our own citizens.
2
Sorry but saying Next year in Las Vegas doesn't work during the Passover Seder
9
@sharon5101 Thanks for adding some humor! This statement made my day.
5
@Craig Stevens here is another brilliant idea. Ask the Arab states to resettle Palestinians in one or several of the 21 countries where culture, religion, etc. is similar. The gulf Arabs have financial resources to do this. US may pitch in.
2
So let's see. The Donald and Bibi come up with a plan that gives Israel everything and the Palestinians nothing. AND it appears to be non-negotiable. Take it or leave it.
Why would anybody take the plan seriously? Anybody other than Bret Stephens and his ilk?
6
If you watched the HBO series “Our Boys” you would understand why this new peace plan doesn’t stand a chance. Paternalism, popular outrage on both sides against any kind of compromise, and continuing Israeli land expansion with American tax dollars and blessing make this a problem that won’t end in peace. Periods of quiet before the storms.
2
Being by far weaker in material terms, the Palestinians can only win rhetorically, which explains why they have lost and lost and lost by trying to exert pressure on Israel through violence. If they would unilaterally declare peace, their quest for more favorable terms in resolving their conflict would be supported by most of the world--including quite a few more American and Israeli Jews. And since Israel would then have no cover--or incentive--for attacks of their own, most likely nothing would get worse in the interim. It seems a bit of a wonder that they've never given that a try. But then, it isn't because they continue to insist that Israel has no right to exist. So there you are.
3
The plan does not offer Palestinians a state. It offers them a bantustan with limited political autonomy at some future time. The bantustans offered Palestinians are only geographically contiguous if one considers tunnels and road connections controlled by Israel as evidence of contiguity. And limited autonomy might be granted only after four years. Not only will Israel at that point have complete control over Palestinian borders, airspace, and shoreline, but it will also maintain a right to militarily intervene in Palestinian areas if it sees that as being in its interests. Israel will still control water and electrical infrastructure (with agreements) and it will have a say in daily life including the content of Palestinian educational curricula.
While Palestinians must wait for any change (all premised on them meeting Israeli needs), Israel can immediately annex land as it wants. While there is a settlement freeze on paper, that only goes into effect if Palestinians fully accept this "deal", and of course the deal was written in a way that Palestinians cannot accept.
So of course Palestinians will lose if they reject this deal, but that is how the deal was designed.
In the end however it is Israel that will lose, as this is clearly a plan that dooms two states and that means that at some point you will end up with one democratic state, but that isn't what Stephens or the Israeli right want so it will mean Apartheid until that system inevitably falls.
2
The imperial haughtiness of this essay is beyond stomach-turning. How dare those mean Palestinians hold out for those unrealistic desires: you know, Liberty, Equality, the Pursuit of Happiness, Justice...
The fact that Stephens is shilling for a "peace" plan that transforms the entirety of the Palestinian territories into a series of interlocked, surrounded ghettos tells you all you need to know about the politics of this man.
6
Britain was a Celtic country until the Romans took over. Then there were the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons followed by the Danes. Then the Normans came and finally the German Windsor family. Who should get it back. Peoples have been conquered everywhere. Abraham was from Iraq and took Israel over. Then they went voluntarily to Egypt but came back and slaughtered those who had moved in. And the Palestinians weren’t the original settlers either.
5
Spot on, Sir. The only point of disagreement I can make is with your assessment that Israel can only be a democracy if there is a Palestinian state. With party factions, disagreement and negotiations within the Israeli Jewish communities, Israel will always be a democracy Palestinians or no.
And to further where the Palestinian leaderships “No” to the peace plan will lead.... once again to resentment, bitterness and violent actions taken towards Israel. Once again towards economic demise and consequent hardships for Palestinian people that will be attributed falsely to Jewish actions. Once again shared blame will be attributed to the U.S. and we will be accused of favoritism, and rights violations... When will Palestinians accept that Israel was created as a Jewish State and will always exist as such? Never. They want to see Israel and the Israel population wiped off the map.
2
By “living history backward,” I take it you’re not referring to the Zionist dream and the right of the Jewish diaspora to return to land their ancestors left 2000 years ago while denying Palestinians the right to return to the homeland they left 70-100 years ago. At this point, the Palestinians are too weak militarily and economically to counter Israeli power, bolstered as it by American support. Little by little, the Israelis are seizing control of the entire territory. If they do, however, in the long run they could be defeated demographically – but only if enough Palestinians were to stick around-- and then the Jewish homeland would become a pluralistic democracy with a Jewish minority. It would take a long time. Palestinian refusal to take the bait and to walk away from this puppet state deal might induce the Israelis to take unilateral action – annexation would give them what they do and don’t want – the land, but with a large number of new non-Jewish Israeli citizens. An alternative would be a just solution brokered by an honest broker – obviously not the U.S. at this point or likely ever.
4
This "deal" will have some important downriver boomerang effects: it will, over time, give more energy to the erosion of American popular support of a "special relationship" with Israel's governments.
It's a "be careful what you ask for" deal, in the worst sense, for Israel.
2
Shorter Stephens: “Lie back and enjoy it.”
3
Would Bret give the same advice to Polish Jews in the 1930s? Native Americans in the 19th century? It is horrifying that still, in 2020, we still have those loudly touting the moral righteousness of manifest destiny.
6
If it weren't for the strength of evangelicals in this country, specifically in the Republican party, this country would have considered Israel's actions just like it did Saddam's annexation of Kuwait and Putin in Crimea and Ukraine. Illegal. And when someone brings up security, all I say is there have been so many "incidents" on both sides that I can no longer see who is right. Sabra and Chatilla, anyone?
Ironically, many American Jews seem much more fair minded when it comes to this situation than the evangelicals. That's because evangelicals see this situation as a path to Armageddon and the 2nd coming. Fairness and human rights mean nothing compared to the Book of Revelations.
4
For those complaining about the offer maybe they should contemplate returning 70% of territory we grabbed from Mexico in the 19th century. Just one example of many.
3
When Putin decides to take the Palestinian welfare in his hands, he will make a counter proposal and we may get to a solution that is fair. This one is insulting to my sense of ethics and honor. And I am a 100 percent Jew whose family fought for the establishment alongside the founding fathers. They happened to agree wiry Martin Buber rather than the later-day Ben-Gurion but that is a detail.
3
@Blunt
correction: with Martin Buber
The time has come for the Palestinian leadership to step down and tell Israel to govern all of historic Palestine, as they already do. There is no reason why Israel, alone in the world, gets to maintain its ethnic purity while liberals complain about the Christian countries of Europe being reluctant to take in Arab refugees. No, the time has come for one country with freedom and equality for all in historic Palestine, just the same as Nelson Mandela demanded in South Africa.
5
At the close of WWII after the 2 atomic bombs, Hirohito the Japanese Emporer requested in a radio broadcast that his people "bear the unbearable". They capitulated - and Japan prospered.
Maybe this is one of those moments.
2
@Kimball Thurlow Americans weren't bent on taking over their land, declaring sovereignty over it and expelling the Japanese.
3
Can you plant olive trees in those remote shapes along the Egyptian border? Is there water there? Israelis have settled the lands they have settled, and stolen the lands they have stolen, and conversely offered to give up the lands they are now offering in exchange, for a reason. Agriculture. The lands that Palestinians occupy provide something. The lands being offered to them do not. They are completely barren. That's what the Trump War plan proposes as the "agriculture and residential" zone. Google Earth it and see for yourself and then ask yourself, is this not an insult to humanity?
3
If we built a wall around Chicago because of all the violence, and subjected the residents to random repeated checkpoints, searches of their homes, razed them if there was any resistance, removed their democratic rights to protect the surrounding areas... would that fly? You think they wouldn’t be lobbing missiles out of there eventually? Why does Israel get a pass on treating citizens like prisoners, instead of policing terrorism like we do here? To say a 6 year old Palestinian kid deserves to live in squalor because some other person is dangerous is unconscionable, and terrorist enabling. The heart of this conflict is there are too many people waving their hands in the air at an imaginary being, thinking they have some imaginary rights to a piece of dirt because a book told them. Countries, all countries, should be secular. Yes, even Iran, who has exacerbated the situation, also in the name of religion. Religion is truly one of the worst things on this planet, from countries that hold it too close like Iran and Israel, to those to war against it, like China. Giving a country “religious status” and then saying any criticism of that state is attacking their religion, is ridiculous. I love jewish culture, food and most importantly the people, why am I antisemetic for criticizing an obvious flaw in a Government I feel is racist? If we limit our Government to a majority of white people because we are afraid of losing our “identity” it would be obviously wrong.
3
Really? Why don't we use this same analysis on every oppressed people across the globe. You have lost so many times before, and you will keep losing, so now we will look on you in shame if you don't accept your current status. Be happy with what you have, stop complaining, and do what we say. Thanks.
1
Speaking of living history backward why is it you imply that only Palestinians are? I’m all in favor of a Jewish homeland, and the original form of Israel, but the entire establishment of Israel is a case of living history backward. Then why not help Palestinians?
3
Thank you for this. While I would like to see the Palestinians enjoy more rights and political independence, I am disgusted by the tendency among liberals (I am one) to ignore the behavior of the Palestinians whenever there has been potential for peace, for 1947 forward. Every single time, the Palestinians have walked away, resorted to terrorism, and worsened their own existence. The Israelis are no angels, to be sure, but one has to tell both sides of the story in order to understand why we got where we are. And for those people like to talk about the state of affairs in the early decades of the 20th century, before Israeli independence, it's important to include both the Holocaust and the decision of almost all the Arab countries to expel the Jews when Israeli independence was declared. Are the American liberals going to force the Arab countries to give the Sephardi Jews back their property too? Can they turn back the clock to before 1933?
5
While it undoubtedly true that the Palestinian leadership, from a position of weakness over the decades, has missed opportunities and has often been corrupt, I believe the Israeli leadership, from a relative position of strength, has most misplayed its hand. Now Israel and the West Bank has become an apartheid state and the dynamic that led to this result makes the idea of Israel vulnerable, as the all-white South African government discovered. The repugnant policies which the Israeli government will have to follow and even accelerate will almost certainly continue to erode it’s standing and support and thereby seems likely to threaten it’s long term survival far more than a viable Palestinian state might have.
2
The thief offers to give back parts of what he stole, keeping the good parts for himself. The rightful owner naturally refuses and turns to courts to recover what was stolen and to have the crime prosecuted.
Why do we keep reading and hearing about the case from the criminal's perspective and not the victim's?
6
Everything you say might be true but it is a little bold since you don’t know how history would have played out had the Arabs agreed to any of the things you suggest. I doubt it would have been so tidy. You are basically saying everything would have been fine if the players just behaved. I don’t think the world works like that.
What part of 'share' does Israel not understand? It's like two young children trying to divide a snack. The older/stronger child tries to take advantage of the younger child by defining "half" in his/her favor. And the younger child is supposed to be grateful for this exploitation? And when they're not grateful for the deal, they are a sore loser?
It's amazing to me how Israel and the US can't develop some wisdom in their approach.
1
Don't let this dead-on-arrival proposal become an excuse for lying about the past. The Palestinians have rejected every peace proposal since 1948 simply because they hate and cannot accept Jews. Their rejections have had nothing to do with the fairness of the proposals.
5
Kudos to Mr. Stephens on clear-eyed article on the matter. This long standing conundrum can best be summed up by the famous quote: "If the Palestinians put their guns/molotov cocktails/balloon bombs down tomorrow, there would be peace. If Israel put down its weapons, THERE WOULD BE NO ISRAEL."
There will be no peace between the two parties until Palestinians finally admit the Jewish state is here to stay and "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea" is a fantastical pipe dream.
5
While the Palestinians lose territory and autonomy with each rejected peace plan, they are compensated with gains in moral authority - in the world's eyes at least, and this contributes to the surge in antisemitism we are seeing today.
Following the course steered by Netanyahu, Israel has lost its claim to righteousness. It is becoming ever more an apartheid state where only Israeli Jews have full rights as citizens.
I write this as someone who deeply believes in the rightness and necessity of Israel as a Jewish state, someone who rejects the politics of BDS and Ilhan Omar, but also as an American who believes even more deeply in the bedrock principle that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal rights.
If Israel wants to remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, it must continue to offer Palestinians the viable state proposed by Ehud Barak in 2000 at Camp David.
2
I have no particular sympathy towards the Palestinians. Their desires may have been understandable but their methods abhorrent. I agree that they are responsible for their destiny and are now at a place of waning power. While they might not admit it, most Arab countries would rather have a prosperous Israel on their border than Palestine. As such, we might have come to a time when they might actually concede to this plan. It is not due to any great wisdom on the parts of Trump or Kushner. Rather, it is due to the wear and tear over generation on the Palestinian people who just want to live their lives. Still, Palestinians have rejected much better proposals in the past so it is not clear why they would accept this one now. Furthermore, they are likely to look askance at any proposal thrust upon them. I suspect Palestinians under an Israel led by Netanyahu will fair no better than Native Americans did under Andrew Jackson.
4
Every Time Palestinians Say "No," They Lose.
Does that mean that whenever they say "Yes," they will win?
I don't think so. The most powerful player in the Middle East is the United States. The United States is all in on the side of Israel. I know that they Palestinians are often their own worst enemy. But the Israeli and American side is always going to win; it does not matter what the Palestinians do or say. Palestinian power is very limited.
Best wishes.
2
@Aubrey
If I were a Palestinian, I would want to get the heck out of there. Go to Europe, America, or any place where it is possible to pursue a life and career.
1
How is it that the victims of the world's largest outdoor prison are responsible, somehow, for their own oppression?
I watched as the Israeli government sent bulldozers onto Palestinian land, governed by the Palestinian Authority, and demolished 75 Palestinian homes - because they could. They said they didn't like how close these Palestinian homes were to the Palestinian side of the fence. It was a sadistic, racist action intended to further devastate an already devastated people.
I am a fierce fighter against antisemitism & all racism. But the Israeli state has become an abuser that people of conscience decry.
Do the Israeli people support the actions of their government? I imagine the people of the world wonder the same about us.
I am for a democratic, secular Palestine in which the safety & security of everyone is guaranteed. Given all that the Jewish people have been through, they must have a safe haven, especially given the rise in antisemitism. But so must the Palestinian people.
9
Fabulous piece. Israel escapes, apparently, with not one iota of responsibility for the current situation.
5
Reminds of the sarcastic saying "The beatings will resume until morale approves." There is this thing called pride. In 1947 an external body decided to partition former Palestinian lands and give a large portion to the Jews. How silly of the Palestinians to object. In every other instance, more powerful parties are imposing their will in an unfair manner, yet the Palestinians are chastised for failing to accept these punishments, because things will only get worse. With your attitude, of course things can get worse, because it's a case of the more powerful subjugating the weak and then blaming the weak for failing to be subjugated completely.
4
Why do you think Palestinians should accept living on a slew of reservations in the West Bank, ghettos that require Israeli permission to enter or leave?
5
Stephens has it wrong as usual. High statesmanship this is not. It just gives the Israelis liscense to grab more Palestinian land. Their two state solution is to have a Palestinian state controlled by Israeli security forces. As T. Freidman wrote, Netanyahu is so boxed in by his fear of prosecution that he is controlled by the most nasty right wing forces in Israeli politics. There is no incentives for the Palestinians. No input from them. Kushner apparently talked with the most right wing states in the region and called that fact finding. A sham is what it is.
3
And every time Israel says yes to increasing its control over majority Arab land areas outside the Green Line, whether by exerting sovereignty, military control, Jewish settlement or annexation, Israel loses more of its "gutte neshamah", its soul.
3
Bret forgot these two offers from Israel:
December 2000, Pres. Clinton had Arafat and Barak (PM Israel) to Camp david to finalize Oslo - Israel agrees to return 94% of disputed territory and Palestinians agree to peace treaty, . . Arafat returned to Ramallah and reneged; instead he began the 2nd Intifada.
2008 - the same offer was given to Abbas and Ulmert (PM Israel). Abbas rejected it without discussion or further discussion.
6
All people, Israeli and Palestinian want to and deserve to live in the light of justice, with freedom of movement and the basic needs for flourishing.If you read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you can see that Palestinians have not one of them. Israelis enjoy them all.
Resistance to oppression can take many forms, some violent, some nonviolent. Nonviolence is not passivity. Every Friday Palestinians in Gaza have been standing in their own land asking for basic human rights. They are being shot by IDF snipers. Hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries many resulting in amputation. Palestinians have faced the most heavily militarily armed force in the region for 70years now. They have used mostly nonviolent means for years now.
You might say rockets and baloons are weapons of war. Home made rockets are enhanced fireworks. Balloons with molotov cocktails will land where the wind takes them. Sometimes right back where they came from.
Meanwhile Israel has brought all its military, financial and economic might against an oppressed people.
No Palestinians were consulted in this plan which is simply the status quo on steroids.
Reading history and journalism by Israeli writers illuminates these sad facts. Meron Benvenisti, Akiva Eldar, Edit Zertal, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, Jonathan Ofir.
Palestinians are in a tragic predicament, not of their own making.This is a cruel proposal.
3
I kind of agree—except that that “mostly contiguous,” remark about the map is crazy, and there is no $50 billion. That’s just a Trump promose to try and get others to ante up the money, which the record tells us is complete moonshine.
Then there’re the little things like, “Surrender, Dorothy, and we’ll maybe let you have a capital some day, and by the way, we get to name your country.” They’re kind of important.
And then I have a few eensy moral qualms. I’ll take Israel over, say, Saudi Arabia any old day, but there is no way around the fact that a big chunk of Israel’s power comes from land grabs and murders.
2
On what grounds are the Arab Palestinians now deserving of a sovereign state? They’ve been offered statehood from 1947 onward, and rejected every proposal in favor of perpetrating endless war and terrorism.
One could conclude that the Arab Palestinians don’t really care about ‘statehood’. What they care about is defeating the Jews. It’s all about their perception of ‘honor’, and the supposed loss of it.
8
Bret says that the Israeli state thrives because "it is always prepared to make do with less". Would that be taking less land that isn't yours or imprisoning less young people and not torturing them?
Israeli has thrived because it takes too much and then can give back a morsel. Israel will only regain its virtue when it offers a real peace plan that shares the region in an equitable manner. This plan was never considered by one side-its the art of the deal, son?
3
You can avert your eyes, but the truth remains. For the Palestinian Arabs this conflict was never about having a state of their own living peacefully next to the Jewish state (so called by the UN). If that had been the case, Jordan and Egypt would have established such a state sometime during their 19 year illegal occupation of lands of the terminated Mandate for Palestine. No, for them the issue is the impossibility of allowing anyone other than a Muslim to rule lands their forbears had once conquered. And this imperative is all the greater when the new rulers are Jews, the people Islam has decreed to be its greatest enemy and who, by Islamic tradition, are destined to live as a weak and despised minority until their annihilation in Islamic End Times. Just listen to their rhetoric, including Temple Denial and overt incitement. That is the central reason you never hear any counter-proposal from the Palestinian side.
The Trump plan signals the end of the West’s romanticized view of the Arabs of Palestine. It gives them a final opportunity to step up to the negotiating table. If not, to quote an Arabic proverb, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on. Once again, the Palestinian Arabs are being poorly served by their rulers but that is no longer the world’s problem.
7
Unfortunately, the Palestinians prefer to retain their victim status to making peace with Israel. This gives them the opportunity of being a curtain of righteousness for a certain strain of antisemitism to hide behind.
If the Palestinians wanted anything other than total destruction of Israel - "to the sea"- they would participate in the peace process and negotiate.
Jews throughout the Middle East have been forced out of their homes for not being Muslim and have nowhere else to go. Europe? How well did that work out?
9
Unfortunately when Palestinians say no the expose the American hypocrisy. There are no excuses for terrorism, and Israel has the right to exist, no one can deny the Holocaust. But having said that, one should acknowledge that, this whole mess was created by a aging British empire which couldn't keep its colonies and a 10 century old religious war. There will be no peace as long as the policy on both sides is to beat each other into submission, and the west puts its thumb on the scale to favor a side, whatever the side. There will be no peace as long as Palestinians have no economic viability, but there will be plenty of resentment. This is a conflict where all sides are wrong and solutions designed to interfere on elections are not a good. Neither side will win on the long run.
2
Every time Bret Stephens writes something about Israel, it is to justify or, at least apologize, for Israel's slow but very sure ethnic purging of Palestinians. The same day Trump puts out his so-called peace plan, which would leave Palestinians waiting years for a nothing-burger state with dozens if not hundreds of hostile Jewish settlements within, Netanyahu announces his intention to annex 30% of the West Bank that has not already been annexed (large Jerusalem in particular)!
It is hard to imagine greater perfidy.
4
The liberal media, in a knee jerk reaction, rejects this plan because it comes from Trump. How sad. But this plan is an outside the box plan that just might work because it has the support of the Arab states and promises to transform the lives of the Palestinian people.
4
Well said. I’d point out that the white, Christian, Evangelical support for ‘greater’ Israel (upon which Trump is so politically dependent) is also rooted in some mythical, biblical past rather then the present day of live human beings.
4
The non-territorial elements of this plan envision Palestine as a vassal state, at the mercy of Israel, and expects them to like it.
Good luck with that.
4
Just wondering -- How is it in Israel's best interests if he Palestinians get less and the Israelis get more -- as has been the case since 1948?
1
@cec Had the Palestinians accepted the UN Partition under UNGAR 181, they would have gained far more than they have now, and even more than the 2008 Olmert Government offer of 97% of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which Mahmoud Abbas rejected without any counter-offer. By continuously saying NO, refusing to make counter-offers and failing to take the initiative in making offers of their own, the Palestinians have abdicated any role in determining their future, thus leaving those decisions to be made by others. That is the Palestinian iteration of "The Art of The Deal," abdicating any responsibility for themselves and making those decisions far easier to to be made by the Israelis!
4
@gmt As a psychologist who teaches motivation and decision making-I am deeply aware of the corrosive effects of "limbo" states. The Palestinians are in a perpetual state of hoping for more, leaving them in an energy sucking and demoralizing situation. They are the only refugees in the world that NEVER lose refugee status, regardless of how many generations have passed.
My father was a Holocaust survivor who miraculously escaped Belgium as a child and whose parents were killed in Auschwitz. He didn't live his whole life dreaming about going back to his house in Antwerp. He built a life in American and moved on. He didn't have the luxury of UNWRA. He was 12 and somehow built a life.
We have INFANTILIZED the Palestinians and give them very little respect when you look closely. While I am deeply grieving for them and for what they have suffered, as a mother and psychologist I believe that it is time to live their best lives given the circumstances just like my father did. Any other attitude will cause a terrific waste of human potential and talent.
6
@Dr Leah G The perpetual refugee status of the Palestinians is the policy of UNRWA, which unlike the UN High Commission for Refugees, mandates that once a refugee has resettled in a new country, he is no longer a refugee. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, though born. in the U.S. of Palestinian parents, is considered a refugee by UNRWA, despite the fact that she was born an American and has never been stateless. This conferred "perpetual refugee status" is used against Israel as a cudgel to argue for the inundation of Israel by fake refugees who have never lived within Israel's borders and have no nexus to Israel.
The so-called "Deal of the Century" resolves this issue by providing that all Palestinian refugees by resettled in the yet to be created Palestinian state. Another means of resolution would be to allow Palestinians to transfer to the jurisdiction of the UN High Commission for Refugees and be resettled consistent with the resettlement policies of that agency. No Palestinian should be held hostage against his will and should be allowed to resettle outside of the Middle-East, if he so desires.
6
@Dr Leah G This is the same argument the southerners and the Afrikaners made when it came to the people they oppressed. After the second world war there was a concerted effort by the post World War II powers to resettle refugees and this was not the case for the Palestinians. Additionally I will argue the Palestinians are not the only ones to be infantilized so is the state of Israel which has been living off the larges of America and Europe based on historic wrongs which I do support as an American Tax payer. However, I do believe the same benefit should be extended to the Palestinians
1
You miss a major point Stephens. Every time the Palestinians say yes to Israel they also lose. This so-called peace deal put together by Kushner is no different then a deal put together by a corrupt developer annexing in lands to help further sprawl and put adjacent property owners under their thumb. Israel will never stop their sprawl into Palestine until Palestine and the Palestinians are nothing but a distant memory.
4
@Ed Tell us, when have the Palestinians ever said YES to an Israeli peace proposal? If they had said YES to an Israeli proposal, or even YES, if certain modifications were made, why have we never been told about that?
4
@Mike 71 Tell us when the Israeli have EVER offered a peace proposal.
The Palestinians (including Hamas recently)
signed on to the Arab League Peace Initiative, introduced in 2002 and renewed in 2007 and 2017. Bibi contemptuously claims never to have even read it. It would have given Israel full diplomatic relations with 50-odd Arab nations in exchange for a just peace with a limited right of return.
Israel has NEVER independently offered a peace plan. That should tell you something right there.
1
Israel has been breaking international law for decades with the full financial and political help of the US.
It's time to stop punishing the Middle East and move Israel to Nevada
1
Yeah, right. As if anyone with a shred of dignity is going to okay their own exploitation.
3
Stephen's logic would suggest that occupation, repression and subjugation is a winning formula! Military might is the winner even though the occupation is devoid of any moral and humanistic value!
3
@Dr. Askia Davis Are you arguing that Stephens is accepting Palestinian policies, as set forth in. the founding documents of both the P.L.O and Hamas?
It would seem that both those terrorist organizations are "devoid of any moral and humanistic value!"
3
I am Jewish and was raised to be pro-Zionist. What I have heard my entire life from family members is that the Arabs have all these other countries they can go to, and they should leave Israel (however its borders are defined) and be taken in by Jordan, Egypt, etc. The plan all along has been the same--annex as much land as possible for Jews only. No awareness of Palestinians as people with rights to the land they've farmed for generations, no awareness of any Arab or Muslim nations having varied cultures and identities--just an undifferentiated Arab mass.
Needless to say, I can't talk about these issues with my relatives any more. To them, it's a matter of Jewish survival in a hostile, antisemitic world, and Israel needs to be armed to the teeth and forever able to outgun its neighbors. I see this as a path to eventual destruction.
5
I have a friend in the occupied west bank, she is palestinian and has children and cancer. She has to get permits to get medical treatment and chemo therapy in Israel to save her life. She will die under such circumstances. This deal is for Trump and Netanyahu not the Palestinians who have suffered for decades. Once again its me me me for potus. Incapable of thinking otherwise. He is above all not a humanitarian, nor his son in law Jared.
6
@Mother Has your friend considered the consequences of Palestinians diverting their foreign aid to funding terrorism, building invasion tunnels and firing rockets into Israeli civilian communities, rather than building hospitals and funding cancer research. If the only place where she can obtain chemotherapy is by passing through checkpoints to an Israeli hospital, that is the consequence of the Palestinian war of terror against Israel. Imagine if she could go to a Palestinian Hospital, where she could be treated by a top class Palestinian oncologist, without the trauma of border crossings. If the Palestinians were to change their funding priorities, that would be possible!
4
Mr Stephens,
If you fight back and lose does that mean you give up?
Palestine is asked to make a bad deal. Bebe and Trump are going to make it as hard as they can on Palestine and they deserve better.
1
@DC The Palestinians have made numerous bad deals in rejecting many Israel offers far better than this one, particularly the 2008 Olmert Government offer of 97% of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. In. a series of self-imposed "Nakbas," Palestinians have made extremely poor decisions, causing recent Israeli offers to be far less generous than those they rejected previously. Unfortunately, they cannot go back and say we will accept the Olmert offer, after rejecting it. If Mr. Abbas ever hopes to achieve Palestinian state in his short remaining lifespan, he has to stop treating stupidity as a virtue. There are no "Mulligans" in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict; past wasted opportunities cannot be recovered!
2
Where is the Palestinian counter proposal? Before we say how bad this, let’s see what the gaps are between the two.
7
This plan doesn't help Palestinians at all. It does give Israel a way out of its own dilemma of having a possible Palestinian majority inside itself. I would be like South Africa. Palestine in the plan's conception would have sprinkles of Jewish settlements in the West Bank? really. Would it give Palestinians enough help to let them become a healthy state? doubtful. If we now live in a world where identity (like being Jewish) matters a lot, what would this unfair split mean to Palestinians? Just buy them off? Destroy their identity? And leave them in a time warp next to the rich Jewish settlements?
2
Question for the author: Annexation & subjugation are a one sided response. What is the outcome when Israel doesn’t win an inevitable future armed conflict?
1
@Larry Layng The Israelis have won all of the armed conflicts, which have been initiated by Palestinians, or other terrorist actors, thus it is imperative for Israel to maintain its "qualitative military edge." Israel cannot afford to lose a war. As to Palestinian annexation and subjugation, Israel's military superiority, if well maintained, is capable of defeating those threats. Perhaps, at some future point, Palestinians will abandon their Imperial ambitions and turn toward improving the quality of life of their citizens. Both Palestinians and Israelis will benefit greatly once that happens!
3
It is horrid that the abuse of Palestinians has been supported by so many American leaders of opinion... I feel voice-less, as many other Americans, when it comes to justice in the middle east.
4
@Petra Lopez Most abuse of Palestinians is self-inflicted as a consequence of "Juvenile Envy Syndrome," in which they demand everything with no concern for others living nearby. Plato defined justice as rendering to each man his due. When Palestinians are cognizant of the justice interests of others, others will come to respect them. But they have yet to advance to that level of maturity!
1
They've never really been given much to say yes to either. The one peace plan that would have, could have worked ended in the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. All other offers have been unacceptable in that it takes more land from them, it denies their partial claim of Jerusalem, and it keeps them under Israeli military control. Some deal. The British promised them self rule in 1917, turned around and made it a British mandate under British control as well as proclaiming it a homeland for the Jews. Some deal. Other countries decided unilaterally to allow mass immigration from Europe into the Palestinian territory. Some deal. They fought this unwanted invasion...and lost their homes. Some deal. Yes, they resisted the loss of their homes, their land to other peoples...oddly, there was no conflict prior to the mass immigration.. and setup for a Jewish state... afterall, what happened to THEIR state? That THEY were promised. They were stubborn, rash, despairing, savage at times, poorly led, and behaved in the manner of a conquered people trying to hold onto what was once theirs. They reacted, resisted and refused just as Native American tribes did to being overrun by the onslaught of white settlers hungry for their land. The Palestinians are largely Semitic people as are the Jews, descended from the many peoples who passed through this land for centuries. Neither party had more right to it than the other. If not for religion, both sides might have been more willing to share.
3
With 70 years of hindsight, the 1947 proposal looks pretty good. But seeing it in 1947, it looked to Palestinians and other Arabs in the region like a Western European imposed theft of land.
As for the Trump plan, Americans might consider a similar proposal implemented in their own state. Imagine if an external agent selected the Central Valley of California and gave it to another country; the current residents would either live under that country’s rule or go to the Mojave Desert, which was given to them in trade. Sacramento, which they had previously considered their capital, would now also be annexed by this foreign government. And California would now no longer have control over their defenses or air spaces. How appealing would this be to Californians? And mutatis mutandis, how would residents of the other 49 states feel with a similar swap in their states?
Today, the Israeli Knesset debated annexation of the West Bank, that is, implementation of a key part of the Trump proposal, leading me to ask how an agreement can be approved by only one side of the deal. I had always thought that whether the Middle East or elsewhere, an agreement meant that both sides approved the terms.
5
First we learn that the State department has replaced the maps with countries labeled with ones which are blank, then we learn that the Trump administration's Middle East peace proposal was authored by a son in law not still in short pants and a beanie. Isn't it great how easy it is to be a diplomat these days?
3
I am afraid you are correct, but does it make it right? Should slaves also submitted because the situation only became worse when they objected or said, "No, that's not acceptable."
5
Thank you for your thoughtful piece today, Mr. Stephens. I’ve been watching this process for a number of years and with this version, from our biased, self-indulgent and narcissistic President fits in perfectly with his ego and reelection postures these days. I always thought that this process involved both parties rather than a highly polarized one which appears to have forgotten the Palestinian people.
I do agree that their unwillingness to accept previous plans has set them spiraling in reverse. The those aspects you pointed out, particularly with their leadership and its own self-aggrandizement and perpetuation of their places in office, are unfortunately what’s driving everything. Rid themselves of their leaders and factions, then perhaps we’ll see progress.
1
Details of the proposal essentially re-create the townships of South Africa. How on earth does this represent justice or progress?
8
It's very difficult for an oppressed people to willingly agree to their oppression.
7
Please don't label me antisemitic! Would Stephens hold this view if he were Palestinian? Better yet, would he even countenance this approach if he were a Palestinian refugee who had been displaced from the former Palestine, on land that is now part of Israel?
Still, the Palestinian leaders would be well advised to swallow hard, then, they might want to negotiate and attempt to get a better deal. The history of missed opportunities bodes rather poorly for them. They might wish to consider that Israeli leaders will annex more land in the absence of an agreement, a way of making the prospect of a viable Palestinian even more remote.
It's a tough, tough, bitter pill. However, Palestinian leaders might wish to consider how much their cause has lost from past obstinacy.
History shows that no matter what they've done, said "yes" or "no," they've ended up with less.
1
Mr. Stephens, please use Google map's high resolution imagery to look at what is given to and taken away from the Palestinians in that "awesome, best ever" offer perpetrated by Trump and Netanyahu. You will see that access to the Jordan river, along with irrigable and tillable lands will be confiscated, as well as, suitable areas splattered over the West Bank that have not yet been extensively settled by Israeli squatters. Under the proposal the Palestinian's allotted portion of West Bank looks like stepped-upon slice of Swiss cheese. Now look at the areas they received as compensation along the Egyptian border. They are not only desolate, arid and stony desert, but isolate and unconnected islands, totally unsuited for sustainable food production. Their water rights to the Jordan, what little is left, is at risk as well with a burgeoning Israeli settler population. To this and other depravations of basic human rights of freedom and self determination they should just say YES! This is equivalent to sending old Eskimos adrift on ice floes. They will loose their precious lands either way; why give Netanyahu and Trump the accolade of peacemakers with the expectation of winning an utterly undeserving Peace prize? The fact that the Saudis and few other Arabs are looking the other way does not strengthen the argument, on the contrary.
7
Brett Stephens went out of his way to avoid the simple truth: When the Palestinians say "Yes," the also lose. No Israeli government has ever honored any of the promises made in the so-called "accords," and they won't honor this one either
6
If the Palestinians were smart, they'd accept the plan as a basis for negotiation. Start by asking for the 16 isolated settlement enclaves to be evacuated so Palestinian territory can be larger and more contiguous.
That's just one example. But don't worry, they'll never go for it...
6
Do you remember these words? "The only thing we want to make peace from Yassar Arafat and the PLO is to accept Israel's right to exist."
Within moments of Arafat finally explicitly saying so Israel's representatives in the fashion we have become accustomed to among republicans via unofficial yet official blurbs from those close to power suddenly had a list of new wants that were also absolute and prevented them from making the peace they said they would when they got the first one.
So yea they don't get peace when they say no. But they do not get peace when they say yes either.
5
Assuming that the statement "every time Palestinians say 'no', they lose" is correct does not imply that they now should say 'yes'. The "territorial compensations at the Egyptian border" for the (after international law illegal) Israeli settlements in the West Bank is horrible. The key point is that no utterly unfair proposal can promote peace.
5
This is another Trump Dog and Pony show. I’m sure going in they knew this would be soundly rejected by the Palestinians. Only the two principles can work out an agreement. Having said this, it appears to be a tragically intractable situation. The Palestinians seem bent on never recognizing Israel, and Israel more than likely will never give back the occupied territories.
The scary thought is that over time Israel may well take it all due to running out of room for an ever expanding population.
2
Its hard to say yes to subjugation at any level. If I was chased out of my town and put in a camp, I am not sure what I would be saying yes to - official humiliation along with unemployment I suppose. But no one fully understood how aggressive and persistent the Israelis would become, and how much the US would support its actions. Israel has transformed from a liberal republic to an authoritarian state lead by a criminal. The Palestinians weren't the only ones who didn't see this coming.
3
"For all the talk about Trump’s plan being dead on arrival, it says something that it has been met with an open mind by some Arab states, including Saudi Arabia"
Seriously Mr Stephens? You're smarter than this. The Saudis are on board with this plan only because they need our support and weapons in the fight against the Houthis/Iran. The ties between the Saudis and Jared Kushner run deep.
4
They've been saying "No" for a long time and as a result they have no country, few rights, massive poverty and no education, remaining obedient, submission being the key lie they obey. And of course, the land they'll get keeps getting smaller.
2
Let's see what an ideal plan looks like for the Palestinian people and use that as a starting point. Only those outsiders with impartiality and integrity should rightfully shepherd a process. The interlopers will never be satisfied.
Long ago I understood the expression: "What's mine in mine and what's yours in mine also". As a contemporary postscript we could add "Get over it".
Peace.
1
Don' t these people know that they have been conquered?
Israel was founded upon the presumption that one can raise one group pf people up by tearing another people down. It's a colonial ethic, one which many countries, including the US, has engaged in. We are supposed to think of it as wrong, or at least regrettable.
But now we're living in the age of "might makes right."
It is a fact on the ground, that the state of Israel has, through incremental annexation and gerrymandering of territory of which it has no right, effectively strangled the idea of a Palestinian state. As such it has implemented a strategy of apartheid upon a people whose rights to exist on their land have been taken by a superior force, not a superior moral position. Does this matter?
It does not, as long as we're also willing to think of the state of Israel for what it has made itself. In the log run, it may not always have the advantage of "might". It certainly no longer has a claim to any moral superiority. If it cares.
3
And every time the Israelis say "no," US and others cave to their demands. So, really, Bret, let's look at the issue historically and recognize that "yesses" and "nos" need to be contextualized in national prejudices, political commitments, and a range of other circumstances.
2
Can someone show me where in Mr. Stephen's piece he discusses, or even refers to, international law and human rights? I'm waiting.
8
YES! YES!! We want love being imprisoned - we want our young to be slaughtered - we enjoyed it when 750000 of us were driven from our homes in 1947/48.We don`t want a homeland and are not entitled to one. We love suffering - bring it on. Thank you Mr Stephens.
4
Looks like another fail for Mr. Stephens. Why shouldn't Palestinians oppose a plan that makes a mockery of their aspirations to statehood?
3
This piece reminded me of the famous Darth Vader line from Empire Strikes Back: "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it any further."
3
Yes, every time the Palestinians say no, they lose. And every time they say yes, they lose. As with the Palestinian Authority under Abbas, collaborating with the Israeli government.
When Native Americans said no to the European invasion of this hemisphere, they lost. When they said yes, they lost- sent to dismal reservations (not too different from what the Israelis are offering the Palestinians). The one thing the Palestinians gain from saying no is a shred of dignity, which no cash payment can provide.
If Israel accept two equally sovereign states, intact and whole (not pieces here and there), with equal rights to arable land, water, political organization and military weapons, and with equal protection against interference from the other side- and the Palestinians refuse it- then criticize.
4
This article is predictable coming from this author.Of course a country that was formed by suppressing native Americans and built on slavery and expanded by defeating the English,French, Mexicans,Spaniards and later the Philippines is not a country that wants to look back. Everywhere else looking back is called history and it informs current consciousness and sometimes even policy.
1
If I were an ordinary Palestinian I would want to to put the past behind me and become a full-fledged citizen of what is already the religiously diverse state of Israel. Let freedom ring!
2
Has anyone else noticed how quiet the rest of the Arab world has been when it comes to the Palestinians? Decades ago there would have demonstrations in every Arab Capitol demanding justice for the oppressed Palestinians. Not any more. The rest of the Arab states have also grown tired of the relentless Palestinian demands. Like it or not they've accepted the reality that Israel isn't going anywhere. Travelers routinely fly from Tel Aviv to Cairo. The Arab states now ignore the Palestinians because they're tired of supporting the losing side.
4
I believe that one factor can solve the problem, history has shown when terrorism stops peace follows.
3
There is a strong parallel between the deals being offered to the Palestinians, and the deals that were offered to various American Indian nations here in the US. In case you're not familiar with the history, taking the deal usually means ceding territory without a fight and eventually being unable to survive on what you have left - oh, and your leaders may be assassinated in the process of making the deal. Not taking the deal means that you lose a fight and then lose the same territory or even more territory.
And the result for the Palestinians will be the same whether or not they take this "deal". Because the Israeli government, with US government backing, has stated pretty explicitly that their goal is the elimination of the Palestinian population in its entirety.
3
I've often said that the best course of action for the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians is for the PLO/PNA to surrender, recognize Israeli sovereignty over all of mandatory Palestine, and then dissolve itself, leaving Israel to administer the entire territory, and end the fiction, useful to both sides, that the Occupied Territories are not part of Israel. Then start agitating for the vote.
3
How can Israel deny the vote to people who live there? On the basis of their religion? Absolutely not. On the basis of their ethnicity? Absolutely not. I’m sure that Israel demands that new citizens pledge their allegiance to Israel. The same rules should apply to Palestinians.
Once again a cogent and concise analysis by Brett Stephens - hits the mark right on all points - thank you Brett.
1
The offer has some bones for Palestinians, yet there has been little evidence that Palestinians under Israeli governance will be granted anything near to equal rights. You also ignore the significant influence and belligerent attitudes of the Ultra Orthodox Zionists in Israel who have no intention of anything less than complete control an annexation. This group is firmly rooted in the past and is completely ready for more settlements and more domination. It isn't major leap to conclude that there is an aphartheid agenda active and at work with Bibi and his allies.
2
The creation of Israel is rooted in 2 important historical facts; the expulsion of the Jewish people from their homeland and subsequent antisemitism ( in the Christian and Islamic worlds) that included the inquisition and culminated in the holocaust. The fact that these people have now returned to their original homeland may not sit well with those who live comfortably in the US passively tolerating the treatment of the less fortunate indigenous native Americans or other similarly disconnected westerners, but I’m sure the lessons of those experiences are not lost on most other persecuted minorities.
3
- but the $50 billion package will be funded by the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, according to the plan: they will NEVER give out that money,(and then Trump et al can blame them, not themselves), because
- their main worry and priority for money, and which already costs them an enormous amount, is for armaments, Yemen, and, above all, Iran.
The palestinians will get nothing, Trump and his son-in -law and Netanyahou know this very well
3
Well, the Palestinians have said "no" to statehood under the conditions granted them by Israel's lawyer, the United States. Any reasonable person would say no to the stealing of their land. This plan foists a state upon them, a state they aren't asking for. Why? Because the current conditions in the West Bank, those created by the 1993 Oslo Accord that people niavely believed would bring about Palestinian statehood, has made independence untenable. Every expert on the conflict knows this, but I guess Jared Kushner hasn't read those books.
Asking Palestinians to cheer the prospect of living in small impoverished bantustans so that Israelis can live in resource rich settlements in Judea and Samaria is asking Palestinians to suspend reason. Then again, peace plan after peace plan has failed to see Palestinians has humans entitled to self-determination, basic human dignity, and full sovereignty. This plan like others treats them like animals to be contained by militarized encirclements and importantly redraws the internationally recognized greenline from 1967. So, it isn't surprising that this plan was created without consulting with Palestinians. It's the logical result of American and Israeli colonialism, which has nothing to do with Palestinians saying "no," as Stephens contends, it is about America saying yes to the most extreme form of Zionism.
3
The argument that the Palestinians aught to come to the table after it has been set and the sitting arrangements assigned should spoil the appetite of any Palestinian negotiators. The map as drawn isolates the Palestinians in a sea of Israel. Give up the Jordan Valley and come to us for any water rights we might care to dole out, if you are good. We will spell out exactly what you must do to demonstrate your goodness towards us. We will grant you an easement to Gaza which we will control. We'll throw in some extra desert with deal and 50 billion dollars. Who could say no to that?
2
Of course you're all for the Jared Kushner 'peace plan'. But before making all of these clever arguments in favor of a plan you'd support sight-unseen, you should have asked yourself this:
If you found yourself, say, getting a divorce, how inclined would you be to accept a settlement "negotiated" between your wife and her own lawyers?
There is such a thing as dignity, Bret Stephens.
4
Time for the one state solution. It's the only way.
5
Each side has used circular self serving for decades, thus the explosive stalemate. What Stephens casts off as liberal cynicism is a fairly accurate assessment of the political shenanigans of both Netanyahu and Trump. Wonder what makes us distrust these two men. Should the Palestinian community trust these elitists?
1
I think this is the first peace deal that other Arab states are actually supporting which is a sign that the Palestinians are losing their allies in the region. These countries are tired of giving money to them only to make their leaders rich and keep the people’s poor.
3
The sad reality is that by settling the West Bank and destroying the possibility of a two state solution, Netanyahu has played to his religious coalition but insured at least another generation of conflict. Demographics also work against Israel. Can Israel give full rights to a Palestinian population that outnumbers the Jews? To what extent will Israel be a beacon for Democracy in the region, versus an apartheid state at constant war with its people? While I certainly do not agree with the Palestinian's past "leaders" or their tactics, and I believe peace is in everyone's interests, I do not see the hope for real peace in the current circumstances. I hope I am wrong.
2
What are they supposed to do? Say yes to having lands occupied in violation of international law. Of course, they rightfully reject this joke of a plan.
The only plan that will ever work is the original UN plan, where Jerusalem belongs to nobody, and is an international city.
1
Let me see if I understand some of the arguments I am reading here:
The Israelis are just 'taking advantage' of poor Palestinian governance, and so that makes the illegal and obviously provocative seizure of territory okay?
Sounds like Trump logic. Power over principle: no peace forthcoming.
4
Essentially, this piece could be titled "might makes right". And if the Palestinians were the ones with military superiority, behaving in a fashion that is immoral and in violation of UN mandate (the same UN that created the modern states of Israel and Palestine) then it would be Israel receiving Stephens' message of "deal with it, you're not going to do better".
1
Stephens writes,and I quote : "what the plan gives to Israel, Israel already has and will never relinquish"
The definition of what 'Israel has' is the elephant in the room of this phrase.Israel has crouched onto Palestinian territoy for the last 50 years, constructing heavily subsidised and guarded settlements, in flagrant conflict with the UN decisions and the definition of Israeli teritory. Diplomatic support for these illegal expansions was realised via veto's of the USA, nothing else. Stephens statement that "Israel has-etc' is blatantly wrong and proves his massive partisanship with Israel, not with a trustworthy evaluation of the situation.
4
Ben Gurion didn't want to keep the West Bank. There never should have been settlements. The number one threat to Israel is Israeli expansionism, and the number two threat is Trump's cynical pandering, at the behest of Christian evangelicals, not the American Jewish community. And it will never be made right.
3
Palestinians were NOT included in the decision process. They loose anyway, whatever they say. Their suffering will go one as long as they do not surrender completely and further on if they do. Just compare it with the situation of the early settlers in America after the arrival of the Europeans. Estimates are those were eradicated by 95%.
1
This argument is centered on the flawed premise that might makes right.
2
"Here, however, Einstein says no to Brandeis, no to nationalism, and yes to the “durability of the Jewish community” which, he believes, is “to a large degree based on our geographical dispersion, and the fact that we consequently do not possess instruments of power that will allow us to commit great stupidities out of national fanaticism.” "
It seems to be the case for both sides. That is why what is needed here (and always has been needed) is an honest mediator, which we, and the Brits before us (who started the whole thing), have not been. Einstein was right. And a corollary is, inescapably, that we, our species, can be a thoroughly nasty little beast - ALL of us.
As indicated further by the Trump-Netanyahu proposal.
2
If I could invent a secret weapon, it would be the amnesia bomb. I would tune this to target past grievances, and deploy it first over Israel/Palestine.
Understanding the past is critical for making optimum decisions about the future. Reliving centuries-old arguments, distorted by tribal biases and emotional propaganda, essentially prevents any kind of rational thinking.
Now, back to the lab.
Wrong. Their worst case scenario is becoming citizens of the Greater Israel, which given their current circumstances is not bad at all (for them).
1
The Plan of the century is nothing other than current state of affairs becoming the official plan. Everything stays the same, except now Israel can make their settlement policy of land grab official. Palestinians are supposed to accept the existing state of affairs of PA paying the cost of running Palestinian towns and cities instead of Israel shouldering the cost. They gain absolutely nothing other than the so-called 50 Billion investment from other Arab countries.
Yeah, they should say NO and demand a ONE STATE solution.
2
@CacaMera If they say no and demand a one state solution they will get nothing, which was the point of Stephens' article, which you apparently did not read.
1
The Palestinians can't have it both ways. They can't keep playing the oppressed stateless victim card while constantly rejecting every statehood offer that's put on the table. It's time to face the ugly truth--the last thing the Palestinians don't want a state of their own. They just want to make life miserable Israeli Jews in the hope that they'll up and leave.
12
@sharon5101
That goes both ways and thus it applies for the Israelis too. They can't stimulate settlements within what should be Palestinian territory and claim they want a two state solution without evacuating those settlements.
If the Israelis do want a two state solution, then act like it - and approving, stimulating and making illegal settlements 'legal' after the fact makes me believe they don't want that.
Which leaves a one state for all, with equal rights for all. Do you agree?
1
@Andrea No I don't agree. Who would run this one state for all?
1
The arrogance and hypocrisy of this piece is staggering. "Living history backwards " could as easily be a description of Zionism.
It's unsurprising that the Palestinians aren't responding well to a proposal that essentially says "you lost, get over it".
8
@RGreen Uh, history is what actually happened, not what you wish had happened.
2
It's just like Native Americans, isn't it? And look where it got them. Please address their blameworthiness in your next column.
9
Almost every piece of land on Earth has been stolen multiple times. Before the Europeans landed in the Americas, the Indians, such as the Incas and Aztecs, had been busy stealing land from others . Then the Europeans went on the steal all of the land.
Let's look at merry old England
The Celts stole it from the stone age settlers
The Angles and Saxons stole it next.
Then came the Normans
Next the Norwegians ( Vikings )
Finally the Danish (William of Orange )
I find it amazing that the Palestinians get so much more attention than others who are worst off, such as the Uyghers.
Someone who knows more history than me can cite other territories.
7
@Interguru India and Pakistan are still squabbling over the disputed Kashmir territory.
1
The Israelis are masters of the art of offering deals that only look acceptable in retrospect.
4
So, Brett, when you say that "the best thing the Arab world could do for itself is learn from Israel," are you saying that —
• the Arab world should invade, occupy and settle Israel?
• the Arab world should deny Israeli Jews water?
• the Arab world should demolish the homes of Israeli Jews?
8
@Graydon Wilson As far as history concerns, the "Arab world" has tried all of these before, and here where they are. They should be more creative if want to see results, how about accepting Israel exists and try to work with it, instead of sabotaging it?!
3
@Graydon Wilson They already tried invading and occupying Israel, three times. If you try something like that and lose, there are consequences.
2
Certain rules of of history are no longer applicable, at least for a country that prides itself as the Jewish Democracy. Israel can't simply drive the Palestinians into the desert or exterminate them. They are a conquered people and they aren't going anywhere. They are a test of Israel's values and character. How will the survivors of the Holocaust treat them?
4
And every time Palestinians say "YES" they lose.
5
They’ve said no to peace
They so not to school and education, spending way more in weapons and tunnels, in Gaza.
They say no to human rights in Gaza and in the West Bank. Nobody dares speak up about the corruption and nepotism and lack of freedom
They say no to gay rights
They say no to women’s rights
They say yes to endless handouts from the world while playing the victim card.
If they want peace, let them demonstrate tolerance. If they want peace let them change the PLO charter that calls for zero land for Jews.
13
@Me Too Israelis have said:
No to peace; implacably oppose a Palestinian state
That Israeli schools should teach Jewish nationalism
That Israel is for Jews only
Do we really want to talk about corruption with an Israeli PM under indictment?
Candidates for office in Israel have attacked gay rights
Women are "disappeared" from photos by the Orthodox
Have not demonstrated tolerance toward non-Jews
Are happy to accept $4 billion in American taxpayer dollars annually and another $2 billion from private American citizens (who get a tax write-off in the US)
And where have you been? The PLO voided objectionable clauses of its charter in 1993, when it recognized Israel's "right to exist in peace and security." That charter was replaced in 1994 by a Constitution, something Israel still doesn't have, although one was promised by 1949.
Trump’s plan builds on Gazans’ historic expertise in building tunnels.
3
Bret Stephens, and all supporters of Israel blame the Palestinians for Israel illegal a bd brutal action to invade and eliminate the Palestinian. The Trump/Israeli plan is to create "restricted areas" akin to concentration camps to imprison all Palestinians. Those won't last long as the Israel's next step will be to exile all Palestinians to some foreign country.
2
An imagined conversation:
Israel: Do you want to go into the concentration camps peacefully?
Palestinians: No.
Israel: Well there you go. Every time you say 'No', you lose.
9
@Richard Schumacher In the grossness of "history" as Mr. Stephens lays it out, you are not imagining anything. And the American people--all 325 million of us--are paying the moral and material bill for this. Imagine that.
It’s an odd argument considering what happened every time Jews said “yes” starting circa 1933 in Germany continuing with identity badges in 1938, and later in Poland with the creation of Jewish ghettos, which all led up to the final solution and the holocaust. This is not to blame the victims, but maybe Palestinians are simply acknowledging history and wary of where going along to get along can lead, and with good reason.
In addition the new proposal smacks of the homelands idea created by white South Africans as a way of trying to legitimize Apartheid.
4
If this deal were to be implemented there "losers" will be in Israel as the BDS Movement surges and in the world's Jewish communities as anti-Semitism surges.
3
Israel can annex as much land as it wants, but the Palestinians aren't going anywhere. What's Israel going to do? Drive them into the desert? Exterminate them?
The choice is Israeil's. Israel's character and reputation depends on how it treats the Palestinians, a conquered people. Will it remain the Jewish Democracy?
4
The Israeli tactic is:
You do nothing- they walk all over you.
You protest or resist- "We don't negotiate with terrorists."
Heads they win; tails you lose.
What, then, is the best strategy for Palestinians?
4
That's a very biased and obviously slanted perspective that the writer of the article is setting forth. Gee I wonder why the Blacks in South Africa, didn't accept the "deal" imposed upon them by the White South African rulers in under Apartheid?
I also wonder why the Polish Jews didn't accept their condition when the Nazi government offered them the choice to live in Warsaw Ghettos or die.
You do realize that Palestinians live in prison camp conditions where sovereignty and free trade is denied. Typically a deal involves negotiations which both sides. What I see is a deal negotiated between a far right wing (racist) government in the US and Israel. They didn't even bother to have Palestinians in the room for the "negotiation". Now that Israel accepts the terms of this racist apartheid like agreement the Palestinians will have 30% of their territory annexed in return for giving the Palestinians nothing in return, other an enslavement of course.
4
And things almost never go well for a people with no nation who try to resist a country with military. Ask the Jews of Warsaw.
5
Mr Stephens ought to replace Israelis with the word "Whites" and Palestinians with the word "Blacks"...and hear and feel how it sounds.
5
"... those who try to live backwards..."
tell that to the Zionists in 1890 when they claimed Palestine was their Eternal Homeland, while 8% of its population was Jewish.
In addition, "every time you say no, you lose" sounds loosely like this: "Gee, nice little barber shop ya got here; would be a shame to see anything (more) happen to it."
7
" ... temper Palestinian expectations" = "continue to acquiesce to the Israeli apartheid state."
Would you have said that to black South Africans seeking freedom decades ago, Mr. Stephens?
5
The Crusader kingdoms last about 13 years. Israel hasn't reached that yet. With their lust for Palestinian land and their apartheid policies they probably won't reach 100 years.
Netanyahu is making that assured. Palestinians deserve justice, not concentration camps.
3
@Curry I typed 130 years. Then I couldn't edit it. Sorry.
1
@Curry
There’s no such thing as ‘Palestinian Land’. ‘Palestine’ was a derelict province of the Ottoman Empire for 500 years before it came under British authority. It’s now called Israel, Jordan, and ‘disputed territory’ just west of the Jordan River.
1
If you were the leader of the Palestinian Authority, would you take seriously (or ever trust) a purported peace-broker who said the following about you:
“You have 5 million Palestinians who are really trapped because of bad leadership. So what we have done is we’ve created an opportunity for their leadership to either seize or not. If they screw up this opportunity, which again, they have a perfect track record of missing opportunities. If they screw this up, I think that they will have a very hard time looking the international community in the face, saying they’re victims, saying they have rights. This is a great deal for them.” — Jared Kushner on Christiane Amanpour’s CNN Int’l Show
“Boy wonder” has no business whatsoever injecting himself into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s a spoiled rotten ignorant man-child and a complete embarrassment to the United States (just like his uneducated father-in-law).
5
Another casually racist article from eugenics Brett. This being the fourth opinion article by a white man on Trump’s ethnic cleansing plan. Is the Times going to publish a Palestinian voice?
5
Trump's plan "concedes full Israeli sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem. It conditions eventual Palestinian statehood on full demilitarization of a Palestinian state and the disarming of Hamas.... The map of a future Palestine looks less like an ordinary state than it does the M.R.I. of a lung or kidney."
- Mr. Stephens, please re-read what you wrote, and tell me again why the Palestinian people should wake up & get on board with Trump's new, undeniably pro-Israeli "peace" plan?
3
@Rob-In-Brevard He just explained it to you. How could you fail to understand the point of the article?
2
What you're basically saying is the Palestinians can't hope for a fair deal so they should settle for what they can get.
That probably is true, unfortunately. But what a sad comment on the state of human rights in this world. What a cynical pandering to the Israeli government.
2
"That isn’t to say that the plan, as it now stands, can come as anything but a disappointment to most Palestinians. It allows Israel to annex its West Bank settlements and the long Jordan Valley. It concedes full Israeli sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem. It conditions eventual Palestinian statehood on full demilitarization of a Palestinian state and the disarming of Hamas. It compensates Palestinians for lost territories in the West Bank with remote territories near the Egyptian border. The map of a future Palestine looks less like an ordinary state than it does the M.R.I. of a lung or kidney."
You acknowledge that the plan is bad for "ordinary Palestinians," but think they should accept it either way, because if not the bully will take more from them?
"Might makes right?" Is this how the "Shining beacon" of democracy should act? Is this how we want our democratic allies to act?
5
@Mike Well, of course not. Israel should just give Hamas, the PA and BDS what they want. It's as though most of the commenters here have never read a thing about the history of this conflict.
1
Don't like Trump's plan? Where was Obama's peace plan to solve this issue?
2
In 1948, Jews accepted a much truncated version of their dream in recognition of the reality on the ground.
Seventy years later, Palestinians would do well to put their notions of justice aside. The plan delivers a land mass equivalent to their purported demands, $50B, and absolution from paying reparations to the families of the murdered and land stolen (yes, Jews were thrown out of their homes). This is not a humiliation. To the contrary, it is clear the Israelis along with the whole world would bend over backwards to make it work.
However, the stature of the Palestinian cause is diminishing. In four years, Israel will likely have gone a long way in normalizing relations with the Sunni world. Frankly, at some point the world will move on to other things. There are many others suffering who have not been marauding the West for decades.
8
It’s a mystery to me why the Palestinian people cannot see that their primary enemy is their own string of venal incompetent leaders, not Israel. My best guess is that it is denial.
201
@Gwen Vilen: It's never appropriate for an outsider to decide for others who "their primary enemy" is - especially, as here, somebody from the U.S., who rarely receives unbiased information about Israel and never about Palestine. I'll trust the Palestinian people to know more about the conditions of their lives and to make informed choices about their political future - something that was apparently not considered by this administration in devising this so-called "peace plan."
47
The longer the Palestinians wait the worst their situation becomes, as the territories they care about, are incorporated into Israel. Trump is not waiting around for the Palestinians to become woke, rather he sees that past Presidents gained nothing with the olive branch. The only weapon the Palestinians have is their birth rate, eventually Israel will be forced to relocate Palestinian-Israelis to the West Bank and Gaza, or the Jewish state no longer endures.
9
@Olenska
Lovely in theory, short on facts that align with the historical record. Yasser Arafat turned down the best hope for a legitimate Palestinian state and the peace and prosperity it would have brought. He also was a billionaire who is known to have diverted at least $300 million from the PLO to his own private Swiss Bank Account. So perhaps the people who supported him and relied on him were ultimately betrayed by his greed.
27
When considering peace between the Palestinians and Israel I am informed by the Egyptian peace deal made in the late Seventies. Both sides has to come to the table and negotiate.
I seem to recall that a key point in the deal was the Egypt had to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Without that, there was no peace possible. It seems to me that the first step is that Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a nation. If they can do just that, it would likely go a long way to put international pressure on Israel to come to the table and perhaps give more.
4
@GG
Nice try.
Israel claimed for years and years that this was their one and only condition for making peace with the Palestinians. When Yassar Arafat did explicitly state that he accepted Israel's right to exist it seemed like it was seconds later that Israel's advocates had come out with a new and extensive list of conditions that had to be met before they would make peace.
Face it they are European colonists who have no intention of doing anything but take.
4
So the Palestinians have to wait four years and must also meet difficult standards before they are able to obtain the promised benefits while Israel has started to take over the land that were promised. What a wonderful deal.
Now add to that bit of generosity by the "peace plan" the fact that the US ambassador to Israel is citing how great it will be financially for Israel with a boon for the tourism industry with evangelicals being able to visit historical sights in the Holy Land.
Bret Stephens is not credible since he has a deep bias for Israel which blinds him to the concerns of the Palestinians-- no matter what he says.
4
And any time they say yes, they get screwed.....
6
Strange headline on the column.
"Every Time Palestinians Say 'No', They Lose"
it could also be written as:
"Every Time Palestinians Say 'Yes', They Lose"
Certainly, many believe, with substantial justification, that the Palestinians have not helped their cause by their choices.
However, was there really a different set of choices they could have made that would have made their lives better? Not so clear.
The hard truth is that the Palestinians do not have any voice, yes or no.
3
I think it was Golda Meir that said, "there will be peace in the middle east when Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews."
12
@Randy
It's a powerful quote, but it might be useful too for Israelis to acknowledge that they built their thriving society on the expulsion, expropriation and occupation of Palestinians.
What are they doing to mitigate the injustice done to the Palestinians?
3
The underlying thesis of your column is correct.
The problem now remains that the Palestinian bargaining position is so weakened after 73 years of intransigence that they are now bereft of the leverage needed to advance a reasonable condition for the Statehood they aspire to... a Statehood which might bring some measure of peace to the conflict. They are the victim of their leaders failure to recognize that Israel is now an established entity, and their leaders failure to mold Palestinian public opinion to that reality.
The Trump plan is terrible for both Israelis and Palestinians. It condemns Israel to be a forever occupier... which most Israelis reject, and for Palestinians to be forever occupied which is anathema to everyone.The only good aspect of the plan is that it focuses everyone on the absurd result it produces.
This conflict will only be resolved over time when Palestinians accept great compromise and recognition of Israel, and when an Israeli government feels it can respond to that change safely by offering a dignified partitioning plan.
Until then we are well on our way to yet another 100 Years War.
3
@Phil Zaleon I'm not quite sure that statehood would satisfy "Palestinians" when history clearly shows those Arab tribes are not driven by a nationalistic sentiment, rather their ambition has always been annihilation of Israel as per their religious beliefs. They see themselves as members of Islamic Ummah, mandated to "clear the holy land from filthy Jews" ( Mahmoud Abbas' words). Thus, I'm not optimistic they would support any plan that offers them a state in return for their acceptance of Israel to exist. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but it's my take from Mideast history, including those written by Muslim scholars.
1
Excellent. As a practical matter, 50 years after the 1967 war its time for Israel to establish its secure boundaries and enshrine some settler claims in the contested Area C. When and if the Palestinians are ready for peace they can negotiate the remaining issues and move toward a quasi State status. In the meantime economic integration and development will continue, faster if they engage. In the interest of long term peace, that will be more likely if most Israelis and US Democrats get behind the plan. Making support bipartisan will drive home the point to the Palestinians that its time to resolve the conflict.
4
Seeming historical erudition aside, your entire article comes down to one word: Jerusalem. Also, who shouldn’t live history backwards? Both sides bathe in the cesspool of that practice, hence the tragedy unfolding in the region for about 1000 years give or take. 1947 is very very recent history in this debacle.
3
Brett
Plan is dead on arrival because the main point is a transfer of fertile land and the only water in the area, to the Israelis, for desert.
9
I would be reluctant to work on any peace plan with a liar and a thief. Perhaps the Palestinians should consult with the Kurds before they sign on the dotted line. Or the Ukrainians, who got their promised money only after the liar got caught.
14
The plan subjugates the Palestinian people. Their water and energy sources will be controlled by Israel. Transport of imports and exports will be controlled by Israel. Their justice system will be over seen and controlled by Israel. Resistance to Israeli controls will be met by arrest and imprisonment. Freedom of travel into and out of their so-called "state" will be controlled by Israel.
The Trump-Kushner-Netanyahu plan is nothing more than the creation of another open air prison like Gaza.
8
@Greg A perfect explanation of Brexit. Oh, you mean you're talking about the Palestinians, not the British?
I can think of something far worse than being controlled, at least temporarily, by Israel.
Being controlled by the multi "liberation" corruption terrorist parties, both in Gaza, and the West bank. For all those who scream about terrible poverty in the West bank, and it does exist, remember there are some gorgeous towns with beautiful mansions that make many Israelis envious. With indoor swimming pools. And, here's the kicker, many so-called residents of the squalid refugee camps actually live in normal homes in regular towns, but maintain those poor addresses to collect the benefits. An example of the ludicrous corruption, which you seem to totally support.
3
The Palestinians have been losing since 1917 when Balfour hoping for Jewish support when WW1 was going badly for Britain gave away part of Palestine to Jews as a state when Jews were about 7% of the population there.
They have been losing since. Some clearly self inflicted and some which they had no control over. They were served very badly by the Arab states since 1948.
They really have nothing to lose by rejecting this latest scam, and that is what it is, cooked up by Jared and Bibi with the quiet acceptance of the Sunni states.
Of course it was made public now when Bibi and Trump need every vote they can get in their next elections.
Israel will become an apartheid state. No one in Israel seems to care but hubris has brought down more than one state in the long history of the Middle East.
5
When given the opportunity the politicians of Israel drive Palestinians into the Ocean or the Desert. Every time as Bret Stevens so accurately points out "yes" or 'No', they have lost their homeland. And there is no half a loaf.
1
Israel as a nation for people known as Jews should never have been created. Ditto Islamic Republic of Pakistan for Muslims OR Saudi Arabia for Muslims. Jews were not the first people upon whom a holocaust was unleashed.
In 1971 the Islamic Republic of Pakistan massacred 2.4 million Hindus in East Pakistan and drove another 10 million Hindus into India. Shouldn't these Hindus have gotten their own country within what was once East Pakistan, about 33% of that land because Hindus were 33% of East Pakistan?
If you believe that all the land on this globe belongs to all the humans on this globe then the absurdity of Israel cannot be denied. Israel should never have been created. Palestinians have every right to live anywhere they please in the land that comprises Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. I would include Jordan because had Jordan not been created its citizens would be called Palestinians.
Having said that Israel is real. It is there. The Jews have built an advanced society that is comparatively more democratic and secular than either Gaza or the West Bank. Any unification should be done very gradually and would have to wait until the Palestinians caught up. But both the Jews and the Palestinians must first admit that Israel as a Jewish state has to be dismantled, albeit gradually, in the next 25 years or more.
1
@Indian Diner
Let’s first see how well dismantling all the Muslim states go before we talk about dismantling all the Jewish ones. And the Christian states too, while you’re at it.
3
@Indian Diner , I posted my comment around 6 AM. Why this delay in publishing it?
2
Let’s not forget that at Oslo the Palestinians said “yes”. But by 1993 the expansion project for “greater Israel” was well underway.
While the Oslo agreement contemplated a relatively short transition to statehood, the Israel’s had other ideas. Any Palestinian state would mean a return to most of the 67 borders and an end to the Greater Israel vision of the Zionist movement.
The rest as they say is history. And it is not a history Result without considerable Palestinian fault.
The PA is thoroughly corrupt. But the fundamental rights of a people to self determination is not contingent on the quality of their leaders.
The Stephens argument is that the Palestinians have gotten what they deserve. But international law has long held that no people “deserve” to be colonized by a more powerful neighbor.
It has also held that apartheid policies are illegal and these Palestinian Bantustans are no different than the ones created by the Afrikaners to provide “independence “ to the blacks.
Stephens endorsement of this “solution” is not surprising since he proudly admits his Zionist politics. But the real question is what do Americans think about apartheid?
Trump has offered apartheid as official American policy and Stephens claims that this all the Palestinians deserve.
I say no. The people of Palestine deserve the rights of self determination no less than we do. This therefore is a terrible plan that the American people should reject.
12
The bombs started going off on buses too...did you mention that?
2
OK Brett, you really scored points with me here. Because you're a closet conservative I pass on most of your articles. Now I would like your endorsement of this: Palestinians are as mislead as we americans are, and no progress will be witnessed until the political leadership changes , and responds to the people.
2
Actually, there is a fair amount of success in "living history backwards." After World War II, ethnic Germans, Poles, and others were moved from newly reconstituted nations into others. Surviving Jews were "encouraged" to move to Israel by Communist governments of Middle and Eastern Europe. As a result, the inhabitants of Poland are almost entirely Polish, for example. It all depends on when you wish to determine when "history" starts, I guess.
5
So, when the schoolyard bully roughs up a student, the staff at the school should not look at the assault, but rather tell the kid, “It happened, get over it”?
The roots of this problem definitely lie in the past. The Romans thought up and executed the Diaspora in the first century C.E. In the third century, the Catholic Church became pretty much officially anti-Semitic. Then, as Rome pulled back, the land became the new home of another people being squeezed out of their home. The Byzantine Empire takes control of the area, to be followed by the Arab conquest of the land. Then Crusades, where a Crusader (Raymond d’Aguiliers) reported the fact that “the streets of Jerusalem ran red with the blood of unbelievers.”
But the Crusaders could not hold onto the land and following the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, the land was taken over by the Muslim Ottoman Empire, where it remained until after WWI, when the British took control of it. During WWI, in order to get more Jewish people onboard, the Balfour Declaration officially put Britain in favor of Zionism (the idea that there should be a Jewish State in the area). So Britain helped Jewish people resettle in the area, but still no state of Israel. Israel came about because Truman needed the majority of Jewish votes behind him, and championed the founding of Israel.
When Israel was founded, the Palestinians, the larger population, were given the smaller, less viable portion of land. Yeah, forget history.
5
@ASPruyn
You conveniently neglected the fact that that the sovereign state of Jordan is situated upon 80% of the territory that was historic Palestine and is the de facto Arab Palestinian state. The two-state solution already exists.
4
@Susanna Fiction! Jordan was formerly known as Transjordan, not "Palestine." And it was promised to the Hashemites in 1915, pre-Balfour. It was excluded from the "Jewish homeland" scheme in two separate treaties, was autonomous under the mandate, had its own government by 1924 and was independent two years before there even was an entity known as Israel.
This loopy claim that Jordan is the "de facto Palestinian state" is pure revisionism, fueled by hatred of the Palestinians and greed for their land. It presumes that Jews somehow had an entitlement to all of the British Mandate. Hah! Zionists were a small, controversial religious/political committee -- and they were not at the table when the major powers carved up the former Ottoman Empire.
Yes, every time the Palestinians lose and the Israelis win more land. But the Israelis also lose their most cherished attribute - their morality. Israel's actions will unfortunately reverse the historical narrative of Jews as victims to one of oppressors. That is the ultimate loss.
9
The Palestinians have been, and are, too weak to ever risk a deal. They have fetishized their grievance and are in a trap of mostly their own making. Evil players like Tehran are using them as tools, they need to wake up and fast.
5
And what happens when the Israelis dont live up to there side? Because they won't. Would you agree to this if you were a Palestinian? I think not. This whole experiment isnt working out to well for the world and I suspect it will just get worse...your columns and clear bias won't help either. But I like reading you.
1
The floggings will continue until attitudes improve !
That is the message for Palestinians as Israel turns the occupied West Bank into a two state solution forced upon one land. One state has occupiers who are citizens and the other state has people with no rights.
You don't like it ? Be sure to say thank you as your house is demolished.
2
Just like Jared Kushner, Mr. Stephens patronizingly feigns sympathy with the Palestinian people in order to push his ideological agenda. Stop with the fake concern for Palestinian flourishing, unless you're willing to denounce the disproportionate murder of civilians.
4
So, the Palestinians should have gratefully accepted the “generous” 1947 Partition plan which would have confiscated half of their land and given it to the European Jewish settlers? Seriously?
Israel is a “settler colonial” state, like South Africa, Australia and the US. The “settler” always tries to eliminate the indigenous population, in this case, the Palestinians.
For over 5 decades, Israel has illegally oppressed, subjugated and even massacred the Palestinian population. Israel can slaughter Palestinians in broad daylight with impunity, as it did in 2018-2019 in the nonviolent Great March to Return in Gaza, because of the political cover that the US provides Israel.
The solution is One Democratic State. Give everyone equal rights, open the prison that is called Gaza, and end the savage occupation of the West Bank.
What? You say Israel does not want everyone to have equal rights? I guess that says it all.
4
@JC
Kind of the tragedy is that Israel was founded on a colonial ideology, just when it went out of fashion, so to speak.
The US, Australia, were sufficiently established and can/could shrug off the stigma. South Africa was too lobsided to pull it off. Israel never had the chance and never attempted to. It went full out to occupation.
Surprise. Surprise. The Saudis don’t object. The tyrants Bibi and Trump embrace. Nice axis of evil with Putin pulling the strings on all of them. What a mess and the only start of a way out is voters getting rid of Trump and Bibi
2
Take this deal or we will make things worse for you. Sounds like a line in a Mario Puzo novel, no! 5 minutes after the US government tell Israel you are on your own, the deal will get better. The US policy should be, with friends like the Israel government, who needs enemies?
3
Living history backwards...hmm...who else does that these days...? Oh right, Never Trumpers and those disgruntled Repubs who long to return to their Clubhouse to its pre-Trump days. Where they coded their racism, and sexism and didn't speak it out loud. Where they pandered to Xtian extremists. Where the good Corp deals were made. And Presidents on their side were smart enough to also speak in code. Plus, most of the Repubs social policies were about going backwards into their Rose-colored views of the past.
Look, when the Palestinians say no, and they are right to say no to this clearly Republican-style, Gerrymandered land zoning deal - everyone loses. And they know that! Do they lose too? Yes! But as long as they can inflict whatever pain they can on Israel and now Trump, and their zealots, so be it!
At every turn the Palestinians have been blamed for not taking lousy deals, deals making Israel their master. To trade like for like! For decades they have been told by the Conservative Right, by guys like Stephens in the West, to take this crumb, and there will be more crumbs to follow. Basically the same argument against the Black Civil Rights movements in the US. "Take it slow, take these crumbs and scraps, more will follow, but take these now, take it slow...you can trust us, promise." (fingers crossed behind the back)
Phooey! The Trumpushner "Deal" is touted as the best deal ever...but look whose peddling it!? Look who drafted it, more importantly who was not involved!
1
The title should be “Every Time the Palestinians Turn Around They Lose”. The deck has been stacked against them since WWII. I feel sympathy for both sides.
3
Palestinians, like all peoples, have a right to self determination. They have a right not to be oppressed, murdered and denied basic rights. The US, as Israel's underwriter, has a responsibility to stop supporting massive human right abuses and a racist apartheid system. In not doing so and in supporting, arming and funding such a regime we undermine the values we claim to represent and we create enemies.
4
You know that old adage a woman scorned? It might give you an idea of how it feels to be Palestine. I would not let anyone dictate to me a the terms of an agreement that is 50% about me and not invite me to the table to discuss what I need or what I want.
You already have insulted me, you have already dismissed my needs and wants - ME, Palestine, you have left me out of decisions that effect my life, my people, my land.
You didn't even invite me to your announcement party. You made the deal that benefited you the corrupt US President in your bid for reelection. You got the other criminal politician from Israel to rave about you and why wouldn't he, he got a sweetheart deal which is easy to get when you are the only one appearing for yourself in the negotiations. Bravo Jared the incredible business man he negotiate a deal with one party present!!
The Palestinians deserve a voice in the process. How dare anyone decide what is best for them as if they have no voices of their own. You picked a side -- you picked Israel --- you didn't care about me, Palestine, or you would have included me and treated me and my wants and needs as if they mattered in making a decision about me.
The Palestinians should ignore this offer as it was never intended for them, never about them that message is loud and clear.
4
So your neighbor, who already occupies a great portion of your property and gives you very little leeway to come and go because of their “security concerns”, now has the rogue “police” on their side and are demanding that you give up another 40% of your property and will diminish the number of rooms that you can exist in - in your OWN HOME?!
Since you think this is such a great idea for the Palestinians, why don’t you give it a test run in YOUR HOME, setting an example of how great an opportunity this is.
4
“Regarding President Trump’s peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the instant conventional wisdom is that it’s a geopolitical nonstarter, a gift to Benjamin Netanyahu and an electoral ploy by the president to win Jewish votes in Florida rather than Palestinian hearts in Ramallah.”
Wouldn’t it be great if the columnists were actually capable of understanding the meaning of their own words?
The same statement could be easily rephrased:
The NYT and its columnist Bret Stevens are accusing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu of meddling in the US election...
3
Would Mandela have settled for a two-state solution? Go big or go home, I say.
2
Of course not. That’s why he won it for his beloved country. Would Ben Gurion say yes to a similar deal? Of course not. Would Bret?
3
Many years ago the Israeli diplomat Abba Eban said the “Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. For many years the reason for that behavior was a combination of bad Palestinian leadership and the exploitation of the Palestinian cause for political purposes by Arab dictators. Each time the Palestinians said no they lost ground. That said the Israelis have long ago abandoned even trying to find a solution to their conflict with Palestinians. All that is left is a a bit of Kabuki theater on the way to an apartheid state. The rump Palestinian state proposed by the Trump plan bears a striking resemblance to the black homelands set up during white rule in South Africa. While Israelis have the power to force this plan into being regardless of what the Palestinians say or do, its unfairness will further isolate Israel from the world community and fan the flames of anti-Semitism. While Israelis see this as a recognition of facts on the ground it is really just a better definition of the rules of subjugation for Palestinians. In the long run there are no winners here only perpetual conflict and a demographic time bomb as Palestinians begin to outnumber Jewish Israelis.
4
"The Jewish state has thrived in part because, dayenu, it has always been prepared to make do with less." - This entire article circles around Israeli encroachment over time, routinely taking more and more from the Palestinians. Isn't this quote a bit of a slap in the face to the Palestinians who are clearly the ones losing more and more.
This quote feels unnecessarily self-congratulatory and things like this only make relations more tense.
2
This could be the last opportunity for lasting peace to negotiate a fair deal for the future of the 2 states, Israel and Palestine. A deal that is not fair to the Palestinians and does not ensure the security and integrity of Israel will not endure. Palestinians should unite behind negotiating the best possible deal and not say 'No' to negotiating on the peace plan.
The holy land comprising Israel and Palestine with the historic Jerusalem as its capital will attract millions more tourists of all religions compared to Mecca which is a forbidden city for non Muslims with a clear warning that if a non Muslim is found inside Mecca, he or she will be beheaded. I remember the contrast between visiting Jerusalem after landing in Tel Aviv and visiting Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and finding out that no cannot visit Mecca. The spectacular sight of Jerusalem from the top of the Yad Vashem. The world Holocaust Remembrance center or the Al-Aqsa Mosque located in the Old City of Jerusalem, is the third holiest site in Islam or Church of the Holy Sepluchure will become the most visited historic sites.
2
Let the Palestinians respond by accepting the 2000 Clinton Parameters and massive acres of a discard pile of rockets, mortars, and submachine guns in Gaza City. Then we can talk.
1
The goal of Israel is the destruction and diaspora of the Palestinians from Palestine. Most of the Christians have already. The irony of the Jewish state inflicting this is obvious.
3
So Bret, should the Palestinians just say yes to apartheid. I see how this proposal is good for Trump and Netanyahu politically. I think for Palestinians this plan is a present disaster and for Israelis a long term disaster.
1
'Then again, much of what the plan gives to Israel, Israel already has and will never relinquish '
Which explains the open mockery and perverse nature of probably every plan ever forwarded to the Palestinians. It always reflected the winner-takes-it-all attitude, more or less. And Israel did deserve those victories, the Arabs better take a hard look at themselves which they are apparently incapable of.
Yet, the author certainly has the point here - the Palestinians were always offered a frog to swallow, they rejected (not unnaturally) and the next time the frog got bigger and uglier. And the frogs will keep on coming.
2
Every time Palestinians say anything they lose. Full stop.
3
Please allow me to sum up this entire article:
Might makes right.
3
Israel has offered the Palestinians many great deals and they refused all of them.
This is the final one. They get 70% if the land.
They say, No, we want 100% of our demands.
Sorry.
You guys lost the war. You are now on your own.
Have a nice day.
7
I suggest a thought experiment: replace the word "Palestinians" with "Indians", the word "Israel" with the word "United States" and read the article again... can you see the unjustice now?
3
Israel’s war of independence ???? ok, I can stop reading.
1
Two well-known statements by famous Israeli leaders:
Golda Meir — We know that the Arabs want to kill us. We’re just not going to help them do it.
Abba Eban — The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
There’s no point in dredging up everyone’s historical claims and grievances. The Palestinians have played their last cards. If they want any kind of independence, they’d better grab the opportunity now.
7
Bret Stephens never misses an opportunity to provide the most shallow, one-sided understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today he openly embraces Trumpian stupidity and casts his own ballot for low-intensity, yet relentless, Middle East violence.
3
The problem with Trump's plan is that its vision of the Palestinian state is a network of Bantustans that are unable to control even their access to water.
To put it more bluntly: The Plan proposes the legalization of the apartheid system on the West Bank.
2
Right now there are more Palestinian citizens than Israeli citizens in Israel.
Right now there are more Palestinian citizens than Israeli citizens in Palestine.
See how these two sentences sound different?
This plan only benefits Israel. It's not a fair trade..
1
I find the first sentence odd, "Things rarely go well for those who try to live history backward". Is that not what the Jewish justification to the State of Israel is based on ?
4
I'm so sick of this one-sided attitude, Mr. Stephens.
"You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye."
Only honest bilateral negotiations can hope to bring a peaceful solution.
Look at the Camp David Accords. Look at the Good Friday Agreement.
There are ways of doing this right.
My way or the highway isn't one of them.
8
Were the Allies going forward of backward when they said Yes to Hitler in Munich? Were the Chinese going forward or backward when they said Yes to the British in 1842 and 1860?
You're right, Mr Stephens, to say the Palestinians lose if they say No. They also lose if they say Yes. I'm too young to remember the previous instances, but what is clear in today's proposed "solution" is that they cannot go backward of history, because all paths that are being laid to them go downwards. Israel and Trump's administration bear a criminal responsibility (literally, in regards to US shaped international law).
I know the comparisons I made are osé. But the pattern is the same: when a country has the power of fait accompli and feels no moral obligation, the only plans they will put forward will be unequal treaties.
1
Given his previous op-eds, I'm surprised Mr. Stephens didn't posit that the reasons the Palestinians continue to lose is because they are genetically inferior.
1
Why does this situation remind me of the situation with Native Americans? The Palestinians don’t like the layout of the reservation of the worst land on the West Bank. Can you blame them?
4
The Palestinians are terrorists. Hamas and the PLO not only terrorize Israel but they have a gun to their own people. No different then what Iran does to their people. They exhort their people by paying terrorists and their families to be martyers for the sake of fundamentalist Islamic values that have no place in the modern era. They do so they can control everything in their society while they line their pockets. Typical behavior from strong armed dictators that rule by force. The population gets brain washed and nothing changes. Israel and the world must always remember who they are dealing with. At the moment there is nothing in it for Palestinian leadership to want to make peace. I support Israel doing what they need to do and that is annex the territories from which they will never leave and wait for the miracle necessary for the other side to see the light and want to live in peace with their neighbor.
6
@Henry Blumner Have you heard of the Irugun or the Stern gang? They were terrorist organizations that carried out acts of terror during the formation of the State of Israel. In fact Menacham Began who was the Prime Minister of Israel was a leader of Irugun.
1
Stephens writes, "Nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less."
Therein lies the fallacy in Stephens thinking: equating the varied and varying Palestinian interests with "the "Arab side." I would simply note that Black September, the Palestinian group that murdered eleven Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972, was named not after an Israeli operation against Palestinians but after a Jordanian crackdown on Palestinians.
2
Israel is taking over Palestinian land and planning for more settlements and the Palestinians are supposed to come to the table? Why should any people be willing to make deals with the thieves that abuse them and take their land? Sick and tired of excuses being made for this behavior. Bret Stephens knows better.
4
@Lily Quinones
Because Israel has built a financially successful society with more security than they've ever had while providing due process. protection for religious minorities and homosexuals, and the rule of law.
They've accomplished this not because they negotiated with the Palestinians but precisely because they have refused to negotiate. And while the Palestinians are financially corrupt, pay financial inducement for terror, provide no due process, have had no leader with an elected mandate, and hand out the death sentence to homosexuals there is no one with whom to negotiate.
Negotiations have only resulted in weakness and terror.
The reality is the Palestinians have no cards left to play. Once you've been offered 97% of what you claim you want, turned it down, and blow up a pizzeria full of children you have no cards left to play.
That's why they should negotiate. Next time they'll get less.
2
“Things never go well for those who try to live history backwards “. Was not the idea of the Zionists to undo the history of the Jewish people and give them a home land found in biblical history? Is this not trying to undo the historical events of the Jewish diaspora? The problem is that now somebody else lived there and that the only way to have a Jewish homeland was to remove and take land from those inhabitants. For over 100 years it was the western powers ,first the British and now Americans, that told the Palestinians they had to defer to the wishes of Jewish interests. After the First World War,the British wanted Palestine as a land to protect their holdings in Egypt. As not to appear as land grabbers,they came up with the idea of a Jewish homeland. From that point on, the interests of the Palestinians have taken second place to that of foreign demands.
1
On this the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, living history backwards appears more appropriate for some than for others, Bret.
1
Bret may be right on the pragmatic argument, but he is dead wrong on the morals. America should be looking at the latter. Any peace agreement will have to be negotiated and enforced by themselves. All this “plan” does is put a thumb on the scale in favor of Israel. Many commenters have pointed out the parallels to the ways native Americans have been treated. It’s a shame we continue to operate similarly to one of the greatest stains on our history.
158
@Nathan Schoeneck
There is quite literally not one shred of common ground between the experience of Native Americans and Palestinians. It's not as if Europeans actually predated Native Americans in what is now the USA. Yet, it is historical fact that Jews settled and lived in what is now Israel long before Islam was brought to the region in the 7th century. Suggesting otherwise is either based on emotion rather than fact or just plain ignores undisputed history.
If there is any argument to be had about the right-to-return, it must be noted that Jews have a historical claim to Israel that far exceeds the Palestinian one.
13
@Nathan Schoeneck
Except this is different from Native Americans because today's so-called Palestinians are not native to the land of Palestine. If you were to ask a historian in the 19th century who the Palestinians were, he or she would have said the Jews who live in the land of Palestine.
10
@Nathan Schoeneck How about the Palestinians accept a seat at the table to discuss the plan? Use it as a starting point. Some stuff you can live with, some stuff you can't, and some stuff you can meet halfway on. Do a small deal now, work towards something bigger later. This is how deals are done. It might not be fair, but there are some things the Israelis are not going to concede. They are most certainly in the driver's seat. However unjust people might perceive that to be, it is a fact. The Palestinian move of refusing to come to the table when faced with a deal that doesn't give them everything they want would be brilliant if they had a hand to play. They don't. They have zero leverage and never will. Why not start trying to rack up some wins?
7
My take away from Mr. Stephens' column is that the Palestinians should not reject the proposal out of hand, rather than engaging in negotiations to determine whether a workable resolution may be reached. What is wrong with that, particular with both Trump and Netanyahu facing domestic troubles and elections that leave them motivated to do a deal? Presumably, this is not a take it or leave it proposal, since that is not something Mr. "Art of the Deal" would advocate? In terms of nonstarters, that would be the BDS Movement and the so-called "right to return" demand, which basically amounts to the elimination of the State of Israel.
2
The US and Israel in Trump and Netanyahu do not have the moral authority to demand Palestinians (who also lacks that same quality) accept this "deal". This whole "deal" smacks of electioneering, bullying, and has the same appearence of how we "worked" with Native Americans here at home. Palestinians at the moment ought to reject the "deal", notify that any action to go ahead anyways is an act of war and genocide, and simply reject all American efforts to be involved. Finally, steal one of our "leaders" lines: we'll wait until your people have voted.
Israel has never stopped stealing land from Palestinians. The US funds the Israeli military at 2 billion a year and has participated in sham peace deals before--while Israel continued to build illegal settlements. Do not criticize the victim -- Palestinians have lived under occupation for 50 years. What is happening there is genocide. These peace deals are made to assuage the guilt of western funders while Israel continues its land grab and human rights violations. Like the US, Israel needs to come to terms with its history and with reparations.
2
The 1947 UN partition plan refers to an "Arab state" 20 times. And who rejected it, as usual?
See: https://ecf.org.il/media_items/498
4
@Abbott Katz
No one consulted the natives. Outsiders imposed the division. Moreover, they gave most of the land to the Jewish immigrants.
It's also highly ironic that Israel relies on the UN partition plan, yet ever since has defied UN resolutions about grabbbing land and its treatment of the Palestinians. More hypocrisy.
The only reason this mess has dragged on as long as it has and Israel has gotten away with the atrocities they have visited upon the Palestinians is because because we have let them, nay, encouraged them. And we are doing it again. We are the terrorists here.
Here’s another article by Brett Stephens from 2018 on the many squandered opportunities given to Palestinians where they weren’t asked for anything in return that were squandered.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/opinion/gaza-palestinians-protests.html
1
Thank you Bret for words of reason in this paper.
3
That 50 billion would be stolen by the “ leaders”
1
There will never be peace in the Middle East until a generation of people are raised without the hate of Israel as the main topic in schools, on the streets and in their homes.
Plain and Simple!
6
This peace plan may not be perfect--no plan is--but at least it's grounded in reality. Abba Eban said it best: If Israel was to lay down its arms tomorrow, the Jews would be slaughtered. If the Palestinians were to lay down their arms tomorrow, they'd have a state.
It's really that simple. If the Palestinian leadership was willing to abandon terrorism and violence and truly commit to building a peaceful state, they would get a state. But so far, Palestinian leaders have rejected every peace plan, opting instead for continued violent "resistance". Meanwhile, Israel will continue to prosper, despite the machinations of the blatantly anti-Semitic BDS movement.
Again, no plan will ever be perfect and meet every fantastical Palestinian demand. The choice is simple--accept the offer and begin to build a prosperous civilization, or continue existing as political pawns. Time to wake up to reality.
4
@Jeremy Shere "If the Palestinians were to lay down their arms tomorrow, they'd have a state."
Fatah largely did lay down their arms. And the result was that Israel started taking more land in the West Bank.
About a decade ago, there was a deal being brokered by Egypt between Hamas and Israel that would have resulted in Hamas laying down arms. While that deal was on the desk of the head of Hamas' military, that desk was blown up by an Israeli missile.
The claim that if the Palestinians stopped fighting, they'd have a state, is flat-out wrong.
2
In other words, Bret is a Goliath telling David that he better stop throwing stones.
For more than 2000 years already, most of us know how that story ended ...
1
To me, this is a case of two wrongs not making a right. The Palestinians certainly haven't helped their cause, but they have always been faced with a bunch of unscrupulous thieves, determined to push them out, At the funeral of a settler in the 1950s, Moshe Dayan said words to the effect of "I can understand their burning hatred of us, when they see us building our country on land that they and their fathers have worked for generations." Arch-thieves and crooks Trump and Netanyahu are taking this process to its conclusion.
5
While there is some truth to the point that Palestinian recalcitrance toward good faith actors in the past may have been strategically suboptimal, in this case, the plan is an overt insult, pushed by a president who is literally an insult clown and an Israeli prime minister who is literally a gangster who has been indicted by the Israeli justice system. Both of whom will soon be out of power. It wouldn't even be surprising if one or both of them ended up in jail. A scornful rejection is not only the correct response here, but is to most things that emanate from either of these two toppling political hacks.
2
This deal does not seem like a workable way to create a functioning Palestinian state, but the language made clear that it is a starting offer, open to negotiation. What do the Palestinians have to lose by coming to the table? Why not propose a plan of their own ('67 borders, capital in East Jerusalem?) and force Israel to say no for once?
I fear that the Palestinian leadership won't do that because anything other than complete destruction of the State of Israel is an unacceptable solution. So their people continue to suffer because they will not accept any even remotely plausible outcome.
228
@Kate
Your comment was the best I have read. It is the only one that deals with the fact that Palestinian leaders are all about maintaining their hegemony over the Palestinian people by preaching the non-starter non-solution of the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. If they think the Israelis are going to simply abandon Israel as a Jewish state they are delusional..and they have pushed their delusions on to the Palestinian people who would probably trade their lives of misery for the self-government this plan offers. It is also very likely that the Israelis would offer more of a partnership with a newly formed State of Palestine if it was governed by people who saw their future in a partnership with Israel rather than its destruction.
31
@Kate Israel has said no many times.
14
@Kate I think those hoping for the complete destruction of the State of Israel are in the minority now at least in the West Bank and its leadership. Gaza is a different story...not only is it packed with people who have lived as refugees for decades hoping for the delusion that they may someday return to homes taken at the point of a gun a lifetime ago, but that kind of broken spirit mentality paired with overcrowded living conditions and zero economy along with young men who have no job, no money, no hope makes for a dangerous mix that resorts to violence. What Israel and this plan is offering is nothing but more of the same. Peace it will not bring. Kushner condos will not be sufficient to alleviate the conflict.
14
Ganz is hardly a centrist, and neither are you.
1
Um, Bret. I don’t know if you noticed but the hare-brained scheme thought up by Trump/Kushner/Miller/Saudi Crown Prince MBS and assorted (anti) Christian evangelicals did not include input by Palestinians whether they were Christian, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist. That is what you call living history backwards.
4
No counteroffer. Period. Drop the mike.
Doesn't that tell you Abbas' frame of mind? Make a counteroffer. Make it ridiculous and illogical, just say SOMETHING to show that negotiations are still a possibility. The fact that the Pali's first "no" came out way before the details did tells us that there is no negotiations to be had.
4
And if they said yes, they'd win? That's a pretty cruel joke, Stephens.
The sad truth is, despite the obvious validity of their claims, the Palestinians are doomed to lose. Doomed because every power who feigns a willingness to help does so with ulterior motives. Until western powers, chief among them the United States, display a willingness to stand up to Israel, any hope of a just peace in the region is an opium dream.
Bibi and his network of fraudsters and thugs have no real interest in peace as long as Trump and his network of fraudsters and thugs are willing to allow Israel to continue its unimpeded expansion into what little remains of a potential Palestinian state.
It's funny in a non-laughing way. We in the west defecate bricks over Putin's use of military force to expand his dream of rebuilding the Soviet Union, but when the Netanyahu seeks to covert an occupation into territorial expansion, we tut tut and write specious columns like this blaming the Palestinians for insisting on fair treatment.
This, Stephens, is pretty shameful.
4
Predictable, disingenuous hogwash. This is not an opportunity for the Palestinians but, rather, a formalization of a march to the inevitable. The fact that it is inevitable does not make it right.
3
Instead of saying no, and ending up with less, the Palestinians should say yes, and end up with less.
Sizzling hot logic from Mr. Stephens to start our mornings. Wonderful.
3
That's precious that the author of this piece uses Saudi Arabia's and Arab Emirates' apparent acceptance as a sign the deal should be considered. Let's not forget the prince of SA had a journalist brutally murdered and chopped into pieces to be spread only God knows where. Remember that little humanitarian crisis these going on in Yemen while the US continues to sell them arms despite Congressional disapproval? Of course they are not going to have much to say against a plan this president touts as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
3
Every time Native Americans said "No", they lost. Guns vs. bow and arrow. The Palestinians have rudimentary rockets and rocks; Israel has tanks and jets (supplied by the USA). This is how uneven the match-up is.
2
Look a little more closely and you will find Israel's annexation of water and natural gas resources that belong to the Palestinian people. This is not the "Deal of the Century" ..... it is the "Swindle of the Century".
5
I’m Jewish, exceptionally pro-Israel, yet find this proposal a hugely preposterous. It’s more like hunting being a sport, a game, where the opposing team doesn’t know the rules and the objective is to kill.
2
Ludicrous - this isn't a peace plan. This is an American-sanctioned plan to permanently subjugate Palestinians to apartheid.
Instead of writing condescending editorials which treat Palestinians like a faceless problem for Israelis and not people with dignity and human needs, Mr Stephens should ask himself if he would accept a single one of those compromises if he were on the receiving end of them.
The Palestinians are being 'offered' $50bn crowd-sourced from disinterested and corrupt Gulf dictatorships which will never materialise and some god-forsaken, uninhabitable patch of the Sinai. In exchange, the Trump-Kushner-Bibi plan perpetuates Israeli military occupation indefinitely at Israel's discretion, denies the 'sovereign' Palestine a military to defend itself, annexes all of the colonial settlements built on land stolen from Palestinians, denies a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem despite nearly a million Palestinians living there, and leaves the Palestinians to 'govern' a dis-jointed rump-state of Bantu-stans completely surrounded by militarised Israeli borders.
It's a joke, and it's only possible because people like Mr Stephens refuse to see Palestinians as people with interests as distinct from the 'national security' of Israel.
Mr Stephens says that the best thing for Palestinians is to 'learn from Israel'. I'm certain that the only lessons Palestinians learn from Israel is that violence, theft, and cruelty work: Whatsoever a man soweth, so shall he reap.
6
It is likely that many Palestinians are like many Americans: they know Trump is a fool and they automatically reject anything he supports. Is that smart? Probably not, but it is understandable. Perhaps they should be more willing to compromise but the new map is weird, so you have to appreciate their reluctance on that point as well.
"… no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it …."
--- From the text of the Khartoum Resolution that was issued on 9/1/1967 by eight Arab Heads of State in the aftermath of the Six-Day War.
The more things change, the more they don’t.
9
How is a ‘yes’ possible when illegally (under international law) occupied people are told “we want your land but not you, your families, relatives and non-chosen friends” all based on race/religion?
3
Sure, because everyone wants to be bullied into acquiescence. This argument is more like 'shut up and like it' and that makes my skin crawl.
1
As others have already mentioned. This is nothing but a ploy. You’ve got to be terribly naive or seriously misinformed to think otherwise.
3
The argument is clear and basically true. Yet I m not quite sure what the future will be. The idea of "time" for the palestinians is not similar to that of the Jews. They will wait whatever it takes to see the pendulum going into their side.
Furthermore their idea of 'pride' does not fit Jewish prgmatism and consideration for survival. Jews did not deal with pride, and did not care for whatever home they had to abandon. They care only for survival. The palestinians will wait till the end of days in order to recover symbolically and practically what it has been stolen ( according to their narrative) from them.
Nowadays, thus there is one winner. Israel. What about the future....who knows?
2
Let's be honest: eventually Israël is going to annex all of the Westbank. Just not now.
The Trump deal, considered by the Palestinians as a 'rip off' , is actually an accurate description of the present state of the gulping down of these territories.
A complete annexation will also be the best solution for " improving the quality of Palestinian governance, first of all by replacing leaders whose principal interests lie in perpetuating their misrule. "
Of course, that should include full citizenship for all.
2
The state of Israel is founded upon the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. This is a fact, as there are documents to prove it. Anyone arguing for its continued oppression of Palestinians and blatant disregard for their human rights is an enemy of humanity.
It's also rich that Mr. Stephens says that Palestinians are always looking backward-- the whole Zionist cause is one that justifies oppressing others because of the horrible historical oppression Jews experienced. It is a bankrupt ideology to anyone with any sense.
3
"Would you like to live in this open-air prison?"
"No."
"WRONG ANSWER."
4
I think the reverse is also true. Every time Israel marginalizes Palestinians and takes Palestinian land meant for their state, Israel loses. It remains in a perpetual state of hostility with its neighbors. It remains an aggressor and apartheid state in the minds of most people of the world outside of the US. And, lastly and most importantly, Israel will lose the ability remain a State for the Jews, because as more Palestinians are enveloped within the expansionist Israeli state, they dilute the Jewish population. Eventually this minority on the road to majority will demand its rights within the State of Israel. What happened to South Africa will eventually happen to Israel -- an integrated society like it or not.
2
What happens when the Palestinians finally throw in the towel and announce they do not want their own rump of a state, but would prefer that Israel annex all of the West Bank and Gaza and allow all of the population there to be governed by Israel and request citizenship? What happens when the Palestinian Authority simply announces that they no longer will provide government services, including police, to the West Bank and that henceforth Israel will be solely responsible for governing the area? What happens when the population of Palestinians exceeds that of the Jews? It seems to me that the Palestinians can play the long game.
1
Bret Stephens is speaking for the Palestinians now. 'Chutzpah' is too mild as a description of his personality.
2
You say the Jewish state has "thrived" because it has always "been prepared to make do with less."
The relentless increase in illegal settlements say otherwise.
1
"Living history backwards", Bret? What do you call attempting to move a vast number of people from an ancient diaspora back to the lands they were driven from by the Romans 70AD to 130 AD? The only reasons for the Jewish claim were based on 2000 year old scriptures. Using both military and legal means the residents were displaced who had been there for generations.
Palestinians (a.k.a. Phoenicians or Phillistines) also see themselves as Children of Abraham, and are actually descended from more ancient residents of the area, Caananites. If the last 70 years has been 'Living history backwards', should we not see the creation of the Jewish state as a Judeo-Christian crusade to drive out infidels? I am certainly sympathetic to much of what Israelis have done, but depriving people of basic human rights for decades is not OK.
What you suggest is not history backwards, it is alt-history. Remember that Joshua came as a conqueror.
1
@SpeakinForMyself Jews were always living in the region as well.
3
The Palestinians are irrelevant.
This is properly a theological conflict about a single religious shrine: the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Solve that (difficult) problem, and everything else will fall into place.
To Muslims, exclusive control over the Temple Mount symbolizes the transfer of the Divine franchise from the Jews and the Christians to the Muslims. The Muslims are further convinced that the Jews are about to tear down the mosques on the Temple Mount, and rebuild the ancient Jewish Temple. Therefore, the Jews represent the enemies of God.
To Jews, most of whom are secular, the Temple Mount symbolizes 3000 years of history connecting their ancestors to Jerusalem. Religious Jews have little interest in rebuilding the ancient Temple, which focused on obsolete religious practices of animal sacrifice.
In fact, Israel has never taken over day-to-day control on the Temple Mount – it is still controlled by the Waqf, the same Jordanian religious authority that controlled it prior to 1967.
This Islamic religious control over the Temple Mount could expand to include religious officials from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, while the surrounding area remains under full Israeli sovereignty. Regional recognition of such shared control could provide the basis for a permanent peace.
5
@AKJersey A startling declaration in there; in fact, religious Jews pray for the rebuilding of the Temple every day. Look at a prayer book.
@Abbott Katz
Speaking of lost opportunities, the Roman emperor Julian offered to rebuild the temple for the Jews. They turned him down.
Bret Stephens often represents the opposing view in such opinion pieces. This one represents a repugnant, immoral, inexcusable one. We must ALL say no to APARTHEID.
1
It would seem that the original "Two State Solution" has devolved into "The State of Israel plus a Walled Palestinian Ghetto". Most of that wall is already in place.
Might it not be better for all, Israeli and Palestinian alike, to consider a One State Solution with equal rights for all its citizens?
It’s most pathetic. Why? Because the Palestinians have the most to gain, yet rely on relic leadership that keeps them locked in the past. Abbas gets just enough support from liberal westerners and the distorted UN to waste his capital on delegitimization and victimization. I mean, his strategy is to cancel the Balfour Declaration! He should be removed from office through a political process, and the Hashemite ruler over the majority Palestinian population called Jordan should contribute a chunk of their land to a new state. I’m forever hopefully pessimistic, but Trump’s plan, albeit flawed, is just another wake up call...for what that’s worth.
6
Yes, in 1967 Jordan refused Israel’s ‘entreaties’ not to attack. But in 1966, Israel attacked as-Samu, in Jordan (at the time), and 18 Jordanians soldiers were killed. The Israelis did not warn Jordan so there was no opportunity for the Jordanians to entreat. So, if you want someone to heed your entreaties, it might help not to attack them at will up to that point in time.
Of course, it is also true that the Palestinians have lost every time they said yes.
In fact, every time Hamas agrees to and enforces a cease fire, Israel sends a team of assassins into Gaza and murders some Palestinians, or holds air raids over Gaza, with the clear intention of goading Hamas and others into sending useless rockets into Israel.
1
I look at the commentary here I I laugh until I'm blue in the face. Several thoughts:
1) Loser's of wars don't make demands least of all demands they KNOW won't be granted such has a right of return. The Palestinians haven't lost just one war but many. The loser has to take what he can get.
2) For all those going on about UN resolutions? The difference between a UN resolution and faerie tale is faerie tales are more relevant. UN resolutions are completely & Utterly irrelevant unless someone is willing to enforce them. NO ONE is, no one is going to fight a war with the Israeli's for Hamas or the PLO. So UN resolutions on the situation are about has relevant has the flat earth society.
3) For those proclaiming how Israel should become a secular state of unified Arabs & Jews. You mean an Arab state don't you? Because that's what it would be. And looking at how Arabs treat minorities in their countries the Israeli's would have to be certifiably insane to accept being a minority in an Arab country.
Trumps peace plan is non starter no doubt, but the Palestinians and their better get a grasp on reality. The Palestinians will only what the Israeli's choose to give them. Irregardless of WORTHLESS UN resolution or proclamations by other countries citizens. Unless of course someone is willing to send in troops to enforce said resolutions & Proclamations. I'm not holding my breath.
5
Brett this administration has been incredibly transparent about its Israel policy. It seeks to make Israel a political football and will do whatever it can to grab democratic votes. It has basically outsourced policy to Sheldon Adelson and other rich old jews at the end of their lives who have become worried about where they go next. These monied types ally with Orthodox jews and Evangelical christians who believe Palestineans have no home in their version of Israel. Trump and Jared are happy to take their cash since they believe everyone and everything is for sale to do their bidding. It is only left to "intellectuals" like you to provide cover to others who might be taken aback by this. Fox News falls right into line and people like you need just a bit more wooing. Part and parcel of this is lining up regional monsters like MBS to exacerbate the Sunni - Shia blood feud - providing Arab allies for Israel.
MBS is pretty much allowed to kill whomever he'd like because he can help The Trump Organization make its quarter and throw some of his loose change to Palestineans to help Trump win the Nobel Prize he wants so badly - he probably never heard of it before he learned Obama had one.
Jared argues that he's just getting a hard time because he's doing things differently in the Middle East than the predecessors who could not get peace. Whlle doing that he doing side hustles to shore up his under water NY Real Estate.
They lose no matter what they say.
1
Israel is the problem. Not the Palestinians, who lost their homes to Israel. Geeze Louise - this isn't rocket science.
Sorry but the Palestinians were robbed of their land, their homes taken away from them and millions are held captive with no legal status. How is that winning?
1
Neither the critics nor Mr. Stephens mentions the big white elephant - the millions of people of Palestinian descent languishing in "refugee" camps in Lebanon, Syria (that is, those who survived the civil war), Jordan, and of course in Gaza and the West bank. For the latter two, it's a cruel joke that they live in Palestinian territories, but are considered refugees. Thank the corrupt UNRWA, and the U.N. that supported this out of date organization.
No future Palestine can ever accommodate millions of these people, who NEVER should have been held as refugees for almost 5 generations in their "host" countries. A future Palestine will of course be small, as if Israel isn't. For those who criticize the "large" size of Israel, be aware that much of the country is rocky terrain, undulating sand, or a combination of the two - not usable, period. Israel has over 1.5 million Palestinians as Israeli citizens, which it will keep in any plan. A future Palestine has no Jews, which is unfair and utterly racist.
Of course the plan is a starting point. Bret is trying to tell the critics, those with political appointments and the wiser commenters to the NYT, that the Palestinian dream to vanquish and rid themselves of Israel is a self destructive nightmare. For those who still kvetch about how fewer Jews lived in Ottoman controlled "Palestine" compared to Arabs, you, too, are living history backwards. Try to think constructively.
7
Mr. Stephens may not have realized the irony of claiming that for the Palestinians “Things rarely go well for those who try to live them backwards,” and yet ignoring the claims of Zionist European Jews in Israel like leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who wishes to restore the “Biblical boundaries” of ancient Israel. What could be more living backwards? What could be more unjust to the present generation of Palestinians who did nothing to deserve expulsion, displacement, expropriation and submission to the interests of European Jewish settlers?
Palestinians descend from Semitic ancestors, the relatives of Hagar, Jews and the Canaanites, who were living on the land now called Israel when Egyptian Jews led by Moses (Exodus) tried to annihilate them. Their Promised Land was always the land of many tribes..
2
Black citizens of south Africa said "no" to apartheid too. And they ended up winning and changing history.
Most anti-colonial movements got rid of their oppressor too.
Even America's Founding Fathers managed to do so.
Conclusion: to imagine that somehow Palestinians would be different, and regardless of all the UN resolutions that support them, merely give up the fight against oppression because now some US real-estate thug decided to call a town outside of Jerusalem "East Jerusalem" is not only "trying to live history backward", it means ignoring it all together.
And as history shows, ignoring it never le to peace.
2
@Ana Luisa The difference is that in South Africa whites were only 20% of the population. Jews are a solid majority in Israel itself, and they would never be stupid enough to bring the Palestinians into Israel as full citizens. Which is why they haven't annexed the land outright yet.
2
And, sadly, the Palestinians could have had this deal decades ago, because, as you point out, the Israeli bottom line is security on the West Bank and in the Jordan River Valley, and Jerusalem. They're not suicidal, neither physically nor culturally, and they are one of the few people on Earth who don't use the phrase "genocide" as a rhetorical flourish: they know in their DNA what can happen when you don't have one single refuge, well armed, on this planet, committed to letting you in when you have to find a new home. Which the Palestinians should be able to do in the fifty Muslim majority nations on this planet. If they can"t, they should become non-violent neighbors of Israel, and adjust to the idea that American money is no longer being poured into the Palestinian Authority, at least not for the next four years, the UN says its going broke, clean water and electricity are in short supply, your population growth is unsustainable, climate change is getting harder to deal with in the Middle East, and really, noone on this planet except Israel has much of an interest in keeping you in a working society. Ever hear the line, "the tragedy of the Palestinians is that they've lost the Israeli left"? Well, following leaders who yell "grab a gun, grab a knife, steal a car, kill a Jew" has achieved that dubious result.
3
@Mary "Which the Palestinians should be able to do in the fifty Muslim majority nations on this planet."
They can't, because Israel insists on keeping the borders closed between Gaza and Egypt, and between the West Bank and Jordan, and the only other way out is through Israel, and Israel won't let them leave that way.
Everyday Palestinians will see some virtues in the plan.
But not their leaders.
The men with the guns.
6
The proposed map (and everything that goes along with it in terms of sovereignty) does not resemble so much an MRI as it does the map of the "homelands" that apartheid South Africa imposed on its black population. Mr. Stephens advice, like Trump's plan, is nothing new in the colonialist mindset: the dark people should be good boys and accept what the wise white man offers. P.S. it is a precious move to bring up in passing the corruption of Palestinian authorities, when Bibi is premier in Israel and Trump is president; so typically, xenophobically one-sided.
2
The Palestinian trump card (pun intended) is to reject the two state solution and demand citizenship in a single state. The Palestine authority can become the Palestinian party.
Every time Americans vote Trump, America loses.
????
The Jewish state is the anomaly in the middle east??? Since Islam's founding until 1918 the entire region was ruled by large Muslim empires (Abaasids, Ottoman's etc).
Before that, it was dominated by large empires with other regions. It is Israel that is fighting history, not the other way around.
The problem for the Palestinians is that they also lose when they say “yes”.
Freedom, justice and equality: is that asking for too much, Bret Stephens? These are what Palestinians have been seeking for the past 70 years. But no mention whatsoever of fulfilling these fundamental human rights in your highly gratuitous piece!
Bret: You said this yourself: "The map of a future Palestine looks less like an ordinary state than it does the M.R.I. of a lung or kidney."
And this is what you are urging the Palestinians to accept?
Would you?
1
The Trump (really the Trump-Netayahu) plan essentially envisions a Bantustan arrangement that is neither a 2 state solution nor a democratic single state for all people under its control. The plan essentially ratifies and legitimizes an ethnic state that guarantees Jewish political primacy through permanent and unequal minority status for Arab citizens within the 1967 borders and foreigner status for Palestinians in enclaves in the West Bank (as well as Gaza whose borders it controls). This is beginning to look like Apartheid-era South Africa and the question for me is whether we, as Americans, should enable this.
It sounds like you want the victim Palestine to be more of a good victim or they will be victimized further.
There is no critique of what Israel has done.
"What it demands is an end to anti-Jewish bigotry........dismantling of terrorist militias"
I could think of no poorer choice of words than "demands". Who wants to go to the negotiating table when one side demands this or that? No one.
I know little about the details of peace talks about a two state solution, but what I do know is neither Netanyahu or Trump can be trusted. Their word means nothing.
1
If your plan is only liked by dictators in Saidi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates then you are off to a bad start. To truly understand the history of the region you have to go back to how it all came about. How the area was taken over by the British after the fall of the ottoman empire, how they arbitrarily divided it up to make the current nation-states we have today. As a Jew who is not a zionist, the formation of Israel was a mistake. Allowing Jews to settle there would have been fine without the formation of Israel. Allowing Jews and Arabs to live together and rule together would have the been the right way to go about this from the begging.
“History rarely goes well for those who try to live it backward.”
What does this mean? Those who try to undo colonialism are usually killed with impunity. Mr. Stephens apparently accepts the principle “might makes right.” In his view, just as Native Americans must remain content with whatever con sessions their colonial masters are willing to distribute, Palestinians must remain content with the “gifts” of Trump’s sanction of Israeli colonization.
75 years ago, the world saw first hand what extreme ethnic hatred can do. But in reality, it was no more final than the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, Maoris, Aborigines, Polynesians, and countless other ethnic groups. Its horror lay in its efficiency-modern technology abetting age old hatred-hatred of an ethnic and religious sect (Jews) by the powerful white, Christian Europeans.
So, in contrition, the Christian world set out to make amends. It snagged some real estate that had been the homeland of the abused sect 1500 years previous and turned out the current residents (who were conveniently Arab and Muslim). Then it used its outsized military power to put down every effort of the modern residents of the area to asset any control over their own lives.
In essence, we have recreated the Jewish ghettos of Europe. Only now they are in the Middle East and are occupied by Palestinians.
I wonder if every homeowner, farmer, rancher and business man in the United States would be willing to hand over the keys to their property to the descendants of the Native Americans who occupied that land only 400 (not 1500) years ago.
Palestinians are just as equal as Jews and Christians. If we keep pushing the Middle East and Africa toward China, we may not even live to regret it.
1
Palestinians are “being true” to their history as those familiar with Islam’s 14 centuries of War with the West understand. No Muslim nation has ever “tolerated” a sizable presence of Jews in their midst. Why expect Palestinians to be different ? Their Charter is unmistakeable clear. Land occupied by Israel belongs to Palestinians. Not Jews. And Jewish claims to 3,000 years residence are mere “fabrications”.
For over 70 years Muslim nation's surrounding Israel have fought repeated Wars to defeat the Jewish State and secure the land for Muslims only. Palestinians are the remaining “vanguard” of that effort.
Western nations value democratic freedoms and values. Especially equal rights for women and civil rights and justice. But Islam directs attention to the Koran and adherence to their faith.
Palestinians are being true to their heritage. That they haven’t made much progress ought be seen in historical context. After 14 Centuries Islam commands all of Northern Africa. Israel however dedicated to its 3,000 history remains a “western outpost”. For Islam time is on their side.
1
President Trump's peace plan is dead on arrival; mostly because the majority of Israelis do not trust the Palestinians and the majority of Palestinians will always hate the Israelis. Peace may be achieved in my grandson's grandchildren's time but probably not. If you live in Manhattan you may visit Brooklyn but the people on Staten Island don't want you there.
Bret's logic if totally baffling: You are worse off every time you rejected previous proposal, so expect the worst one put in front of you (BTW without your input) because rejecting it would put you in a worse situation. Really? hand the man another Pulitzer!
Plan which are done in isolation and without the main party being involved are bound to fail, because there is fundamental flaw, it was not done in good faith. No respect was show to the Palestinian people. They are being treated like outcasts in their own land. Why should they even think that this was done in good faith?
So when have "things gone well" for Palestinians anytime? If they were to say "yes" the Israelis would still hold all the cards.